By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A senior Russian official has warned that the Russian navy stands ready to protect Russian-linked vessels from potential European seizures, suggesting a retaliatory response against European shipping. This statement comes amidst increasing pressure on Russia’s “shadow fleet,” which is used to circumvent Western sanctions on oil exports. The official, Nikolai Patrushev, labeled any attempts to blockade Russian vessels as “western piracy” and asserted that such actions would be illegal under international law. This development occurs as high-stakes talks regarding Ukraine are underway, following recent Russian airstrikes that damaged Ukraine’s power network.
Read the original article here
Russia’s recent pronouncements about deploying its navy to protect vessels from what it terms “Western piracy” have certainly sparked a considerable amount of discussion and, frankly, skepticism. The idea that Russia might dispatch its naval assets to escort its so-called “shadow fleet” is met with a healthy dose of doubt, often framed as a rather audacious proposition given the current state of affairs. One immediate reaction is to question the very definition of “shadow fleet” if Russian warships were to be seen openly escorting them. This would, in essence, strip away any pretense of anonymity and perhaps even raise more questions about adherence to international maritime law, potentially forcing Russia to either legitimize these fleets or openly flout regulations.
The notion of the Russian navy undertaking such a mission is met with considerable doubt regarding its actual capabilities. Concerns are frequently raised about the size and condition of their fleet, with suggestions that it is far from being in a state to project power on the high seas. Talk of aging vessels, poor maintenance, and a significant portion of their naval assets being confined to the Black Sea fleet inevitably surfaces, painting a picture of a navy that may struggle to challenge major Western naval powers. The idea of Russia taking on the Royal Navy or the US Navy in open waters seems, to many, an unlikely scenario.
Indeed, there are observations that non-Russian flagged ships, allegedly involved in circumventing sanctions, have already faced scrutiny and seizure by countries like the USA, sometimes with naval escorts. This reinforces the perception for some that Russia’s leverage is limited, particularly when it comes to protecting vessels that may not even be clearly identifiable as Russian. The suggestion that Russia would intentionally expose these ships, possibly sailing without proper flags or active radar transponders, to potential threats like Ukrainian sea drones is viewed as a rather counterintuitive and risky maneuver, especially if the aim is protection.
Furthermore, the logistical and operational challenges for the Russian navy are highlighted. Even if capable ships could be made seaworthy and crewed, they would likely face significant risks. These include constant surveillance from NATO assets, including satellites, aircraft, and naval vessels, as well as the ever-present threat of Ukrainian air and sea drones. The idea of Russian warships operating in open waters, away from the immediate support of regional bases, is presented as a vulnerable position, potentially inviting rather than deterring hostile action.
The recurring theme is that Russia’s current geopolitical situation, particularly its involvement in Ukraine, is a significant factor. The suggestion that Russia should withdraw from Ukraine if it wishes to see its sanctioned ships operate without heightened scrutiny is a consistent point. The argument is made that until such a withdrawal occurs, Russia’s actions will naturally attract more attention and challenges from Western nations.
The idea of the Russian navy engaging in escort duties also brings to mind past naval embarrassments. The sinking of the Moskva cruiser in the Black Sea is frequently referenced as a stark reminder of the Ukrainian military’s capabilities and the vulnerability of Russian naval assets. The notion of deploying aging or less capable vessels, perhaps even the heavily criticized Admiral Kuznetsov with its notorious smoke plumes, is often met with derision rather than fear, suggesting a disconnect between Russia’s pronouncements and its perceived naval strength.
Some observers cynically suggest that if Russia chooses to expend valuable resources on such naval deployments, resources that could otherwise be used in the conflict in Ukraine, then it might be a strategically beneficial outcome for Ukraine and its allies. The emphasis remains on Russia’s economic limitations, with the idea that provoking further costly military actions, especially on the seas, could further strain its resources and potentially lead to further self-inflicted economic hardship.
The concept of Russia’s “weakness” on the seas is often contrasted with its actions. When Russia makes these pronouncements, it’s sometimes viewed not as a sign of strength, but as a reactive measure, perhaps even a desperate attempt to project an image of capability that doesn’t align with reality. The comparison is made to other “not Russian” entities that have appeared to operate with questionable legitimacy, implying a pattern of deception that is not always believed.
Ultimately, the overarching sentiment is one of skepticism and anticipation. The prospect of Russia attempting to deploy its navy in this manner is seen by many as a potential spectacle, a demonstration of its limitations rather than its might. The question of whether Russia possesses a navy capable of effectively challenging Western naval powers, especially given its current constraints and the perceived state of its fleet, remains the central point of contention. The threat, while made, is largely perceived as an empty one, or at best, a gamble that could lead to further losses for an already embattled Russian military.