By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The UK is reportedly considering military options to seize Russian shadow fleet tankers, a move that could escalate tensions with Moscow as its oil revenues decline. Discussions involving NATO allies have explored capturing vessels flagged with false or fraudulent identities, many of which are linked to Russian oil exports. While the Royal Navy possesses the legal grounds to challenge stateless ships, the potential for robust Russian retaliation has previously tempered such actions. France briefly detained a Russian-linked tanker but was forced to release it due to legal constraints, highlighting the complex international legal landscape surrounding these operations.
Read the original article here
The United Kingdom has reportedly threatened to seize a Russian-linked tanker operating as part of the so-called “shadow fleet,” a move that has sparked considerable debate and concern over its potential to escalate tensions. This threat, while perhaps intended to signal a stronger stance against Russia’s circumvention of sanctions, has been met with a mixed reception, with many questioning the timing and the very definition of escalation in this context.
Some argue that seizing an “illegal vessel” cannot be considered an escalation, especially when juxtaposed with past provocations, such as the chemical weapons attack on British soil that resulted in the death of Dawn Sturgess. This perspective suggests that the UK’s actions, if taken, would be a justified response to ongoing violations rather than a new act of aggression. The very existence of these shadow fleet tankers, often described as aging and environmentally hazardous, is seen by many as inherently problematic and deserving of intervention.
The sentiment expressed is that the time for threats has long passed. Many believe the UK should have been acting decisively from the outset, rather than issuing warnings years after the shadow fleet began operating. The call to “just do it” rather than talk about it is a recurring theme, with a strong desire for concrete action over protracted diplomacy. This frustration stems from a perception of inaction and a perceived lack of resolve in confronting Russia’s activities.
For those within the shipping industry, these tankers are not just a geopolitical issue but a tangible menace. They are characterized as “ancient rust buckets,” posing a significant environmental risk and an inevitable precursor to accidents like collisions or oil spills. The idea of these vessels operating freely is seen as a ticking time bomb, making their seizure a matter of prudence and safety.
The notion of a “shadow fleet” itself often elicits a degree of amusement and cynicism. If these tankers are supposedly “totally-not-Russian-owned,” then seizing them and holding them until ownership can be definitively established, or until they are claimed and subjected to proper scrutiny regarding paperwork, permits, and inspections, seems like a logical, albeit unconventional, approach. If Russia then claims ownership, they would be subject to existing sanctions, and if no one claims them, then their seizure appears less contentious.
There’s a palpable frustration with what some perceive as an overly cautious or even fearful reaction to any assertive action against Russia. The repeated labeling of such moves as “escalatory” is dismissed by many as “bullshit,” particularly in light of Russia’s past actions. The suggestion that Russia might perceive the seizure of a vessel not flying its flag, or operating under a deceptive flag, as an escalation is met with skepticism. If Russia reacts, it would arguably be an admission of their involvement and control, which could then be leveraged.
The argument that the UK is being “escalatory” is met with derision. Instead, the focus is on the need for decisive action. Comparisons are drawn to past instances where similar actions have occurred without catastrophic consequences, leading to the question of why this specific threat is being framed as inherently escalatory. The perceived inaction and “toothless” response to the ongoing operation of these tankers, despite previous media attention, fuels this impatience.
From a strategic standpoint, the idea of seizing these vessels is seen not as an act of aggression, but as a legitimate defense measure. The assertion is that Russia understands its own actions, and therefore, any strong response should not be viewed through the lens of appeasing Russia. The suggestion that the government should operate with more discretion, taking action first and then dealing with the fallout, implies a belief that public pronouncements often hinder effective policy implementation. The “deny, deny, deny” approach is even suggested as the only language Russia truly understands.
The potential impact on countries like India, which rely heavily on Russian oil delivered by this shadow fleet, is also noted as a significant geopolitical consideration. Disrupting these supply lines could have considerable diplomatic implications, potentially influencing alliances and trade relationships.
The call for the UK to “sac up” and act is a clear indicator of the impatience felt by many. The argument that the time for warnings has passed and that immediate seizure is necessary to make a statement is strong. Some even humorously, or perhaps cynically, allude to a return of “piracy” as a means of enforcing international norms.
The practicalities and costs associated with seizing and storing large vessels are also acknowledged. The expense of holding a vessel, particularly one involved in illicit activities, is a significant consideration that cannot be overlooked. Furthermore, the underlying question of who benefits from the crude oil transported by these tankers is raised. If the oil is ultimately refined and sold, the entire chain of illicit trade and consumption needs to be addressed, not just the vessels themselves.
There’s also a critique of the political maneuvering that might be influencing these pronouncements, with some suggesting that domestic issues or other scandals might be driving the public “threats.” The comparison to the adage of a barking dog not biting is used to express doubt about the sincerity or follow-through of the stated intentions.
The assertion that seizing a Russian ship is not an escalation is further bolstered by the idea that Russia has, in many ways, proven to be less of an existential threat than initially feared. The perception of Russia as a “paper tiger” after several years of conflict leads some to believe that Western powers have been overly cautious and perhaps even manipulated by Russian propaganda.
The role of international cooperation and the potential for collective action, similar to past instances, is also considered. The idea that the UK has the capability and the right to enforce its will in this domain, given its naval power, is a point of confidence for some.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding the UK’s threat to seize a Russian-linked shadow fleet tanker highlights a broader discussion about the effectiveness of sanctions, the nature of deterrence, and the appropriate response to ongoing violations of international norms. The prevailing sentiment among many seems to be a desire for decisive action, a skepticism towards perceived timidity, and a belief that the time for robust enforcement has arrived.