By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The United Kingdom is considering seizing Russian “shadow fleet” tankers that violate international maritime law, potentially opening a new economic front against Moscow as its oil revenues decline. Discussions with NATO allies have identified military options, with 23 such vessels detected in key shipping lanes in January, many linked to Russian oil exports. Despite a joint statement by several NATO nations demanding compliance with international law, no seizures have occurred, largely due to concerns about escalation. This potential action follows the US seizure of a Russian tanker and a French detention of another, highlighting a growing international effort to address the issue.
Read the original article here
The United Kingdom is reportedly considering a significant escalation in its response to Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers, with The Guardian reporting that the UK is threatening to seize these vessels. This development signifies a potential shift from rhetoric to concrete action, moving beyond mere warnings to a more assertive stance against what many perceive as a deliberate circumvention of sanctions and international maritime norms.
The immediate and most pressing concern driving this potential action is the alarming safety and environmental risk posed by these tankers. These ships are often described as uninsured, aging vessels, reportedly operating without proper maintenance, and sailing without their identification transponders active, making them effectively invisible to maritime authorities. The fear is that these “rusting buckets of bolts” are a ticking time bomb, an oil spill waiting to happen, particularly in sensitive areas like the English Channel. Therefore, the proposed seizures are framed not just as a punitive measure for sanctions violations, but as a crucial step towards environmental protection, aiming to prevent a catastrophic ecological disaster akin to historical incidents like the Exxon Valdez.
For those advocating for stronger measures, the time for deliberation is long past. The sentiment is clear: stop talking and start acting. Russia, it’s argued, is unlikely to be swayed by mere threats; their response is seen as being to tangible actions that impact their interests directly. Seizing these tankers, and crucially, selling the confiscated oil to directly fund Ukraine’s defense, is presented as the ultimate form of poetic justice. This approach would strike at the very heart of the shadow fleet’s operation – its revenue stream – making it a far more effective deterrent than abstract sanctions.
However, there’s also a palpable sense of frustration that such decisive action might be coming far too late. The idea that measures considered now should have been implemented years ago, perhaps even around 2014 following the annexation of Crimea, suggests a lingering regret about past inaction. The ongoing threats about seizure, while potentially a tactic to create uncertainty and cost for Russia, have been maintained for months without tangible results, as tankers continue to navigate vital shipping lanes. This protracted period of pronouncements without concrete action leads to skepticism about the sincerity and efficacy of the UK’s stated intentions.
The practicalities of seizing and managing these vessels are also a significant consideration. There are reports that the cost of temporarily maintaining even one seized tanker, covering crew and repairs, can be substantial, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds per week, as experienced by Ireland. Furthermore, the legal complexities of selling seized Russian oil, a proposition explored by the US, present a formidable challenge. The UK’s approach, often characterized as meticulously planned and perhaps overly bureaucratic, might involve extensive pre-planning sessions and proposals for kickoff meetings, a process that some find exasperatingly slow and characteristic of a more measured, perhaps even hesitant, approach.
The very concept of a “shadow fleet” conjures images of clandestine operations, akin to villainous organizations from fictional spy thrillers. The information leak about the UK’s threat to seize these tankers raises questions about intent. Is this a genuine precursor to action, or a strategic move to make Russia waste resources and time on countermeasures, a tactic that would be almost pointless if no actual seizure were planned? This ambiguity fuels a desire for clarity and confidence that those in charge possess a clear and effective strategy.
The prevailing sentiment is one of urgency and a demand for action over rhetoric. The word “threatens” is perceived as weak, and the call is simply to “just do it.” This echoes the popular sentiment that Europe, in general, is exhibiting a degree of cowardice by allowing Russia’s aggressive actions to continue unchecked. The alleged provocations, ranging from cutting communication lines at sea and flying drones over European airports to direct military invasion, are seen as clear evidence of Russia’s aggressive intentions, yet the European response is often characterized as passive.
Beyond the environmental risks, there are further concerns about the shadow fleet’s activities. Some tankers are accused of dropping anchor in restricted areas, claiming mechanical failures as an excuse, while others are suspected of damaging crucial undersea fiber-optic cables with their anchors, engaging in acts of sabotage without accountability. Environmental protection is, therefore, viewed as the most legally defensible grounds for boarding and seizing these vessels, as sanctions enforcement alone restricts port access and insurance, but doesn’t necessarily grant the right to confiscate the ship itself.
The logistical and ethical quandaries surrounding the disposition of seized vessels are also significant. Where do these ships go? What happens to their contents, which could be toxic or even radioactive given their age and unknown cargo? This uncertainty likely contributes to the reluctance to act decisively. The idea of ship breaking, selling the vessels for scrap, is proposed as a solution, but the reality of their condition might make this a complex and potentially costly undertaking.
The historical context of international responses to Russian aggression is also a recurring theme. A lack of decisive action after past events, such as the annexation of Crimea, is seen as having emboldened Russia to continue its assertive behavior. The current threat of seizure, however, could also be interpreted as a strategic move to provoke Russian naval assets, potentially drawing them into predictable patterns or away from other sensitive areas. Making such actions public beforehand also preempts Russian propaganda about unprovoked Western aggression, providing a verifiable record of warnings issued.
Ultimately, the situation is seen by many as requiring immediate and decisive action. The argument is that if other countries like the US and France have already seized Russian vessels, then the UK should follow suit. While acknowledging that the sheer volume of shadow fleet tankers necessitates significant preparation time, the urgency of the situation is undeniable. The call for legal changes to allow for stops and boardings for various reasons, mirroring potential Russian actions, highlights a desire for reciprocal deterrence. The core message remains consistent: talk is cheap, and action is what truly matters, particularly when facing a determined and aggressive adversary.