NATO goes to war in the Baltics. It's clear against whom

56
NATO goes to war in the Baltics. It's clear against whom

This material is the fruit of the thoughts of several analysts from a resource like NavyLookout.com, which is not very easy for a Russian reader to get to: we are not welcomed there at all and are blocked almost immediately. However, if you really want to see what our enemies (and the British are definitely not our friends) say and think about us, then…

Therefore, we offer you the most accurate translation, supplied with minimal censored comments on the given topic.





In this article, we look at the increasing challenges NATO faces in countering a series of attacks on pipelines and cables in the Baltic Sea, as well as the dangers posed by Russian “shadow” merchant vessels. fleet».

Front line in the Baltics


Shortly after leaving a Russian port in October 2024, the Hong Kong-registered MV New Polar Bear dragged its anchor along the seabed, damaging the Baltic Connector gas pipeline between Finland and Estonia. A subsequent investigation by the Chinese government concluded that it was a “storm-induced accident.”

Here, of course, everything raises questions: from how a Chinese container ship, which has been sailing under the PRC flag for many days, got into this topic and ending with the very possibility of deliberate damage.

Concerns about malicious underwater activity have been growing since the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline in September 2022. Following the October 2024 incident, the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) nations agreed to activate the “Response Option,” and the UK’s rather overblown response was to announce that “a task force of six Royal Navy and RFA ships, supported by an RAF P-8A Poseidon aircraft, would patrol the seas around Northern Europe.” In reality, most of these ships were already at sea on other missions, and the “task force” was never heard from again.


On 18 November 2024, the C-Lion1 communications cable connecting Finland to Germany was cut, followed shortly thereafter by the BCS East-West Interlink cable connecting Lithuania to the island of Gotland in Sweden. The Chinese-registered MV Yi Peng 3 was suspected of causing the damage and was anchored in the Kattegat for several weeks under surveillance by Danish authorities. Without solid evidence, the vessel was eventually allowed to continue on its way.

Interesting, China again. No, it is clear that since time immemorial "Russians and Chinese are brothers forever", but not to such an extent...

On Christmas Day, the Estlink 2 and 4 power cables between Finland and Estonia were damaged. The circumstantial evidence that the tanker MV Eagle S intentionally dragged its anchor through the cables is irrefutable, and Finnish authorities detained the ship and, with the help of Sweden, raised its anchor from the seabed. Authoritative news Shipping website Lloyds List Intelligence reported that the same vessel had previously been found to be carrying electronic and signal data collection equipment, but this has not been confirmed by any other authoritative sources.

This is a masterpiece! "Irrefutable circumstantial evidence" - that sounds very strong. And when "citing an anonymous source, Lloyd's List reported that the Eagle C at some point carried additional electronic equipment for monitoring NATO ships and that a person who was not a sailor was found on board"...

Very, you know... indirectly. A person who was not a sailor is, for example, an accompanying cargo. And what is an "electronic device", an echo sounder?

On December 31, 2024, Senior Inspector Elina Katajamäki of the Central Criminal Police stated that the police had conducted a thorough investigation on board and had found no surveillance equipment. So much for all the "anonymous sources"...

The MV Eagle S, which was detained by the Finnish Border Guard, whose unit was flown in by helicopter and almost boarded the tanker, has been taken to a Finnish port and is under surveillance there. At the time of writing, the tanker is still in Finnish waters, and the sailors suspected of involvement in the sabotage have been told that they cannot leave Finland.


The anchor lines and winches of these vessels are, to put it mildly, clumsy and strange. The anchor chains and winches are not designed to withstand the stresses of being towed behind a vessel at speeds of up to 10 knots. The anchor chains are designed to catch on the seabed, and unless the seabed is sandy or muddy, there is a good chance that the anchor will snag on something and the chain will quickly break. With the anchor line taut and coming out of the anchor pipe at the bow, this "evolution" can also damage the vessel or make it difficult to steer.

Despite the complexity and crudeness of this method of sabotage, seabed surveys appear to confirm that something was dragged along the seabed for many miles before the cables were cut and the "lost" anchors were subsequently recovered.

The attackers carried out this operation with the AIS system turned on, allowing anyone with an internet connection to track the vessel’s course. If these attacks are designed by the Russians (and Chinese) to be incriminating, they are fooling no one. In fact, Russia is demonstrating its ability to damage CUI at will, and this is part of a much larger campaign of escalating “gray zone” actions aimed at testing NATO’s response and destabilizing countries that support Ukraine.

If the previous first two paragraphs still gave hope that something still works in the British brain, then the last one, alas, disappointed. In general, it is encouraging that the British themselves admitted that such a method as dragging an anchor along the bottom of a loaded tanker looks like nonsense, but with the positioning system turned on... Yes, in the West we are considered to be idiots... stupid, but not that much? A vessel belonging to a company from the Emirates works for the Russians and at the same time the crew does everything to prove their guilt? Too much, gentlemen, too much. I would like comments from Minister Lavrov. In two words.

The Shadow Fleet Threat


The MV Eagle S is part of a dangerous “shadow fleet” of about 1000 ships, mostly ageing tankers with anonymous owners, that transport sanctioned Russian oil to unscrupulous customers in Asia. As is typical for such ships, Finnish authorities inspecting the MV Eagle S found 24 non-compliances related to safety, oil handling, emissions, waste disposal, faulty navigation lights and inadequate fire-fighting plans or equipment.

The condition of these ships is deteriorating as Russia becomes desperate and skimps on maintenance. Some have lost their engines, and it is only a matter of time before a major environmental disaster occurs. German authorities recently had to rush in tugs to help the shadow fleet tanker MV Eventin, carrying 99 tons of oil, which broke down and was drifting in bad weather off the island of Rügen.

In mid-December 2024, two small Russian tankers carrying oil products were wrecked and sank in the Black Sea during a storm, causing a major environmental disaster. The Russian merchant ship Malaya Urveditsa also suffered an engine room explosion and sank in the Mediterranean Sea while en route to a naval base in Vladivostok. Although the Kremlin claimed it was an “act of terrorism,” the disaster was most likely the result of poor maintenance.

The risks associated with the shadow fleet are not only a problem for the Baltic region, but also a serious concern for the UK and the world, as these aging vessels regularly ply the English Channel and global shipping routes carrying thousands of tonnes of crude oil.

Yes, two rotten tankers in the Black Sea during a storm – there is nothing to argue with here. Indeed, an ecological catastrophe is still ahead, but as for the Ursa Minor, this is too much. If two or three explosions where there is nothing to explode – this is poor technical maintenance, then God forbid we should have anything good.

As for MV Eventin, sorry, but the tanker was built in Norway in 2006. And it only raised the Panamanian flag in 2022, so Russia has nothing to do with the fact that the Norwegians ruined the ship so much that they sold it to the first person they came across.


If you turn the map of Europe on an east-west axis, you will see that the Baltic and Scandinavian countries border Russia, and that the UK particularly benefits from supporting these countries (along with Ukraine). The UK still has the most powerful navy among the JEF countries, which count on London to provide decisive leadership in defending the region. The Royal Navy’s reduced frigate numbers and the loss of LPD amphibious capabilities do not inspire optimism about the partnership.


Oh yeah! Let's just look at who's in this JEF. The United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Netherlands. The maritime superpowers, especially Iceland and the Baltic trinity.


What beauties! The power and pride of the Lithuanian Navy! True, in Russia forty-year-old ships are already considered "troughs", but here it is different. Here is the power of the West!

Such a powerful association, if I may say so, is capable of providing a couple of boats and a rubber dinghy. The question is – for what purpose?


Developing a response



In February 2024, NATO established the CUI Maritime Security Centre as part of NATO Maritime Command (MARCOM) in Northwood, UK.

In January 2024, the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) launched Operation Northern Guardian. Essentially an AI-powered surveillance system designed to provide early warning of suspicious activity, Northern Guardian requires real-time information from a variety of sources, including satellite imagery, maritime patrols, underwater sensors, AIS, and OSINT.

On December 30, NATO announced that it was strengthening its presence in the Baltic Sea, sending around 10 additional vessels to protect critical underwater infrastructure. The vessels are expected to remain in the Baltic until April, acting as a deterrent against possible sabotage. The UK government has not yet confirmed whether Royal Navy vessels will be among them. Most of the vessels involved are likely to be from the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMGXNUMX), which is currently under the command of the Royal Netherlands Navy. “Shadow fleet” vessels and ships sailing from Russian ports can expect very close surveillance.

The JEF member countries can close the Baltic Sea to these ships or arrest ships that do not meet international maritime standards. This carries a risk that could undermine the core principle of free maritime trade that underpins the global economy. If there is no longer any certainty that ships carrying goods will reach their destinations safely, the globalization of trade will be seriously threatened.

And this is exactly what the British, Germans, Danes and others fought so fiercely against in the Red Sea during Operation Guardian of Prosperity. It was freedom of world trade that the allies fought so passionately for that their ammunition budgets ran out. But that was in the Red Sea. But in the Baltic Sea, for some reason, everything is exactly the opposite. The paradox of double standards...

Finland’s decisive action to detain the tanker MV Eagle S will entail significant costs for its owners (an unknown company based in the United Arab Emirates). Finnish authorities have brought criminal charges against the owners and are investigating suspected crew members. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows for the stopping and inspection of vessels navigating freely in territorial waters based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in illegal activity.

This measure could act as a deterrent to further sabotage attempts, but the Russians (and the Chinese) are unlikely to spend much time on legal arguments under the UNCLOS and could potentially respond by stopping their ships with naval forces. For Putin, the oil revenues these ships carry are critical to continuing the war in Ukraine. At the very least, it could trigger a cascade of retaliatory measures, with ships belonging to perceived adversaries being stopped under spurious pretexts.

It is instructive to remember that when the Royal Navy seized a sanctioned Iranian tanker in 2019, it was not long before the IRGC attempted to seize a British tanker in the Gulf. The first attempt was foiled by HMS Montrose, but they succeeded in seizing another vessel a few days later.

Yes, and we should remember more often that every action will have a reaction. On what pretext was the tanker from the Emirates stopped, carrying gasoline to Turkey. And yes, indeed, for example, in the Far East, a Russian frigate can easily stop a ship from one of the participating countries, accuse the container ship of illegal fishing of Kamchatka crab, and then everything will follow the Finnish scenario. Why not?

The growing hybrid threat requires a sophisticated and multifaceted response that combines diplomatic pressure, economic leverage, and enhanced maritime surveillance. NATO and JEF maritime authorities need to continue investing in vessel tracking tools, strengthen international intelligence-sharing protocols, and establish a robust legal framework for accountability for maritime violations.

European countries could take less radical measures against sabotage and shadow fleets by imposing strict conditions on the use of valuable maritime infrastructure, subject to strict compliance and ship flagging, to create financial and economic incentives for responsible maritime behavior. Coast guards could proactively detain uninsured or unsafe vessels and work more systematically to identify and dismantle Russia’s vast shadow fleet.

NATO has a Baltic focus, a geographic advantage, and a Joint Expeditionary Force structure cohesive enough to counter the Russian threat. However, the UK and the alliance as a whole remain under-resourced, under-prepared, and still lack a coherent strategy to deter and respond to threshold attacks, particularly if they extend beyond the Baltic. Russia’s response could easily be adapted to attack infrastructure in the North Sea, Irish Sea, and beyond. The Russians also have far superior military capabilities to suppress CUI via dedicated SBW platforms, including submarines and submersibles, which are far more difficult to detect and deter.


Total


Yes, Russians are just awful to the point of losing consciousness, this is common knowledge. One could say a lot about this topic, but what's the point? The fact that politicians in Europe have gone so crazy that they don't want to notice anything around them, driven by Russophobia that is firmly rooted in their heads - well, who will help them?

If the so-called "shadow fleet" of Russia really did cut cables and set charges on pipelines, it would not have been done so clumsily. Well, more precisely, not as clumsily as the brains of British citizens who firmly believe that a tanker can scrape its anchor along the bottom for 100 miles, trying to tear a cable, are filled with manure and dung. In general, it is difficult to come up with a more stupid scheme than the one based on "indisputable circumstantial evidence" (as I understand it, the main evidence is that the ship has anchors). But, as you can see, it is possible.

The fact that even the British have lucid moments and admit that they wrote nonsense (as in our case) is, of course, good. But the fact that in their nonsense they have finally lost their bearings and are beginning to encroach on what is sacred, that is, on freedom of navigation, is, of course, sad. Sad mainly because the Baltic Fleet, due to its current state, is simply not able to provide protection from all these hot-blooded Finnish guys. Although the idea of ​​a convoy of tankers, albeit a "shadow fleet", protected by a frigate is not a bad idea, because it would protect the tankers from all these "super fleets" on boats and rubber boats.

The only question is whether the Baltic Fleet has combat-ready frigates. Two patrol ships from the last century, Project 11540, and four corvettes, Project 20380, one of which is under repair, are better than nothing, but they don’t look like a striking force. But they should be. They should have more ships, so that none of the Baltic sea pygmies would even think of stopping or boarding a ship from Russia or Russia’s allies.
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    27 January 2025 05: 08
    It's sad mainly because the Baltic Fleet, in its current state, is simply not capable of providing protection against all these hot-blooded Finnish guys.

    On the one hand...
    the idea of ​​a convoy of tankers, even if it is a "shadow fleet" protected by a frigate, is not a bad idea because it would protect the tankers

    This is on the other...
    How many frigates are needed to ensure the safety of the merchant fleet?
    By the way, on the question of the need for ocean-class combat ships in the domestic fleet... Many here are still convinced that we can get by with SSBNs, missile boats and coastal anti-ship missile systems...
    1. +5
      27 January 2025 05: 52
      In a situation where international law is becoming less and less effective and there is a danger of a revival of corsairism, an ocean fleet is becoming more necessary than ever, but this should have been thought about the day before yesterday.
    2. +3
      27 January 2025 10: 21
      Quote: Doccor18
      How many frigates are needed to ensure the safety of the merchant fleet?

      There are a lot of them, a shadow fleet of about 350 pennants, you can't send a frigate with each one, it's just pointless. Going to the signal "we are being robbed" is also not an option, our Navy will be able to intervene only if these ships go under the Russian flag, the same with the boarding of a platoon of marines on tankers. As soon as this happens and our flag is raised on tankers, respected people will not be able to turn a blind eye to the origin of the oil and sanctions will come into play. You can take them under escort with our Navy, gathering caravans, but then the oil will be golden, and what will stop them from stopping tankers outside the Baltic Sea? It's sad but true, the sea surface of the far zone is behind the USA and NATO.
      1. 0
        27 January 2025 14: 05
        - PMCs successfully created anti-boarding teams! But what could the confrontation between "privateers" and the Navy ships of "other Swedes" result in?
  2. +9
    27 January 2025 05: 40
    Finnish authorities inspecting the MV Eagle S found 24 non-conformities related to safety, oil handling, emissions, waste disposal, faulty navigation lights and inadequate fire-fighting plans or equipment.

    It's a pity that the Russian River Register and the Russian Maritime Register did not find any discrepancies with the Volga tankers that suffered an accident in the Kerch Strait. The ships are not new, they've been around for a long time...
  3. +2
    27 January 2025 05: 43
    Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
    Finland's decisive action to detain tanker
    Once upon a time, the Finns sat below the grass and quietly kept their heads down. And now suddenly "decisive actions". I'm not even talking about the Baltic extinctions who yap from under the fence louder than anyone else. As sad as it is, such behavior of small mongrels, about whom other countries have wiped their feet throughout their entire history, characterizes our country and its position in the modern world.
    1. -1
      27 January 2025 07: 11
      Not really. There is just a hybrid war going on with their master, and the barking of the robbed colonies is a factor in the psychological war, including so that the average person in the Russian Federation thinks as you wrote in your comment. In reality, things are heading towards the defeat of Ukraine and, as a consequence, the hegemon that invested in it.
      1. 0
        27 January 2025 13: 33
        Can you tell me how this defeat of the Bandera regime will look? Will it disappear, and will a Russian-controlled administration appear on the outskirts? And will all the Nazis who did not escape be hanged, by decision of the tribunal?
    2. 0
      27 January 2025 14: 10
      As sad as it is, such behavior of small mongrels, on whom other countries have wiped their feet throughout their entire history, characterizes our country and its position in the modern world.


      This is the “problem” that prevents you from conducting an analysis, they wipe their feet on the people, and it makes no difference whether it is the Baltic countries or the Soviet Union or modern Russia or the USA, here it is even more a question of which people they wipe their feet on more in a large country with geopolitical ambitions or in a small one that no one needs.
  4. +1
    27 January 2025 05: 44
    Rivers and seas require the constant presence of civilian and military fleets. And the seas in particular. If no one plows a field, then the neighbor has a desire to take possession of this plot. Exactly the same thing happens with the sea. If we compare the intensity of our ships' traffic on rivers and seas with the past, then there is nothing to talk about. All this requires routine work on this problem.
  5. +2
    27 January 2025 06: 28
    So NATO also draws experience from the NVO. People in Russia hoped and the NARO admirals assumed that the Russian Black Sea Fleet would be very strict and harsh in the Black Sea from the beginning of the NVO, and the sea route to the shores of Odessa would only be under the control and with the permission of the Black Sea Fleet. It turned out that this is not the case. The Black Sea Fleet would only protect itself and its bases in Crimea. This is how NATO looks at the Russian Baltic Fleet. They say that the Russian Baltic Fleet would at least protect its bases in the Kaliningrad region...
    And why does the article say that Russia needs frigates to convoy ships in the Baltic? And what will the corvettes and small missile ships do and what will they do, of which there are quite a few built in all the fleets and which have enough weapons for such convoys and seaworthiness in the Baltic Sea is exactly what the ship's design allows them to do...
    1. +4
      27 January 2025 07: 12
      "People in Russia hoped and the NARO admirals assumed that the Russian Black Sea Fleet would be very strict and harsh in the Black Sea from the beginning of the North-Eastern Military District.".
      That could have been the case, that's why they took the Zmeiny. Why did they give it back, what kind of "goodwill" gestures are these, that's the question. To fight and trade with the enemy at the same time is something, as is the fact that despite all the sanctions, the number of billionaires in Russia reached a record in 2024. When war is for some and a mother for others, it's not about our fleet anymore.
      1. 0
        28 January 2025 11: 17
        That could have been the case, that's why they took Zmeiny. Why did they give it back?

        Because it does more harm than good.
        From the territory of Ukraine it is very easy to shoot at, and there is nowhere to hide there.
        The Ukrops tried to install "Axes" or MLRS there, but without success.
        And the garrison needs to be supplied, and that’s dangerous.
        1. +1
          28 January 2025 11: 52
          Quote: Ermak_415
          Because it does more harm than good.
          Harm and benefit in war...
          If we continue like this, then, undoubtedly, only harm. In general, control over Zmeiny Island ensures control over the entire coast from Odessa to Izmail. It can be a springboard for a probable offensive by Russian troops on the Odessa region, primarily on its western part, bordering Romania. This is if we are seriously fighting, achieving our goals. Given that, the maintenance of the Black Sea Fleet itself is dangerous and expensive for us...
          1. 0
            28 January 2025 11: 59
            It could be a springboard for a possible offensive by Russian troops on the Odessa region.

            What bridgehead? They'll demolish it with artillery as soon as they see any activity.
            There's nowhere to hide there.
            To supply the garrison, ships are needed that will constantly attack.
            1. 0
              28 January 2025 12: 07
              Quote: Ermak_415
              What a bridgehead?
              Now there is none. Let's move on. All the best.
  6. 0
    27 January 2025 06: 40
    Roman, I know other idiots for whom navigation equipment is a dark forest, and maps on paper are something unimaginable. It is better to sail the sea using an application on smartphones and these are the Dutch "Columbuses" bully
  7. 0
    27 January 2025 06: 59
    The blowing up of Nord Stream 2 can be seen as an act of terrorism. But one can see the features of an act of ordinary vandalism. Both are very contagious things. Usually state vandalism descends on private individuals. And here a chain reaction is already taking place. This is exactly what is happening at the moment.
    1. +6
      27 January 2025 08: 14
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      as an act of terrorism. But one can see the features of an act of ordinary vandalism

      This is not terrorism, and certainly not vandalism, but a well-planned act of sabotage.
    2. +2
      27 January 2025 08: 36
      .
      But one can see the features of an act of ordinary vandalism.
      SP-2, a work of art...well, yes, well, yes..
    3. +2
      27 January 2025 09: 09
      Yes, look at it any way you like. They don't give a damn about it in the West. Only one thing matters here - how many divisions or ships you have in your fleet, in this case.
  8. +3
    27 January 2025 08: 44
    But we should. We should have more ships.
    But apparently there is no money... I thought for an hour, if every Russian oligarch built at least one ship with his own money... What a fleet it would be... But oligarchs don’t need a fleet.
    1. +1
      27 January 2025 09: 43
      They built a whole cloud!
      Both by displacement and by length. But they are deliberately classified as yachts.
      1. 0
        27 January 2025 09: 45
        In general, only Yuri Luzhkov from the Moscow treasury, of course, financed the construction of the RCPSN "Yuri Dolgoruky".
        1. +2
          27 January 2025 09: 53
          Yuri Luzhkov from the Moscow treasury
          Treasury, not personal capital...acquired through honest labor...
          1. 0
            27 January 2025 09: 56
            However, it worked!
            Moscow's Head was a good man, he helped in the most difficult time. Otherwise SevMash would have finally folded, and there would have been no "Boreys" at all. Not a single one.
            1. +2
              27 January 2025 09: 59
              He would have died if they hadn’t given him money from the Moscow treasury, he wouldn’t have climbed into his cellars, opened the chest, saying, “Take it to Sevmash.” Giving him money from the treasury would have worked everything out.
      2. +1
        27 January 2025 09: 52
        And all these yachts are part of the Baltic Fleet, Black Sea Fleet, Northern Fleet, and the Northern Fleet...?
        1. -1
          27 January 2025 09: 53
          More like RN.
          Yes, this is more of a rhetorical answer to your rhetorical question.
          1. +1
            27 January 2025 09: 55
            It was not a question, but a statement that the oligarchs do not need a fleet.
            1. 0
              27 January 2025 10: 00
              The fleet and the oligarchs are parallel. It is not their business, so do not shift the blame to them on this matter. We have the Power and its Vertical, at the peak of which the figure of the President is visible. This is actually the addressee of your questions and statements on the fate of the fleet. The one and only.
              1. 0
                27 January 2025 10: 05
                KNS, it's not their business, they don't need a navy... They don't care about Russia's interests, they just want to fill their pockets... Once again, I wrote a statement. I'll repeat once again, the oligarchs don't need a navy. You stood up for the oligarchic capital of Russia with your chest. How you hurt your relatives... Aven, Friedman, Abramovich, Luzhkov and the rest...
                1. 0
                  27 January 2025 10: 17
                  Don't make things up, I wasn't going to defend them (they really don't need my protection, they are under the protection of the President Himself). And Luzhkov is remembered kindly at SMP, and I join those with whom I work.
                  1. +1
                    27 January 2025 10: 20
                    Listen, why did you bother to comment on me, what's wrong with the phrase, the oligarchs don't need the fleet. What a crime I wrote.
                    1. +1
                      27 January 2025 10: 24
                      I got involved because this statement is debatable. And it is not for the oligarchs to decide the strategy for Russia's development, in particular the Navy.
                      And the fact that we have chaos and theft there is commonplace. But no one from the Authorities will be held responsible for this. Authority is not given to be responsible for development, but to make promises and hold amusing parades on the Neva.
                      1. -1
                        27 January 2025 10: 32
                        This statement is controversial.
                        What is controversial, you just wanted to argue over nothing.. Which of the oligarchs built at least one ship with his own money? Which would be part of one of the Russian Federation fleets..
              2. +1
                27 January 2025 15: 00
                Well, he and his entourage are the main oligarchs. But they, unlike the oppressed, need both a navy and an army. Once they got to the very top, they are obliged to protect the interests of the class.
            2. +2
              27 January 2025 10: 25
              Quote: kor1vet1974
              The oligarchs don't need a fleet.
              They have their own fleet. Just for your information.
              Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich has several previously undeclared assets, according to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), whose founder has been listed in Russia as a foreign and international non-governmental organization whose activities are considered undesirable. He and his partners, including Forbes USA, cited data they had obtained that showed Abramovich owns at least 10 more yachts and ships through offshore companies and trust funds, in addition to six yachts worth at least $1 billion.

              And, for comparison, another picture for a general illustration of the fleet of Russian oligarchs. Our Navy, naturally, is far from "a light bulb" for them.
              1. +2
                27 January 2025 10: 29
                Yes, I know that they have their own fleet, built abroad. What is the comment about, the oligarchs don't need a fleet, but for it to protect their interests, yes, but at the expense of the treasury... They are too far from the people and the country... Just like those behind whose backs they stand.
                1. +4
                  27 January 2025 10: 34
                  Quote: kor1vet1974
                  They are too far from the people and the country.

                  Here Brzezinski explained everything long ago. By the way, this characterizes both the SVO and all the "red lines".
                  “Russia may have any number of nuclear suitcases and nuclear buttons, but since the 500 billion dollars of the Russian elite are in our banks, you still figure it out: is it your elite or already ours? I don’t see a single situation in which Russia will use its nuclear potential. ”
                  1. +1
                    27 January 2025 10: 36
                    Old man Brzezinski, who explained everything to everyone a long time ago, is absolutely right, which is what my comments are about... But in other words...
  9. -5
    27 January 2025 08: 52
    The BF corvette "Boykiy" made its presence known and that was enough. Until they "Howl the Alarm" and rob us on narrowly specialized marine resources, we should not believe any propaganda. Marine traffic to and from Russia has not undergone any changes. The "shadow fleet" comes in and out, and the rest even more so. As the Americans say - routine. laughing
    1. +3
      27 January 2025 12: 35
      Quote: tralflot1832
      Marine traffic to and from Russia has not undergone any changes.

      And what about the investigation into the attack on Ursa Major, on a Navy ship? What clear responses to the arrests of ships affiliated with the Russian Federation? Precedents have been created. 0,0 responses from our side. And this is only because we cannot compete with NATO with conventional weapons. Not at all. All hope is only in a nuclear loaf. And that is a completely different story. That is why we breathe deeper. We observe and breathe deeply.
      1. -1
        27 January 2025 12: 41
        Holy shit, this is too much! laughing The West knows very well where he is heading. bully We're just observing. laughing
        1. +3
          27 January 2025 12: 47
          Quote: tralflot1832
          Holy shit, this is too much!

          We don't have any other option!
          Quote: tralflot1832
          The West knows perfectly well where he's stuck his nose in. bully Just watching. laughing

          Of course he knows. And he also knows that we will simply observe, that's for sure.
          Now they will arrange for us approximately the same thing that we arranged for the Ukrainians before the SVO in the Sea of ​​Azov. And we have no choice but to swallow it. Although - this is more of a problem for our traders. This whole circus with puffing out their cheeks will end sooner.
          1. -1
            27 January 2025 12: 51
            I doubt that the West will arrange a rout of commercial sea transportation for us. Everything is interconnected and even too much. I communicate with friends who are at sea. "Russian" ships provide the West with orders and pay very well. bullyThey never even call at Russian ports.
            1. +2
              27 January 2025 13: 22
              Quote: tralflot1832
              I doubt that the West will arrange a rout of commercial sea transport for us.

              I doubt it too. Although I doubted that the Americans would give Ukraine Abrams and F-16, as well as ATACMs, and even start targeting our old territory. Again, the flows were undermined, although they were profitable for the West. But...

              Quote: tralflot1832
              I communicate with friends who are at sea. "Russian" ships provide the West with orders and pay very well. bullyThey never even call at Russian ports.

              I have already written about SPotoki above. This is no longer about common sense and business. This is politics, Russophobic politics.
  10. +3
    27 January 2025 09: 25
    Anchor chains and winches are not designed to withstand the stresses of towing behind a vessel at speeds up to 10 knots.
    Here I disagree with the author of the article, remember the incident in the Black Sea, when our ships pushed American ships out of the territorial waters of the USSR:
    . The anchor of the "Bezavetny" tore the plating of the cruiser's side with one paw, and made a hole in the bow of its ship with the other. At the same time, "SKR-6" passed tangentially along the left side of the destroyer "Caron", cut off its rails, tore the plating of the side and smashed the boat.

    Also for understanding:
    Depending on the strength of the steel, anchor chains are made in three types (categories):
    1- normal strength steel category 1a
    2 - high-strength welded and forged from category 2a steel, as well as cast from category 2b steel
    3 - especially high strength welded and forged from category 3a steel, as well as cast from category 3b steel.
    Information on the strength of anchor chains can be found in GOST 228-79.
  11. 0
    27 January 2025 09: 32
    What did Peskov recently say about disarmament?
  12. +1
    27 January 2025 11: 00
    Nata is, first of all, the USA. In case of war or serious conflict, so-called members associated with Nata, such as Colomubia and others, are also attracted to Nata's side.
    The initiator of the blockade of the Russian Federation in the Baltic is the EU, and as long as the Russian Federation tolerates everything, the EU does not hide behind the backs of the US-NATO and associated state entities, and the global military-political bloc created by the US from NATO, Aukus, Quad, Japan and South Korea.
  13. +3
    27 January 2025 11: 44
    No matter how stupid the British are, their provocations for some reason always lead to the fact that the Russian Federation cannot respond effectively. Either they justify themselves, or they let the impudence pass, as was the case with the "Defender". If the Brits are stupid, then what are we? Smart? Calculating? Calm?

    But London perceives this as helplessness and stupidly becomes even more impudent.
  14. 0
    27 January 2025 12: 31
    The only question is whether the Baltic Fleet has combat-ready frigates. Two patrol ships from the last century, Project 11540, and four corvettes, Project 20380, one of which is under repair, are better than nothing, but they don’t look like a striking force. But they should be. They should have more ships, so that none of the Baltic sea pygmies would even think of stopping or boarding a ship from Russia or Russia’s allies.

    But the daughter of the ex-Minister of Defense is excellent at the museum in Kronstadt, has already mastered the ministry's money for more than 20 billion. And she is not going to stop.
    "You're on the right path, comrades!" - NO!!! am
  15. 0
    27 January 2025 14: 48
    we should remember more often that for every action there will be a reaction

    For example, in the Far East, a Russian frigate can easily stop a ship from one of the participating countries and charge the container ship with illegal fishing of Kamchatka crab

    This is just an assumption. Our bourgeois authorities are incapable of action, they are always afraid of something.
    Here is also one of V. Ponomarev’s assumptions:
    When FIFA and UEFA suspended Russia, we should have declared force majeure and kicked out all the foreigners. Then FIFA and UEFA would have come to their senses: where would they put the unemployed? That would have been great! In that case, we would have wiped everyone's noses! But we didn't guess then. We are afraid of everything, and I'm not just talking about the football level

    The USSR also did not always act decisively, but now it’s some kind of nonsense!
  16. 0
    27 January 2025 15: 38
    All the best was invented long ago: "The Law on Armed Neutrality" and "The Convention for the Suppression of Piracy". If you don't hang them on the yardarms, that's why they get cheeky.
  17. 0
    27 January 2025 17: 46
    11540, although from the last century, is quite a workhorse. Only Uranus should have been installed after all.
  18. 0
    27 January 2025 20: 49
    Of course, there is no need to escort all the ships. But overall, the strategy is correct. There will be mass detentions of Russian ships under any pretext, and there will be similar detentions of Western ships. And the cables and pipelines will continue to be torn. We did not start this game.