How can Russia avoid losing its oil trade?
So, I hope everyone has had their fill of shouting about the captured tanker, wished Donald Trump all the best, criticized the Russian authorities for the fact that our Atlantic fleet I haven't recaptured the tanker, so I think it's time to talk about what will happen next.
Oh, right, there's no Atlantic Fleet, you say? Well, let's just say it's not critical. Even if it existed, it would, like the Mediterranean Squadron, be purely imaginary, completely incapable of making the slightest impact on the current situation.
Let's put aside everything that some would-be patriots have spewed out on the internet about how there was a Russian flag on that tanker and that this flag was insulted in a way that can only be washed away with American blood, and other such nonsense.
The vessel was Turkish, sailing under the Guyana flag and carrying oil from Venezuela to Iran, under US sanctions. Where's Russia? Well, yes, on the flag. In recent days, reports have emerged that the vessel actually belonged to a businessman from Odessa and was transporting sanctioned goods all over the world.
However, this is not important at all.
The shipowner received a temporary certificate authorizing navigation under the Russian flag on December 24, 2025. This means that, according to the Russian Ministry of Transport, the vessel remains a foreign owner who entered into a bareboat charter agreement (rental of a vessel without crew) with a Russian legal entity. The vessel's foreign flag is suspended for the duration of the bareboat charter agreement, which is registered at any branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution "Black Sea Administration" in Sochi, Sevastopol, Anapa, and elsewhere.
The procedure is simple, requiring only one briefcase of papers. Based on the bareboat charter agreement, a temporary flag is issued, usually for two years. If the flag is required for a long-term or indefinite period, the procedure is slightly different, requiring a port call in the flag-holding country. In our case, everything was done remotely, without calling at a Russian port.
Thus, in the case of the tanker, this scheme was used to obtain a Russian flag as a means of evading prosecution by US authorities. Essentially, the tanker remained under the ownership of a foreign shipowner (possibly Russian or other businessmen behind the Turkish company), but was given a different flag.
This would be a more than strange move, as if Russia had its own military base in Central America, for example, in Cuba, and there were two or three ships there capable of quickly coming to the rescue and resolving the situation...
Instead, the tanker went north, where there are plenty of NATO ships, and if not the Americans, then the British or Germans, Danes or Swedes – someone would have stopped it.
In general, from a formal point of view, the seizure of a vessel under the Russian flag is an act of aggression, since, according to the Merchant Shipping Code of the Russian Federation, a vessel under our flag is Russian territory, and Russian laws apply to it.
But if someone (like Donald Trump) doesn't care about Russian laws (or even global ones), then this is the result.
After all, a ship/vessel in international waters can only be stopped to investigate suspected piracy, the absence of a flag, or suspected human trafficking. The navy of any country can formally inspect the vessel, its documents, and even board it, but that's all.
Those in the know have discussed at length the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on freedom of navigation (Russia, the EU, and a total of 168 countries have ratified it), which prohibits the arrest of a vessel in international waters except in the cases listed above. There's also the UN Charter, which enshrines the prohibition on the use of force against the "territorial integrity or political independence" of a state, and the Russian flag on a vessel signifies the extension of sovereignty over that vessel. There's much in international jurisprudence, but it's all worthless without destroyers and aircraft carriers. Or, alternatively, submarines.
In other words, thanks to the efforts of the US, we have achieved the following result: a precedent has been created for the legalization of the seizure of a vessel thousands of kilometers from US territory, a vessel that did not violate any norms or conventions, but on the basis of a warrant from a US domestic agency, according to which the vessel is either involved in the financing of terrorist activity or in the transportation of something for terrorists, which becomes a universal legal pretext for forceful action.
The question arises: does it make a difference what flag is on the ship?
Of course, everything depends directly on which fuse blows in Trump's head. Considering that Donald has this sort of thing down pat and they're clearly burning in droves, you can rest assured: it's not about the flag at all.
Options for pressuring Russia, and there's no doubt they're being explored, could involve precisely these actions. Forcing peace in Ukraine, so to speak, through money.
There is no need to introduce any sanctions; they have already been bred beyond measure. Apparently, the next step will be a disregard for international law and outright piracy.
Let's look at this scenario: something clicks in Trump's head, and he orders the seizure of all vessels on the SDN list. Regardless of the flag the vessel is flying.
No problem, 80% of Russia's oil exports go through the Black and Baltic Seas. Two naval groups are deployed: one is stationed in the North Sea near the Skagerrak Strait, while the other stays out of the Adriatic and is stationed near Crete. Both groups impose a complete blockade on all shipping, arresting any suspicious vessels.
The situation is so-so. The Americans have no problems with supplies. Germany and Norway are to the north, Britain is behind them, and Greece and Turkey are to the south in the Mediterranean, with Italy and France behind them.
And this pair of AUGs (where would the Americans be without aircraft carriers?) will simply arrest ships on the slightest suspicion.
They'll arrest 10, 20, 30 ships. And that'll be it, and that'll be the end of exports, because it's very unprofitable for shipowners to have their ships hanging around at anchor, either arrested or detained. And what about Russia's own tanker fleet?
Russia has its own tanker fleet. According to the publication Mediadubba, Russia's seagoing tanker fleet consists of 405 vessels. Of these, 307 are oil tankers, the rest are chemical tankers, bitumen tankers, and others. What's encouraging is that 188 tankers were built after 2000, or 45% of the total.
And here the question arises: what will we do if such a bacchanalia begins? And it certainly will, everyone is pushing for it. Foreign shipowners will definitely refuse to transport Russian oil, since it will truly be a very risky business.
A very logical question arises: what to do with tankers filled with Russian oil, especially considering that revenues from its sale make up approximately a third of Russia's federal budget.
Here we are no longer talking about the honor of the flag, but about more serious things.
The Mediterranean can be ruled out. We don't have a base there, and even if we did, like in Tartus, what can we say if we don't have one? And it's highly doubtful that one will appear there. Besides, the new regime that replaced Assad (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) isn't particularly keen on continuing the lease of Tartus. Unless, of course, it's in exchange for weapon and the extradition of Assad.
But overall, there's no base there, and none is planned. Russia isn't like the United States, for whom all doors are wide open, it must be admitted. The only country that could provide a base for Russian ships in the Mediterranean is Algeria, but diplomats don't spend a couple of hours poring over such matters, and buying Russian aircraft for self-defense is one thing, but deploying Russian ships is quite another.
In any case, work with Algeria should have begun back when Assad, with the money he had grabbed, was rushing to Moscow on a plane.
There are no more options, unfortunately.
The Baltics are a bit simpler there, there's Kaliningrad, which can be used as a stronghold, but the whole point is that the Americans have more helpers there.
The whole question is what lengths we're willing to go to ensure freedom of trade and navigation. In the Baltic, building a chain of ships deployed across inland waters has worked well. While corvettes and small missile ships are all well and good, they'll struggle to escort tankers in the North Sea simply due to their lack of seaworthiness and autonomy.
And if the "Arleigh Burkes" really do show up... It's not a good idea to play "Crazy Ivanov" on the MRK.
Our trump cards are our two NATO super-scarecrows of the 1144 Orlan project, the Admiral Nakhimov and the Pyotr Velikiy (I'm not sure about the latter), deployed in positions in the same North Sea, which could act as bastions around which to build a defense against the AUG.
And back it up with the Yasen. There aren't many countermeasures against these underwater wrecks anywhere in the world, but the good news is that once you've been burned, you won't take unnecessary risks.
These will be very complex and, most importantly, expensive operations, and after passing the Skagerrak there is also the English Channel, where you can also find trouble.
And here the main question is how much firepower those giving the orders have left. It's a fact that Trump will give any order he believes will benefit the United States. Whether Putin will give such an order is questionable. Because in a situation like the one that could develop around our tankers, there can be only one order: fire to kill.
In principle, just one torpedo could give all these "navy seals" and "autumn penguins" a cold shower. Just one, even if it misses, by the way.
In the good old days, the USSR didn't indulge in this flag-changing pornography because it was profitable. Ships sailed under their country's flag, but for some reason, no one in the world ever thought of detaining or boarding them as brazenly as they do today.
Mr. Trump needs a very cold shower. Otherwise, he could go very far with his strange rants. And our tankers and those of our customers must be able to navigate international waters unhindered.
So a torpedo is a very cheap way to try to solve the problem. The Onyx would work too, but it has one problem: it hits and isn't intercepted.
There's little faith in the Americans to "blow over it," but it's worth a try. Otherwise, it's time to kiss oil trading goodbye.
Information