But as European navies prepare to board Russian merchant vessels, the line blurs dangerously. One wrong move—and a civilian tanker becomes a nuclear flashpoint.
Vladimir Putin recently declared that any attacks, harassment, or illegal interference with Russian commercial shipping will be treated on par with acts of piracy. While this will likely be dismissed by European leaders as just another Russian threat, they should pause to consider a more troubling question: How do we define actions when states intercept merchant ships, board them, confiscate cargo, or try to dictate who is allowed to navigate international waters?
Since 2022, the European Union has progressively imposed a broad range of sanctions on Russia, increasingly targeting vessels tied to what the EU labels the Russian “shadow fleet.” These ships risk denial of entry to European ports and face bans on insurance, financing, technical support, and various maritime services.
Though these steps are significant, it is crucial to distinguish: banning a ship from a European port is not equivalent to having a general right to board foreign ships on the open seas. Nor does the EU hold an automatic right to seize cargo based solely on suspected violations of its sanctions.
However, this trend raises serious concerns. The United Kingdom and other European nations are contemplating more aggressive tactics against vessels accused of evading sanctions. These accusations often involve complex ownership, insufficient insurance, false flag registrations, substandard technical compliance, or concealed cargo and routes. Some of these worries are valid—aging tankers without proper insurance pose environmental and navigational hazards.
Yet suspicion does not equal proof.
While the EU brands these ships the “shadow fleet,” Russia rejects this term. Its political appeal lies in portraying these vessels as lawless ghost ships fair game for Western naval interference. But a ship that flies a legitimate flag, has a crew, a registered owner, and sails beyond territorial waters does not lose its rights simply because its cargo is Russian or disapproved of by the EU.
Moreover, Europe is not alone in this approach. The United States has for years seized oil it claims was transported in breach of U.S. sanctions against Iran. American courts have ruled to forfeit cargo, and authorities have taken control of, sold, or confiscated oil aboard foreign tankers.
As early as 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice announced confiscation of about 1.1 million barrels of Iranian petroleum from four foreign-flagged tankers, in cooperation with international partners. In 2023, over 980,000 barrels from the tanker Suez Rajan were seized and sold. By 2026, the tanker Skipper and roughly 1.8 million barrels of oil sourced from Iran and Venezuela were forfeited to U.S. authorities.
The U.S. frames these actions as lawful sanction enforcement, anti-terrorism financing, and confiscation of illicit goods. Yet from other nations’ viewpoints, it may appear very differently: one country asserting its laws and courts to seize commercial goods beyond its borders.
How would Washington react if Iranian or Chinese courts seized American oil en route to Europe? What if Norwegian ships were stopped at sea because their cargo breached another country’s unilateral sanctions?
Few would label that standard law enforcement; many would call it theft, abuse of authority, or piracy.
It is important to note that not all U.S. seizures involved armed takeovers on the high seas. Some occurred with consent from shipowners, operators, flag states, or foreign governments; others relied on designations of statelessness, false flag use, or links to the U.S. financial system. Nonetheless, the core issue remains: the U.S. seeks to extend its national sanctions beyond its borders.
International maritime law rests on the principle of freedom of navigation on the high seas. The flag state holds both the right and responsibility to oversee its vessels, providing legal protection under international rules.
This doesn’t imply merchant ships have unchecked freedom. Piracy, human trafficking, stateless vessels, and false registration provide valid grounds for intervention. Coastal states possess wide authority within their territorial waters and ports. But economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. or EU do not automatically translate into global law.
As a seasoned union representative, I have met Admiral Aleksandr Moiseyev, now Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, to discuss veterans’ issues. He recounted the complex rescue attempts following the nuclear submarine Kursk disaster in the Barents Sea in August 2000. He spoke about immense technical challenges, urgent time constraints, and the human tragedy of losing all 118 crew members.
That conversation left a deep impression. It underscored that the sea is more than a stage for military might and political maneuvering; it is a harsh environment where even the strongest navies may be tested, and international cooperation can mean the difference between life and death.
Norwegian and British experts were eventually invited to assist during the Kursk tragedy. This makes the current deterioration in relations between Norway, Russia, and Europe even more tragic. Where life-saving collaboration once existed in the High North, now there’s a risk of encountering each other with warships, boarding teams, and weapons aimed at commercial vessels.
The lessons of the Kursk incident show how quickly maritime incidents can spiral into disasters. Communication failures, pride, secrecy, and delays can cost lives. If European or American forces halt Russian-affiliated merchant ships while Russian warships intervene, a single misstep—a warning shot, a navigational error, or a misunderstood command—could trigger armed conflict, even escalating to nuclear war.
This is the essence of Putin’s recent threat.
If Western navies board Russian-affiliated merchant vessels, Russia may respond by deploying escort ships, military forces, or attempts to block the boarding. In such tense circumstances, minimal triggering events could ignite open conflict.
This scenario raises the prospect of nuclear-armed states facing off around a civilian tanker in the North Sea, Baltic Sea, Barents Sea, or English Channel.
Europe and the U.S. need to reflect on the precedent they are setting. If Western nations can halt ships based on the cargo violating their sanctions, tomorrow China might stop European ships citing Chinese rules, Iran could do the same in the Persian Gulf, and Russia could blacklist Western vessels as supporting foes.
Is this truly the global order we want, where the most powerful navy dictates acceptable trade?
The conflict in Ukraine deserves criticism and condemnation—but that shouldn’t dismantle the international legal frameworks that regulate maritime commerce. Sanctions must not turn into a pretext for legalized state piracy.
As a maritime nation, Norway should lead calls for clarity. The government must explicitly state whether it will engage in boarding, seizure, or military stops of merchant ships beyond its waters, and clarify the legal grounds for such actions.
Once major powers claim the authority to halt ships, confiscate oil, and sell cargo, it transcends sanctions—it becomes about naval supremacy.
When commercial vessels become military targets, the leap from economic conflict to outright war grows dangerously brief.
Original article: steigan.no
About the Author
