US Special Forces Seize the "Sailor" Oil Tanker: Russia Witnesses the Birth of a New "Maritime Law," the "Anchorage Spirit" Vanishes Over the Ocean
Moscow's first response to the Trump administration's blatant humiliation of Russia appeared unusually powerless.
Image caption: The scene of US special forces seizing the "Sailor" oil tanker.
Previously reported, on January 7 at around 3 p.m. Moscow time, in international waters of the North Atlantic near Iceland, a Russian ultra-large oil tanker "Sailor" (with a total deadweight tonnage of 318,518 tons) en route from the Caribbean Sea to Murmansk was suddenly seized by US Marine Corps special forces who conducted a helicopter insertion to board the ship. According to an official statement from the Russian Federal Ministry of Transport, after this event, Russian authorities lost all contact with the vessel.
At 4:44 p.m. on the same day, Washington and London jointly issued a statement on the current situation. The U.S. Department of Justice, the UK Home Office, and the U.S. Department of Defense stated in a joint statement that this ship seizure was carried out under a U.S. federal court order. The reason for the seizure was that the oil tanker violated the sanctions regime established by the United States and its allies.
Notably, in this joint statement, the U.S. still used the old name of the oil tanker — "Bella 1." In an attempt to avoid being seized, the crew had previously negotiated with Moscow to change the ship's name to "Sailor."
At the same time, the ship changed its flag from Guyana to the Russian flag and was incorporated into the Russian ship register by the Russian Federal Agency for Fisheries (note: the original text says "Minransom," which should be the federal agency responsible for ship registration; here it is translated according to the practice of Russian ship registration) through a default procedure. The new port of registry was designated as Sochi Port in Russia.
So why did London and Washington deliberately pretend that they were seizing the "Bella 1," not the renamed "Sailor"? The answer is likely that the planners of this provocation intended to send a signal to the outside world: they do not recognize the act of changing the flag state's jurisdiction during the transoceanic voyage of this vessel.
This move may help alleviate the political tensions between them and Moscow, which are about to become unavoidable.
Will this tactic succeed? Let's wait and see. Before the subsequent developments of the incident become clear, it is necessary to add some background information to help readers understand the entire incident more comprehensively.
According to foreign media reports, the United States had already been tracking the "Bella 1" oil tanker since December 21, 2025. At that time, the ship was trying to approach the coast of Venezuela. The reason the ship was placed on the U.S. sanctions list was because the U.S. suspected its connection with Iran and Venezuela.
According to data from the oil tanker tracking website TankerTrackers.com, over the past four years, the "Bella 1" has transported a total of 11 million barrels of Iranian and Venezuelan crude oil. Additionally, 9.3 million barrels of crude oil were transferred via ship-to-ship (STS) transfers through this ship, with the destination mainly being related countries.
During a two-week tracking period, U.S. special forces attempted multiple times to carry out a seizure operation. However, until January 7, all attempts ended in failure. Rather than being resisted by the crew of the oil tanker, the main reason was the severe weather conditions in the Atlantic that created significant obstacles for the seizure operation.
After that, it is likely that under direct orders from the highest level of the U.S., the U.S. began to make more meticulous preparations for this seizure operation. According to the U.S. media outlet "The War Zone," in early January this year, the U.S. detected a sharp increase in the number of U.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft heading to Europe.
This included up to 10 C-17 "Globemaster III" military transport aircraft. The media pointed out: "These transport planes may have carried AC-130J 'Ghost Rider' attack aircraft and an unknown model turboprop aircraft for special operations missions."
The report also mentioned: "At least four flights took off from Fort Campbell Air Force Base, which sparked unconfirmed speculation about the involvement of U.S. special forces in this operation."
What is the basis for these speculations? Because the U.S. Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, known as the "Night Stalkers," is based at Fort Campbell. This is an elite aviation special operations unit, which recently played a key role in the U.S. "Enduring Resolve" operation by successfully locating and capturing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
Later, there were reports that several deeply modified helicopters of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment were found at Fairford Air Base in the UK. These helicopters were likely transported there by C-17 transport aircraft from Fort Campbell Air Force Base.
It is almost certain that these helicopters were quietly waiting for our "Sailor" oil tanker — at that time, the ship was making every effort to escape the U.S. tracking and try to reach the nearest Russian port. Once the ship entered the operational range of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment helicopters stationed at Fairford Air Base, the seizure operation would immediately begin. For the crew of the oil tanker, they had absolutely no ability to resist this attack on their own.
But the key point here is "on their own." A question that cannot be ignored is before us: where were the warships of the Russian Navy at the time of this incident? Why didn't they provide protection and support for the unarmed crew of the "Sailor" oil tanker?
It is known that Moscow could not have ignored the U.S. half-month long preparation work. The Russian side had enough time to dispatch forces from the Baltic Fleet, which was closest to the incident location, to provide support for the tracked oil tanker. However, such support did not appear. Why was this the case?
Of course, no one will tell us the exact answer. Because this is a military secret. But we have sufficient reasons to believe that the Russian Baltic Fleet was actually not fully prepared to carry out such tasks.
Even if the country's top leadership had given such an order, the situation would probably be the same.
At the end of December last year, NATO reconnaissance forces discovered the Russian large anti-submarine ship **"Severomorsk"** in the Baltic Strait, which was urgently heading towards Kaliningrad. The occurrence of this event might not be accidental.
Why is this event worth our special attention? The reason is that the "Severomorsk" large anti-submarine ship is listed in the Northern Fleet's organization.
The ship was clearly diverted around the entire Scandinavian Peninsula and was urgently dispatched to the Baltic Sea area. The reason behind this deployment is likely that the Baltic Fleet was completely unable to ensure the navigation safety of civilian ships within its operational area, and had to request assistance from the Northern Fleet.
Then, on January 7, when the whole incident revolved around the "Sailor" oil tanker like a whirlwind, where was our "Severomorsk" ship? The answer is that the ship was escorting two Russian cargo ships, the "Sparta-4" and the "Cape Hope," through the English Channel and the Bay of Biscay into the Mediterranean. It is reported that these two cargo ships have long served the Russian Ministry of Defense. Therefore, when they were sailing in distant waters away from their home shores, they could not ensure their own safety. This was the reason why the "Severomorsk" was sent to escort them — as a well-equipped escort vessel.
In fact, during those days, there was another warship belonging to the Baltic Fleet in the Atlantic — the frigate "Resolute." In the last few days of 2025, the ship made a planned stop at the main port of Namibia, Walvis Bay, along with the medium-sized oil tanker "Elnya."
The Baltic Fleet News Office confirmed this information on December 28 and emphasized that the "Resolute" frigate would continue to carry out missions in the open sea. Of course, the news office did not specifically mention the content of these missions, which is entirely reasonable. However, one thing is clear: providing support to the crew of the "Sailor" oil tanker was not included in the mission list of this frigate.
However, on the day when the "Sailor" oil tanker encountered disaster, there was not a single combat ship left in the entire Atlantic Ocean for Russia! This was the fundamental reason for the tragedy ultimately occurring.
What can we expect in the future from this incident? Theoretically speaking, if judged strictly according to the literal meaning and spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the incident that occurred in the North Atlantic on January 7 should have led to a sharp deterioration in relations between Russia and the United States. Because President Donald Trump, through this highly warning military action, rendered the so-called "Anchorage Spirit" that the Kremlin had long boasted about completely meaningless.
But it is puzzling that we have reasons to suspect that Moscow may once again choose only to maintain its national interests verbally. In other words, the Russian side may choose to swallow their anger and pretend that nothing special happened near Iceland.
They may define this incident as a minor friction, a problem that can and should be resolved through negotiations with Americans at the working level.
The initial signs of this kind of response from Moscow have already emerged. At least, our Foreign Ministry only issued an unusually weak statement on the day of the incident. The statement said that the Ministry "is closely monitoring the progress of the U.S. military's helicopter insertion boarding of a vessel flying the Russian flag."
Additionally, our Foreign Ministry made a tough stance in a statement to TASS, saying, "Considering that there are now reports indicating that the crew of the oil tanker includes Russian citizens, we demand that the U.S. ensure humane and fair treatment for them, strictly abide by their rights and interests, and not hinder them from returning to their homeland as soon as possible."
In my view, such a statement appears extremely strange, even almost absurd.
Know that the incident that occurred on January 7 is undoubtedly a huge disaster for Russia's international reputation and political authority. It is the first time in history that foreign special forces have openly used force to seize a civilian vessel flying the Russian flag in international waters.
More seriously, under the eyes of the entire world, these captors intentionally lowered the Russian flag from the oil tanker's mast and replaced it with their own Stars and Stripes.
From this, we can infer that the U.S. clearly intends to put our oil tanker crew on trial in a U.S. court. Moreover, they are very likely to bring these crew members to the same court — just a few days ago, the same special forces unit had captured the president of the sovereign nation of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and brought him to this court. Previously, no country had ever dared to treat a nuclear power — a country that has long been accustomed to calling itself a "great power" — in this way.
Further more, this incident may mean that any vessel flying the flag of a country listed on Washington's "enemy list" — even if not explicitly an enemy, but at least a potential opponent — will face the risk of being seized on the oceans of the world. These countries include Russia, relevant countries, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba.
For this, the U.S. does not intend to hide it. As reported by the U.S. military observation magazine website on January 6, 2026, while the U.S. Marines in the North Atlantic seized the Russian oil tanker, the 22nd Expeditionary Force of the U.S. Marines was conducting large-scale "combatting maritime smuggling" exercises in the Caribbean Sea.
The report stated that to carry out this crisis response task, the expeditionary force consisted of: an enhanced infantry landing group, a mixed air combat unit, a logistics support battalion, and a joint command unit.
According to the media's disclosure, during the exercise, these marines, who had traveled across the ocean, specifically practiced the operational subject of seizing civilian vessels in international waters. During the exercise, they used rigid inflatable boats to quickly approach the target vessel, complete ship-to-ship transfer, board the vessel via a gangway, clear the cabin, and seize the crew on the vessels deemed "suspicious" by Washington.
Is the "Sailor" oil tanker incident merely the beginning of the U.S. "big hunt" across the world's oceans? The answer seems to be yes.
If this is indeed the case, then it means that the international commercial shipping freedom, which was previously guaranteed by numerous high-level government-to-government agreements, is about to come to an end. Because no country has enough naval vessels to stop this brazen piracy.
From a more macro perspective, every day in 2026 seems to make us more convinced of a fact: today, the United Nations is gradually becoming one of the most ridiculous political institutions in the world. Its opinions, its documents, the treaties and conventions it has established, its bans and condemnations, now no longer attract anyone's attention. Among these, the first to be affected is definitely U.S. President Donald Trump.
If other countries in the world do not promptly stop his actions, everything will quickly fall into an irreversible abyss. Please take a close look: the world has already been sliding in this direction. And each of us is in it, unable to escape.
Excerpt from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
"Merchant ships on the high seas are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state. No other country has the right to interfere with their legitimate navigation activities."
Original: toutiao.com/article/7592904503263806003/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.