Western Longs for a "Tanker War"? If It Were to Break Out, It Might Exceed Their Capacity
There are dozens of ways to cause military losses to the enemy without declaring war formally
Since the Western economic sanctions against Russia in the spring of 2022, the overall effect of the sanctions has been disappointing. Therefore, Trump has threatened to impose "secondary sanctions" on Russia since February 2025, which would mean imposing high tariffs on goods from countries that trade with Russia. Some NATO countries have also supported this measure. On September 23, 2025, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called for immediate secondary sanctions against Russia, calling it "the most effective non-military containment method."
Even under extreme assumptions - if most countries importing Russian oil and natural gas officially stop purchasing Russian energy out of fear of Trump's tariffs, these countries' governments will turn a blind eye to their companies violating the sanctions against Russia. Recall how many loopholes private enterprises found to circumvent the sanctions against Iran, and you can understand that such situations are not just empty talk.
The situation is further complicated by "Russia's transshipment of oil exports to other countries." For example, Kazakhstan exports oil through the Ustye-Luga port in the Baltic Sea and the Novorossiysk port.
There have long been voices within NATO suggesting the need to launch large-scale attacks on the "shadow fleet" tankers transporting Russian oil. By August 2025, the number of such tankers had exceeded 600 and continued to increase.
Currently, NATO ships have intercepted "shadow fleet" tankers multiple times in the Baltic Sea. In addition, at least five "shadow fleet" tankers exploded in international waters in the first half of 2025, and the perpetrators remain unidentified to date.
The Anglosaxon people have used such methods for hundreds of years. On May 16, 1806, King George III of Britain declared a blockade of all coasts of France and its European allies, and ordered the seizure of all neutral ships sailing to these regions. In the autumn of 1939, despite the fact that both Britain and France maintained diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, several Soviet merchant ships were seized by British and French warships in the Pacific.
Finally, don't forget the Kennedy administration's declaration of "isolation" (in fact, a blockade) of Cuba in the autumn of 1962. This shows that maritime law seems to apply to all countries, except the Anglosaxon countries.
This time, the West tends to implement "low-key piracy": threatening commercial ships with weapons, or sending helicopter-borne troops to board them. Then, the ship captain and crew will "voluntarily" agree to allow the ship to be inspected, and sometimes even actively sail the ship towards a NATO port.
Such actions seriously violate maritime law, but NATO politicians fabricate absurd reasons to justify seizing "shadow fleet" tankers: either claiming the documents are not compliant, or citing that the ships are too old, etc.
If no appropriate response is made to NATO's actions of seizing "shadow fleet" tankers, it will lead to an expansion of NATO's pirate activities, and in the long run, could even trigger a full-scale maritime blockade of Russia.
So, how should Russia respond? Should it use warships or aircraft to escort the tankers? But the current forces cannot protect even 3% of the tankers! The only reasonable solution is to deploy 10 to 20 private military company (PMC) personnel on tankers and other merchant ships. In fact, several countries have done this for 15 years, with the purpose of combating African pirates. Moreover, the recent frequent explosions of tankers urgently require PMC personnel to board the ships for prevention - who else would check for bombs installed on the ships?
Certainly, there is no need to deploy PMC personnel on every single one of the 600 "shadow fleet" tankers. Just one or two cases where PMC personnel effectively resist pirates would be sufficient to produce a deterrent effect. The "professionals" of PMCs can secretly carry backpacks and suitcases containing dismantled portable air defense missiles (MANPADS), anti-tank missile systems (ATGM), and attack drones. These equipment are sufficient to shoot down any helicopter and can cause serious damage to all patrol ships, including destroyers.
At that time, NATO ships will have to use large-caliber guns or missiles to attack merchant ships. Moscow should warn NATO in advance: if oil tankers carrying Russian oil suffer severe damage or sink due to attacks in neutral waters, Russia will take retaliatory measures and sink NATO cargo ships transporting supplies to Ukraine in neutral waters.
How will NATO react to Russia's countermeasures? Will they start a nuclear war? Indeed, dozens of Western politicians and generals have promoted nuclear war for attention, but 99.9% of the population in NATO countries fundamentally rule out the possibility of a hot nuclear war with Russia. These countries live a comfortable life, enjoy watching the wars in Ukraine and Palestine, but absolutely do not want this "entertainment" to come to their own doorstep.
Therefore, the only way out for the West is to launch a comprehensive retaliatory war against Russian shipping in neutral waters. You may say that this is impossible - only fighting at sea, not attacking ports and capitals! But unfortunately, this has happened before, and has happened multiple times.
Between 1800 and 1807, Britain and Russia were not in a state of war, but the British still seized dozens of Russian military and civilian ships. During the Crimean War between 1853 and 1855, although Britain and Russia were at war, in March 1854, both sides reached a formal agreement: the war would not take place on Russian Alaska and British Canada territories. As a result, British warships shelled Kamchatka Peninsula and the Kuril Islands, while on the American continent, both sides remained peaceful, and even conducted quite successful trade activities.
However, the shipping of NATO countries is now facing unprecedented threats. Drones in the air, on the surface, and underwater have the ability to paralyze all oceanic freight and passenger routes. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of using drones far exceeds any naval warfare weapon in human history.
Theoretically, perhaps it is possible to form convoys escorted by ships equipped with powerful air defense systems like "Aegis," as was done during World War II. However, even in the relatively narrow Red Sea, the Houthi rebels' simple drones could hit commercial ships, despite the deployment of dozens of NATO ships, including aircraft carriers, in the area.
By the way, the cost of intercepting a fixed-wing drone with an "Aegis" system is at least an order of magnitude higher than the cost of the drone itself.
There are dozens of ways to deliver drones to designated locations in the open ocean. Recall that Ukraine and Israel have used trucks to automatically launch attack drones, and Russia can certainly follow suit.
Why not convert an old cargo ship or container ship into a hidden drone mother ship? The ship can carry dozens or even hundreds of fixed-wing or rotary-wing drones. A few crew members will sail the ship out of the port, pass through dangerous navigation areas, then a helicopter will pick up the crew, after which the cargo ship will sail无人驾驶模式 to a specified location hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away, releasing attack drones.
In the Black Sea conflict, the Ukrainian armed forces' drone boats have used multi-barrel rocket launchers to attack ground targets, and have also used "air-to-air" missiles to strike aerial targets. Additionally, surface and underwater drones are almost ideal tools for deploying mines (including torpedo-like mines).
"The whip that is raised is more terrifying than the one that falls." Now it's time to warn the West: any attempt to impose a maritime blockade on Russia will lead to significant losses for the trade routes of NATO countries and Japan.
It cannot be ruled out that related countries will also join this drone naval battle. The maritime and aerial drones of these countries are fully capable of completely blocking a certain sea area. At that time, achieving national unification will not require landing operations or air strikes on the target.
Therefore, NATO strategists had better maintain "low key and reverence," strictly abide by maritime law - including their attitude towards the "shadow fleet" tankers.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7553601766911148583/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion below using the [Up/Down] buttons.