“Russian side quietly transferred the tanker to the U.S.”: Why didn’t the Russian Navy deploy the so-called “escort vessels” at all

While the U.S. military was escorting an unarmed Russian tanker to the UK, the Russian "Stoiky" frigate was conducting exercises with the navies of relevant countries, Arab states, and Iran on the other side of the world, practicing counterattacks against such attacks

Image: Social media videos show a U.S. Coast Guard ship accompanying the Russian-flagged "Sailor" tanker

Ironically, at this very moment, this massive Russian tanker "Sailor," which was seized by the U.S. through a sudden raid, is sailing under the escort of the U.S. Navy's "Paul Ignatius" missile destroyer toward a British port.

Evidently, there, the U.S. will complete all legal procedures for the seizure of the tanker and hand over its crew — except two Russian nationals — to the U.S. court for trial. The Russian Foreign Ministry recently reported that these two crew members have been "kindly" released by the captors.

Meanwhile, since January 9, in the waters near the southern tip of Africa, far from the incident area, warships and support vessels from five countries with not particularly good relations with the United States have launched a large-scale international naval exercise called "Peace意志 - 2026." Official statements indicate that the core objective of this exercise is to ensure maritime navigation safety and order in oceanic economic activities.

The exercise will last for a week, ending on January 16.

In other words, in the Cape Town area, the navies of Iran, relevant countries, Russia, the UAE, and South Africa are following a unified combat plan to practice how to use force to stop unlawful acts against merchant ships — exactly what the U.S. just openly committed against the Russian tanker "Sailor."

The official news release stated: "The theme of this exercise demonstrates the firm determination of participating navies to jointly safeguard the security of maritime trade routes, improve joint operations processes, and deepen cooperation to support peace initiatives in the field of maritime security."

To complete the above exercise tasks, the participating forces have gathered at Simonstown Naval Base. The exercise command is led by China, and the participating equipment includes the Russian Baltic Fleet's "Stoiky" frigate and "Yelnya" long-range oiler, the Chinese Navy's 052DL-type missile destroyers, and a 23,000-ton long-range integrated supply ship.

The Iranian participation consists of the "Naghi" frigate and the 55,900-ton "Markalan" long-range support ship. This ship, modified from a tanker, is the largest vessel in the Iranian Navy, capable of carrying drones and fast boats for naval special forces.

The UAE's participating forces include the "Bani Yas" frigate, a relatively new ship launched in France five years ago.

Thus, this temporarily formed multinational fleet has already possessed considerable deterrent power. At least, it can serve as a restraint for the United States, which is increasingly brazen in arbitrarily seizing vessels in international waters.

But it is regrettable that the organizers chose to gather forces in the Cape Town area, rather than near Margarita Island, the largest island in the southern Caribbean Sea of Venezuela. Imagine, if the exercise were held near Margarita Island, the U.S.'s rampant behavior of seizing tankers globally could be more directly and effectively curbed. The U.S. is currently accusing the detained crew of violating its unilaterally established sanctions without evidence.

It is worth noting that few people know that the list of vessels labeled as "malicious sanction violators" published by the U.S. includes 744 ships flying different national flags; the UK has called for a "hunt" on 549 tankers; and the EU's sanction list covers 580 tankers.

More notably, the information on the vessels listed in these lists is not entirely overlapping. Some ships appear only in one sanctions list, but are completely absent in others.

Nevertheless, as a politician from the Soviet era once said bluntly, "the curtain has already risen." The maritime incident instigated by the U.S. is developing in a highly destructive direction. Therefore, measures must be taken to stop these modern-day "pirates." It is precisely the navies of various countries that have come thousands of miles to participate in the "Peace Will - 2026" exercise with a highly practical topic that bear this responsibility. After all, if left unchecked, Russia, the relevant countries, and Iran will suffer the most severe losses.

Can these countries take coordinated action? People are full of hope. Because no single party's strength can resist the U.S.'s "pirate actions" on the seas and protect global shipping safety.

Whether or not joint action can be achieved remains to be seen. If joint action cannot be realized, then what meaning does the current exercise near the South African coast, where cannons are booming, have?

However, in this context, it is necessary to separately discuss Russia's situation. Because after the detention of the "Sailor" tanker, Russia made many puzzling moves.

First, we must mention the claims repeatedly put forward by the U.S. — that several Russian warships arrived at the incident site in time, witnessing the U.S. special forces' reckless behavior against this Russian-flagged tanker.

But the U.S. claimed that Russian navy personnel chose to stand by, watching the U.S. boldly board the defenseless "Sailor" tanker.

This lie was first spread by the U.S. Wall Street Journal. A few days later, on January 8, President Donald Trump also repeated this claim like a parrot.

When interviewed by the Fox News Channel, this "Red-haired Donny" went on at length, boasting, "Tell you, we intercepted a Russian cargo ship heading to its destination. At that time, the Russians indeed had ships escorting it, but they chose not to conflict with us, so we successfully seized the ship... I don't want to talk too much about it. But the fact is, the Russian escort ships — a submarine and a destroyer — quickly left after we arrived, and we then took control of the tanker."

But in fact, even without using the Pentagon and the U.S. vast intelligence system, it is easy to expose this lie. The truth is, there was not a single Russian destroyer in the incident area — the sea between Iceland and Scotland — at all.

The reason is simple: within thousands of nautical miles around the incident area, the Russian Navy only deployed one ship of this class — the "Stoiky" destroyer of the Baltic Fleet. This 33-year-old ship belongs to the 956 type destroyer. Public information shows that the last time this ship went to sea was on June 27, 2022, and it is now preparing for decommissioning and scrapping.

Not to mention destroyers, even the nearest combat ships from the Northern Fleet and the Baltic Fleet were not present near the "Sailor" tanker at that time. Although according to the Russian Navy's regulations, these ships should have rushed to the incident area, and they also had sufficient time to deploy — the U.S. military had been chasing this Russian tanker for nearly two weeks from the waters of Venezuela. The Russian warships ultimately failed to provide assistance, and the reason was only one: Moscow obviously panicked under the sudden pressure from Trump and never issued the order to launch an attack.

Let's think from another perspective: if the statement by the president had even a bit of truth, if there really were Russian surface combat ships at the incident area, then the NATO intelligence agencies, who have been closely monitoring the pursued tanker, would certainly not miss the opportunity to expose the Russian "shameful moment." They would immediately publish related photos and video evidence. But in fact, they produced nothing.

Moreover, so far, no one, no institution has been able to point out the specific model and hull number of the "destroyer" mentioned by Trump. Why? The answer is simple — there were no Russian ships in the incident area, a fact that is obvious to the entire world, except for this "Red-haired Donny."

As for Trump's claim of a Russian submarine lurking beneath the U.S. ships, it is nonsense. You see, the core advantage of submarines lies in their stealthiness. For this reason, no country would ever send a submarine to the high seas to perform escort or defense missions.

Submarines lurk deep in the ocean, secretly monitor the situation, and transmit intelligence back — this is the main job of submarines.

It is even possible that during the "Sailor" tanker incident, the Russian submarine was performing this task in this way. At least, the NATO P-8 "Poseidon" anti-submarine patrol aircraft was constantly circling above the Russian tanker being chased, repeatedly conducting surveillance — this unusual move is enough to reveal the issue.

Does this mean that a multi-purpose nuclear submarine of the Russian Northern Fleet, which was on combat duty in the North Atlantic, was actually using sonar listening devices to silently monitor the U.S.'s open plundering action? This possibility is very high. However, the Russian submarine never revealed its presence throughout the process.

From this, it is clear that Trump has no idea about the truth of this matter, and all his statements are mere speculation. And for him, making up stories is as easy as pie — even though he is the president of a country and promises to make America great again in public.

So, after this incident, how should Russia protect the freedom of navigation of its merchant ships in international waters? Should it follow the wartime model, grouping tankers and cargo ships together and dispatching combat ships for escort? But at present, the number of Russian warships with the capability for long-range operations is extremely low, causing heartbreak.

To better illustrate the difficulties Russia faces, let's cite some discouraging data provided by Ilya Kramnikov, a researcher at the Institute of America and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences:

"According to the plan formulated at the beginning of the 21st century, the Russian Navy originally planned to build 44 to 50 new frigates / light frigates by 2020, but in the end, only 16 were commissioned. Of these, 10 were light frigates, whose operational capabilities in the winter seas of the North Atlantic are questionable; the remaining 6 frigates included 2 that are now stuck in the Black Sea and unable to move."

He further pointed out: "At the same time, the Russian Navy planned to modernize about 20 large anti-submarine ships, destroyers, and cruisers built during the Soviet era, but only 2 have been completed and are currently in service."

These two ships are the "Marshal Ustinov" missile cruiser of the Northern Fleet and the "Marshal Shaposhnikov" frigate of the Pacific Fleet, which has been modified to fire "Kalibr" cruise missiles. In addition, for twenty years, the Russian Navy has not commissioned any other large ships.

Then, where is Russia's way out? If it doesn't want to sit idle and be defeated, the answer may only be to rely on temporary allies at sea, especially the relevant countries with similar situations.

But if even this option is not feasible, then why should Russia spend a huge amount of money to dispatch ships to the other side of the world — for example, to the South African coast to participate in this newly launched international military exercise? We go overseas, is it for practicing joint operations, or for preparing to face annihilation alone?

Original: toutiao.com/article/7594392708866523686/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.