Playing pirates on the high seas was once a bankrupt king’s scheme, then an empire schoolboy’s game — first for the Portuguese, then the Dutch, then the British, and now the MAGA Americans.
From the Hollywood films he watched when he was in short pants, Donald Trump did not learn that the naval war the US waged from 1801 to 1805 against Yusuf Qaramanli, the Bey of Tripoli, and against his navy, the so-called Barbary pirates, ended in defeat for the US Navy — with the extra humiliation of US Navy ships captured and hostages taken.
Little Trump pretended that when he sang the Marines’ Hymn, he would be the “first to fight for right and freedom… From the Halls of Montezuma/To the shores of Tripoli… In the snow of far-off Northern lands/And in sunny tropic scenes.” Now that he’s in long pants, Trump is singing the song with slightly different geography – from the Halls of Panama to the shores of Gaza, and in the snow of far-off Canada and Greenland.
The sing-song idea is to prepare the Greenland shore for MAGA forays against the Russians moving eastward along their northern, Arctic shore; and with the Finns, Swedes, Norwegians and Danes to attack the Russians moving westward on the Baltic Sea to the Danish Straits. In MAGA strategy, this combination should stop the Russian oil and gas fleets from moving in either direction.
Unless the Russians fight back — and Trump retreats to sign a treaty of peace and amity. Just like Thomas Jefferson did with the Bey in 1805.
Top: left, Darryl Zanuck’s film of March 1942 was the first of Hollywood’s Libya films. It was followed in July 1947 from Universal Pictures by Slave Girl. Bottom: left, Barbary Pirate was released by Columbia Pictures in November 1949; right, Tripoli screened a year later, in November 1950, from Paramount Pictures. All but Barbary Pirate were popular at the box office. The principal Libyan Arab parts were played by German, Austrian or English actors. Read The Jackals’ Wedding, Ch.7.
“The narrow stretch of water between Denmark and Sweden at the mouth of the Baltic Sea is a key trade route for Russian oil heading by sea to markets around the world. Under a 165-year-old treaty signed in Copenhagen in 1857 all international vessels have the right to transit the straits but Denmark must make pilots available to help vessels navigate its many islands and sandbanks.The UN’s International Maritime Organisation “highly recommends” the use of pilots but it is not compulsory. Members of the Danish shipping industry fear that sanctions on Russian trade could lead to a rise in dangerous unpiloted vessels. ‘Failure to comply with the rules and recommendations of the IMO will not only pose an environmental risk to Danish territorial waters. It will also pose a risk to the safety of navigation and the crew members on board the ships,’ the Danish Maritime Authority said.” Source: https://www.ft.com/
On Tuesday, there appeared in Vzglyad an essay explaining what Russia’s options are in the Baltic and at the Danish Straits. Vzglyad is a government-financed internet publication in Moscow which publishes a variety of views and policy options in current debate by the ministry and security agencies represented in the Security Council. The writer is Gevorg Mirzayan, an associate professor at the University of Finance and research fellow of the US-Canada Studies Institute in Moscow. Click to read in Russian.
In translating this verbatim into English, illustrations, maps, captions, and URL references have been added to assist the reader. Mirzayan does not acknowledge nor dispute the accuracy of the English version of his text.
February 11, 2025
How to protect Russian oil exports in the Baltic
By Gevorg Mirzayan
“To sink European ships harshly and decisively when trying to seize tankers with Russian oil, do not hesitate to kill European police soldiers.” Such recommendations are made by experts in the event that the countries of the Baltic region actually put into operation their plans for a naval blockade of Russian oil exports.
A new era of piracy may begin in the Baltic Sea. The European Union is going to proclaim it if the EU implements its intention to hunt down Russian oil – or rather, tankers carrying Russian oil. Ships sailing under various flags, carrying black gold and not subject to Western oil sanctions, including the so–called price ceiling.
The motives of the European pirates are simple and at the same time multifaceted. For example, some countries want to achieve a direct Russian-American conflict, or at least disrupt the US Administration’s plans for negotiations with Russia.
“Supporters of the continuation of the war, such as Poland and the Baltic states, want to achieve such a serious aggravation of Russian-American relations that the issue of a Ukrainian settlement will dematerialize by itself,” Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, explains to Vzglyad. This is because this element of Europeans understands that Russian-American agreements can be reached without regard for Europe. After all, Poland, the Baltic states and a number of other European countries not only profit from the conflict, but they also increase their political leverage in the European Union through it.
“This story shows that the Europeans are even worse for us than the Americans. They are very afraid that Trump and Putin will find a common language. Escalation will seriously reduce any chances of reaching a consensus between Moscow and Washington,” Dmitry Ofitserov–Belsky, senior researcher at IMEMO RAN, explains to Vzglyad.
RUSSIAN NAVY FIRES ON BRITISH VESSELS AT THE DOGGER BANK, 1904
On the night of October 21-22, 1904, a squadron of the Russian Baltic fleet, enroute to the Pacific, spotted what they thought were Japanese torpedo boats; in fact, they were British fishing trawlers. The location was the Dogger Bank of the North Sea, 350 kilometres west of the Danish Straits, 100 kms east of Hull on the English coast. At the time, the British and Japanese were warfighting allies against Russia – as they are now. There was thus reason for the Russian naval commanders to suspect the vessels of mining the Danish Straits to block transit for the Russian Navy. Two British fishermen died, six more were injured, one trawler was sunk, and five more boats were damaged.
To be sure, not all of Europe is categorically against peace. There are also those who advocate a settlement; that’s to say, a settlement from a position of force, compelling Russia to make serious concessions. Therefore, they are trying to adapt to Washington’s policy, and at the same time lead it in the direction they need.
“The Europeans realized that the main issue with which the United States will try to put pressure on Russia is the economy and the price of oil,” says Dmitry Suslov. And so Europe is trying to show Trump – he has repeatedly stated his readiness to force Russia into his vision of the world — that it has prepared in advance for him a powerful instrument of pressure on Moscow. According to the Estonian Foreign Ministry, up to 50% of Russian oil passes through the Baltic Sea.
Left to right: Dmitry Suslov; Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky; Igor Yushkov.
“The total volume of exports of petroleum products through the Baltic ports of Primorsk, Vysotsk, St. Petersburg and Ust-Luga in 2024 amounted to almost 62 million tonnes. We won’t be able to transfer all this to other ports. And if we are prevented from using the Baltic ports, we will have to reduce exports and production altogether,” Igor Yushkov explains to Vzglyad; he is an expert at the National Energy Security Foundation and a lecturer at the Financial University.
Thus, Europe is seeking the go-ahead, or even better, the participation of the United States in a de facto naval blockade – that is, the arrest and inspection of Russian ships in the Baltic.
“By doing so, the Europeans will also deepen the involvement of the United States in the Ukrainian story. They will make sure that the Trump Administration does not shift or even pursue the goal of shifting the further burden of maintaining Ukraine, including the issue of security guarantees, on to the Europeans. They want to force the United States to support the Europeans more, to listen to the Europeans more, to ensure the Europeans’ place at the negotiating table on settlement issues,” says Suslov.
The only question is how to create a legal basis for the inspection and blockade. Europe does not have legal and at the same time safe methods which do not provoke a direct military clash or even a major war. European security forces cannot detain Russian tankers in neutral waters, much less block their passage through the Danish Straits – this is prohibited by the Copenhagen Convention of 1857.
For a CIA analysis of terms of 1857 straits treaty applied to the mid-1970s, read this: Source: https://www.cia.gov/
“At the moment these same Danes can perform a kind of manipulation in the event that a Russian ship is at anchor. But they can’t berth at European ports at all. So, attempts at interception [at sea] would be illegitimate,” Officer-Belsky reminds.
Theoretically, there are several options. For example, one can think about ecology. “The Copenhagen Convention of 1857 provides no right to stop or detain ships which pass through the Straits. However, at the same time, the Danes are committed to ensuring the safety of navigation, and this obligation can be interpreted very broadly; for example, by invoking environmental safety, and under this pretext, prohibiting the passage of old tankers through the straits,” says Yushkov.
But what does old mean? A tanker cannot go to sea without having the proper technical certificate certifying its full technical serviceability. And besides, this could be a blow to Europe itself. “If such a condition is imposed, what should we do with the old tankers that go through the straits to Gdansk in Poland or Rostock in Germany? If you look at what is currently in the Polish port, you will find out: There are much older tankers there than those that go to Russian ports,” adds Yushkov.
For this Dutch legal analysis, click to read. For a Danish law firm’s paper advertising for sale its advice to shipping companies, maritime insurers, and NATO warfighters on how to evade the existing terms for Russian passage, read this.
Finally, according to Yushkov, Western countries may declare tankers carrying Russian oil as potential saboteurs who disrupt underwater communications. However, there are no precedents – a Western investigation has just shown that Russian tankers do not plough the bottom and do not deliberately tear up communications. For example, Norway recently released a ship with a Russian crew detained on such suspicion, without finding any evidence of criminal acts.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com
In any case, further escalation will largely depend on Moscow’s possible response. Russia, on the other hand, has understandable limitations in protecting offshore oil exports. “These tankers often do not have Russian owners, they do not sail under the Russian flag, and sometimes even the crew is not Russian,” explains Ofitserov-Belsky. In addition, according to him, going straight to a military clash right after the ship was stopped, even if illegally, is a disproportionate response.
But it is also impossible not to answer. “If we don’t respond, it means that pressure can be exerted on us. We can experiment further, gradually increasing the pressure,” proposes Ofitserov-Belsky. Therefore, it is necessary, rather than to use force in defending oneself, but to apply tit for tat and mirror. A symmetrical response, according to the expert, could be a similar Russian inspection, for example, of Finnish ships.
However, other experts suggest that Russians should still defend themselves, despite all the legal restrictions. “We need to escort tankers with ships of the Baltic Fleet and, if necessary, use military force against the Europeans. Right now, [our line should be:] do not hesitate to harshly and decisively sink European ships when [they are] trying to seize tankers carrying Russian oil, and do not hesitate to kill European police officers and military personnel. And at the same time, strengthen nuclear deterrence and declare that in the event of retaliatory attacks by the Europeans on Russian military vessels, it will be possible to launch a nuclear strike on Europe,” Suslov declares.
Simply put, this is because the West has long understood only the language of force. The tactic Europe is trying to adopt is the slow strangulation of Russia’s offshore oil exports. If the alternative is a direct military clash, Europe will retreat.
NOTE: Much closer to the shores of Montezuma, Trump is launching state-directed piracy, known as privateering under letters of marque and reprisal provided in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. During the Biden Administration an attempt was made to transfer this authority to launch privateers from Congress to the President; the explicit target was Russian vessels at sea moving cargoes in violation of US sanctions. The bill failed to pass. A new bill with the same purpose has now been launched by tweet by Mike Lee, Republican senator from Utah. With or without a new statute, Trump may believe he can use executive orders to launch privateering ventures and then threaten targets wherever the investors in such schemes – following the Civil War and Spanish War precedents, and the CIA in Vietnam – believe there is lucrative profit to be made. If Trump’s friends, campaign donors, and members of his family turn out to be investors, Trump will be doing no more than Queen Elizabeth I and Captain Francis Drake once did in getting his cut.
