On 23 July 2026, the EU announced that it had reached an agreement to seize ships carrying oil bought in Russia and confiscate and sell their cargo, regardless of the flag they might be flying. The EU’s ‘Foreign Minister’, Kaja Kallas, proudly announced that “Any illegal voyage helps to sustain Russia’s war machine. We are backing up our sanctions with action at sea.” Apart from the Greeks, who are concerned about the consequences for their large merchant fleet, it appears that all EU countries are quite satisfied with the decision. They do not seem to see any major problems with it.

Before we look at what this decision will mean for shipping on the world’s oceans, it is worth considering whether it is lawful under international agreements and the law of the sea.

It has, after all, become commonplace to talk about Russia’s 'shadow fleet', which might suggest that something illegal is going on. However, there is no clear definition of ‘shadow fleet’ other than that it refers to ships sailing under flags of convenience (e.g. Panama, Cameroon and Oman). So when an EU country buys oil from, say, Nigeria, it will often be transported by a tanker that flies neither an EU nor a Nigerian flag, regardless of who the owner may be. So that cannot, of course, be where the 'illegality' lies. It is worth noting that the so-called 'Russian shadow fleet' is not necessarily owned by a Russian shipping company. It may simply be a ship sailing under one flag or another with oil purchased in Russia or another country that the US or the EU has seen fit to sanction, primarily Iran and Venezuela.

The G7, together with the EU and Australia (the so-called 'Price Cap Coalition'), has decided that ships carrying oil bought in Russia must not have paid more than 47.60 dollars per barrel (the international price is currently between 80 and 90 dollars). Any ship carrying oil bought at a higher price is to be regarded as “illegal”. Until recently, the decision had been that it could not be insured by Western insurance companies or dock at Western ports. But now this has been tightened so that it can be boarded and the cargo confiscated.

I can see that many clever legal minds have examined the issue from every angle regarding its legality. Now, legal issues are not my strong suit, but if I have understood it correctly, there is broad agreement that it is lawful within the jurisdictions of the participating countries, but not under international law (in particular the UNCLOS Convention). In other words, it is contrary to applicable international law to board and confiscate other countries’ ships. It may well be lawful to stop a ship within a country’s territorial waters (within the 12-nautical-mile limit) to check, for example, whether it is lawfully registered or environmentally sound. Still, it is clearly unlawful to seize (and resell) it. Unless, of course, we are talking about two countries at war with one another. But as far as I am aware, the EU has not yet declared war on Russia.

It appears that the EU’s decision also applies to ships sailing under Russian flag – so it is not a question of a “shadow fleet”. But, to my knowledge, they have not yet dared to seize a ship flying the Russian flag. Russia has apparently taken steps to start transferring ships from flags of convenience to the Russian flag. It is claimed that 200 ships that had been sanctioned as part of the ‘shadow fleet’ have now switched to the Russian flag, but that is difficult to verify. Some of them have apparently come under sanctions because they are carrying, or have carried, oil bought in Iran and Venezuela. According to TASS, 1,000 ships were queuing to be re-registered in Russia in April, possibly including foreign-owned ships.

To summarise, the crux of the matter is that these ships are labelled 'illegal', not because they are 'shadow', but because they are 'breaching international sanctions'. However, there is a catch: these sanctions are not international; they are G7 sanctions. Over the last few years, there has thus been a shift in the understanding of international law and the right to freedom of navigation on the world’s oceans (UNCLOS). It is now the G7, together with the EU and Australia, that determines what constitutes international law. Take a look at the map below to understand what the West means when it talks about 'international'.

This is what the international community looks like from the G7’s perspective. The red countries are the G7, whilst the purple ones are the other EU countries. Australia would also like to join the coalition, even though it is neither a member of the G7 nor the EU, so it has been coloured green. The rest of the countries are apparently not part of the ‘international community’. The map was created using the tool from https://www.simplemaplab.com.

Russia has announced that it will not stand idly by, but will respond. Though not necessarily in a symmetrical manner. Why is it that the EU is so unconcerned about what Russia’s response might be?

As discussed previously, the military strength of the EU and NATO is many times greater than that of Russia. For example, NATO has more than 20,000 military aircraft compared to Russia’s just over 4,000; NATO has more than 11,000 tanks compared to Russia’s just over 6,000; NATO has over 3 million soldiers compared to Russia’s just over 1 million, and so on. But what about the navy? NATO has a fleet of 2,800 vessels, whilst Russia has only 750; and if we look at deadweight tonnage, NATO has more than 9.5 million tonnes (of which the US accounts for 8.2), compared to Russia’s 1.4.

If we consider the ability to board and seize ships, it is relevant to look at the blue-water fleet, and here Russia is clearly outclassed. The Russian navy is primarily intended to defend the national territory, so it consists mainly of smaller, missile-armed coastal vessels, such as corvettes. NATO’s fleet, by contrast, is designed to project power across the world’s oceans, so here it is aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers that dominate. NATO has 15 aircraft carriers, 11 of which are American nuclear-powered vessels, whilst Russia has barely one (it has been in the shipyard for repair since 2017). So the reason the EU is so unconcerned about Russia's reaction is probably because they can see that Russia is completely inferior on the world's oceans.

As a side note, however, one may have doubts as to how well-suited NATO’s ocean-going fleet is to intercepting Russian tankers. Aircraft carriers are a cumbersome affair, as they require a group of naval vessels to defend them (typically 5–7 cruisers and destroyers) – the Americans call it a 'battle group'. The escort fleet cannot simply leave the aircraft carrier alone to go chasing Russian tankers, so it will not be an easy task on the high seas.

But back to Russia's possible reaction. The first step Russia has taken is to deploy two frigates to the Baltic Sea to escort its oil and gas tankers out, and the escort sometimes follows them on to pass the English Channel. But the question is whether, given Russia’s modest fleet of 20–30 active ocean-going vessels, this is a viable strategy.

President Vladimir Putin said about a week ago that Russia would respond in kind if European countries began to seize Russian merchant ships. “Naturally, this is nothing less than piracy and robbery. And if this begins to be put into practice, we will be forced to respond with measures of the same nature. And not necessarily in the waters where attacks on our ships and vessels are planned, but wherever we ourselves deem it necessary and appropriate.”

It is, of course, common in the West to say that ‘Putin is bluffing’. It would be unwise to assume that this is the case here. The EU’s decision to seize Russian ships is, after all, a declaration that it intends to exclude the country from the world’s oceans. This comes very close to a declaration of war, but, of course, it fits in very well with the martial spirit currently prevailing in the EU. It can easily end in a tit-for-tat escalation, as we have seen in the US’s recent wars against Iran.

If the European countries – and that means, first and foremost, the UK and France – truly intend to go through with this, Russia’s response will have unpredictable consequences for commercial shipping on the world’s oceans. Even if, as tensions escalate, NATO were to succeed in confining most of Russia’s modest military and civilian fleets to the Baltic and Black Seas, Russia would still be able to inflict significant damage on Western civilian shipping. If Russia’s naval and civilian fleets are confined to St Petersburg, it will undoubtedly confine Finland, the Baltic states and, to some extent, Sweden and Germany to the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia. Russia possesses a vast missile arsenal capable of sinking Western ships far from its shores. It also has over 60 ocean-going submarines, 16 of which are nuclear-powered. It is a Pandora’s box that the EU is opening.

As the graphic shows, the EU’s foreign trade is critically dependent on maritime transport. The illustration is based on the EU Statistical Pocketbook 2017–24 and reproduced from the European Union Agency for Maritime Safety (EMSA).

The European countries are among the world’s leading maritime nations. According to a study by the European Shipowners’ Association, the European merchant fleet accounts for almost 35 per cent of the global fleet. And as they state in the study: “Global, open trade is a cornerstone of Europe’s competitiveness. Europe is far more trade-oriented than the US or China and continues to build strong trade partnerships across the globe.” Is this really something the EU is prepared to jeopardise with the stroke of a pen? The EU’s economy is already reeling from the Union’s decision to abstain from buying Russian oil and gas. Are they now set to deal their economy yet another blow?

A convoy of commercial shipa under allied navy escort near Iceland during the Second World War. Is this how the EU envisages the future of shipping? Photo from Wikimedia.

Once again, one has to ask whether the EU’s leaders – Ursula, Kaja, Mette, Emmanuel, Friedrich and whatever their names are – really have thought through the consequences of what they are up to. If so, they ought to tell their people what they expect EU shipping to look like in the future, once they have put their brilliant plan into action. I suspect that they haven’t thought it through at all. They’re simply a flock of headless chickens which constitutes a threat to their own populations.