When does sanctions enforcement become an act of war?
That question ceased being theoretical on Wednesday morning, 190 miles off Iceland’s southern coast, when US military forces boarded and seized the Russian-flagged oil tanker Marinera in international waters. The vessel, empty of cargo but laden with geopolitical significance, had been pursued across the Atlantic for over two weeks by American Coast Guard cutters, surveillance aircraft, and special operations forces staging from British bases. Russian naval assets, including a submarine, shadowed the chase. The boarding was successful. No shots were fired. And the world has moved one boarding party closer to the kind of naval incident that starts wars nobody intended to fight.
The official story is clean enough for a White House press release. The tanker, formerly named Bella 1, was sanctioned in 2024 for operating within Venezuela and Iran’s so-called “shadow fleet.” It had attempted to approach Venezuela in December, refused US Coast Guard boarding, then fled back across the Atlantic while its crew painted a Russian flag on the hull and renamed the vessel. Russia registered it officially on 24 December. The US dismissed this registration as invalid, declared the ship “stateless,” and seized it under a federal warrant as part of President Trump’s blockade of Venezuelan oil. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem celebrated the operation alongside a second Caribbean seizure, declaring: “The world’s criminals are on notice. You can run, but you can’t hide.”
But criminals and pirates depend rather heavily on who is writing the ledger. Because from Moscow’s perspective, and from the perspective of anyone who bothers reading the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, what happened in those North Atlantic waters was not law enforcement. It was extraterritorial coercion backed by military force against a vessel duly registered under a sovereign nation’s flag, sailing in international waters where freedom of navigation is supposed to be sacrosanct. The Russian Transport Ministry’s response was blunt: “No state has the right to use force against vessels duly registered in the jurisdictions of other states.”
The Americans, of course, reject Russia’s claim to the vessel. The Trump administration considers it effectively stateless because its registration came after sanctions and during pursuit. But here lies the bomb that could detonate far beyond one empty tanker. If great powers can unilaterally redefine flag status when convenient, if warrants issued by one nation’s courts can justify boarding operations thousands of miles from its shores, then “international law” becomes a costume that gets swapped depending on who’s holding the ladder.
And the costume is looking rather threadbare.
The Quiet Accomplice in the North Atlantic
Britain’s role in this operation deserves particular scrutiny, not because it led the seizure but because it made the seizure possible. The UK Ministry of Defence confirmed that British forces “provided pre-planned operational support, including basing, to US military assets interdicting the Bella 1 in the UK-Iceland-Greenland gap.” This included surveillance aircraft flying from RAF Mildenhall, refuelling support from RFA Tideforce, and the use of British airbases for the deployment of at least 12 US C-17 transport aircraft, V-22 Ospreys, and AC-130 gunships in the days before the operation.
The language is careful. “Support,” not command. “Pre-planned operational support,” not British initiative. But support is how you make other people’s escalations possible. British bases became forward operating platforms for an American seizure on the high seas. British aircraft provided surveillance. British ships provided operational assistance. All of this happened in one of the most strategically sensitive corridors in the Atlantic, near the Icelandic approaches that Russia monitors closely for precisely these scenarios.
Here is the uncomfortable question for the British public: when did Parliament vote to make the UK a forward staging base for American boarding operations against Russian-flagged vessels in international waters?
The answer, of course, is never. There was no vote. No debate. No parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. The decision was made behind closed doors, presented as routine “enabling support,” and executed without the British people having any say in whether their territory and military assets should be used for operations that risk direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed power. This is how contemporary British sovereignty operates: American requests are treated as commands, parliamentary oversight is treated as an inconvenient formality, and the public learns about their country’s role in potentially explosive operations only after the fact through Ministry of Defence statements.
The British role here exposes the fundamental fraud of the “special relationship.” When Washington decides to seize a Russian ship, London provides the bases, the aircraft, and the naval support. When the blowback comes, whether through Russian counter-moves, economic disruption, or escalating tensions in contested waters, British communities will pay the price through higher energy costs, security threats, and the consequences of a more dangerous maritime environment. But the decision to take those risks was never theirs to make.
Escalation Logic: One Collision Away from Crisis
Reports confirm that Russian naval assets were repositioning during the pursuit, including submarine movements that shadowed or positioned near the tanker before its seizure. Now consider the next iteration of this script.
A sanctioned ship sails with an armed escort. The US attempts to board anyway. A collision occurs. A warning shot escalates. Somebody dies in the cold North Atlantic water. The headlines shift from “sanctions enforcement” to “incident” to “Russian aggression” to “NATO response required.”
This is how wars begin in the modern age. Not with declarations from foreign ministries, not with manifestos or ultimatums, but with “operations.” With lawyers arguing about flag status and admirals positioning assets and politicians declaring that strong enforcement of sanctions is necessary to uphold the international order. Each step seems reasonable in isolation. Each step is justified by the step before. And then one morning the world wakes to find that a tanker boarding has become a naval confrontation has become a crisis that nobody wanted but everyone is now locked into.
Alexei Zhuravlev, first deputy head of Russia’s State Duma Defence Committee, has already called for “torpedo attacks and the sinking of a couple of American Coast Guard boats,” describing the seizure as “the most ordinary piracy” and “an attempt on Russian territory.” His rhetoric may be inflammatory, but it reflects how Moscow views the precedent being set. If the US can seize Russian-flagged vessels with impunity, Russia can and will respond somewhere, sometime, in ways designed for deniability but calculated to restore what it perceives as strategic balance.
The immediate danger is not a deliberate war but an accidental one. The kind that starts when protocols fail, when communications break down, when a nervous officer makes a split-second decision in contested waters and transforms a boarding operation into an international crisis. The Marinera seizure was successful. The next one might not be.
The Economic Weapon’s New Face
Why the obsession with tankers? Because oil at sea is the circulatory system of the global economy, and whoever controls the sea lanes controls the system.
If the US can credibly threaten to seize sanctioned vessels “anywhere in the world”, as Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has declared regarding the Venezuelan blockade, then it is not simply sanctioning states or companies. It is disciplining global trade routes. It is asserting that American law applies wherever American power can reach, and American power can reach quite far when backed by aircraft carriers, surveillance networks, and allies willing to provide basing rights without parliamentary debate.
The consequences of this disciplining cascade downward, as they always do:
Shipping insurers price in political risk. Premiums rise for vessels operating in contested regions or carrying cargoes from disfavoured states. Freight rates increase. Energy costs climb, particularly for import-dependent nations like the UK that cannot afford to alienate their American patron. Smaller states learn that “neutral waters” are only neutral if Washington approves. And the entire architecture of maritime trade, built on the principle that the high seas are free for all nations, corrodes into a system where might makes right and possession of overwhelming naval force determines whose interpretation of international law prevails.
Sanctions, in this new dispensation, are not economic measures. They are kinetic operations. Boarding parties are not legal mechanisms but military acts. And the fiction that there is any meaningful distinction between economic coercion and physical force dissolves when Coast Guard cutters pursue tankers across oceans and special operations forces rappel onto decks at gunpoint.
The US position, as always, is that it is enforcing a rules-based international order. But what does that order look like from the deck of the Marinera? What does it look like to the ordinary sailors, now detained and facing trial in American courts for alleged sanctions violations, whose ship was boarded in international waters while flying a flag their employers had legally obtained? What does it look like to the Russian government, which followed proper registration procedures and then watched American forces ignore those procedures because Washington decided they didn’t count?
It looks like a permissions-based order. And the rest of us are expected to applaud because the right people did it.
The Moral Problem: Whose Rules? Whose Order?
The West lectures the world about sovereignty, borders, and respect for international law. These lectures are delivered with great sincerity and moral certainty. They accompanied sanctions on Russia over Ukraine. They justified interventions in Libya, Iraq, Syria. They underpin the entire post-1945 settlement and the institutions that supposedly govern relations between states.
But what does the world observe when it watches American forces seize a foreign-flagged ship in international waters based on a unilateral interpretation of sanctions law, while Britain provides operational support and NATO remains silent?
It observes power doing what power does: writing its own permissions and calling it law.
The legal argument about flag status is complex. The vessel was sanctioned before its Russian registration. The registration came during active pursuit. The US questions its validity. Russia insists it was properly granted. Reasonable legal minds could debate these points endlessly. But the ultimate question is not legal but political: does any nation have the right to enforce its domestic law on the high seas by seizing vessels flying another nation’s flag?
Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the US has not ratified but claims to observe as customary law, the answer is categorically no. Freedom of navigation on the high seas is foundational. Ships enjoy the protection of their flag state. Seizures are permissible only for jus cogens violations like piracy or slave trading, or within territorial waters where coastal states have jurisdiction. None of these conditions applied to the Marinera.
The Trump administration’s response is that the vessel was stateless, therefore fair game. But if the US can simply declare vessels stateless when their flag registration is politically inconvenient, then flag state protection becomes meaningless. Any ship carrying cargo Washington dislikes can be declared stateless, boarded, and seized. The high seas become American waters wherever American naval power extends. And freedom of navigation becomes a privilege granted to compliant states rather than a right possessed by all.
This is not theoretical musing. It is happening, in real time, on real oceans, with real consequences for how maritime trade will function in an increasingly multipolar world. China is watching. Iran is watching. Every state that depends on ocean shipping is watching. And they are learning that international law protects you only if you are strong enough to enforce your interpretation of it, or lucky enough to have the strongest navy on your side.
Who Pays? Who Profits?
The pattern is depressingly familiar. Elites in Washington and London make decisions about sanctions enforcement, blockades, and naval operations. They do so behind closed doors, without democratic debate, justified by national security imperatives and the need for operational secrecy. The costs of these decisions, however, are socialised across working-class communities who had no vote on the policies and no stake in the geopolitical games being played.
Higher energy prices are borne by families struggling with heating bills, not by defence contractors or financial speculators. Escalating tensions create security risks for port workers, merchant sailors, and coastal communities, not for politicians conducting briefings in climate-controlled offices thousands of miles inland. The erosion of international maritime law threatens the livelihoods of millions who depend on stable, predictable shipping routes, but the decision-makers who are undermining that stability face no personal consequences when supply chains break or insurance costs spike.
Meanwhile, the beneficiaries of this new maritime order are easy to identify. American defence contractors profit from increased naval deployments. Private security firms gain contracts to protect shipping in now-contested waters. Financial speculators make fortunes betting on oil price volatility created by blockades and seizures. And political leaders burnish their credentials as tough on adversaries, never mind that their toughness is being exercised thousands of miles from their own shores at someone else’s expense.
This is class politics dressed up as foreign policy. The decisions are made by elites who profit from instability. The costs are paid by working people who need stability to survive. And the entire edifice is justified by appeals to values like “rules-based order” and “democratic values” that become increasingly hollow the more closely you examine who is writing the rules and which democracies are being consulted.
Where This Goes Next
The seizure of the Marinera sits within a wider context that makes it more alarming, not less. It follows directly from the Trump administration’s military operation to capture Venezuelan President NicolΓ‘s Maduro, an unprecedented act of extraterritorial regime change that shattered whatever remained of international norms around sovereign immunity. It precedes, almost certainly, further confrontations as the US expands its naval blockade and other powers respond with their own counters.
Trump has announced that Venezuela will transfer 30 to 50 million barrels of oil to US control, with proceeds managed by Washington to “benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.” The interim Venezuelan government, installed after Maduro’s capture, has little choice but to comply. This is gunboat diplomacy in its purest form: regime change, resource seizure, and naval blockades all wrapped in the language of democracy promotion and counter-narcotics.
The implications extend far beyond Venezuela or one Russian tanker:
Sanctions are now kinetic. Boarding parties are not economic measures. The distinction between financial coercion and military force has collapsed.
The UK is being pulled deeper into US enforcement operations. Parliament has no meaningful oversight. The costs will land here too.
Russia will respond somewhere, sometime, in a manner calculated for deniability. That is how great powers play when cornered.
The world’s sea lanes are becoming contested space again. Ordinary people will pay through prices, instability, and risk.
Most fundamentally, we are watching the rules-based international order give way to something else. Something older. Something based not on agreed principles but on the projection of overwhelming force and the willingness to use it. The veneer of legality remains, the paperwork and warrants and official statements. But underneath, the logic is simple: we have the ships, we make the rules, and if you don’t like it, try stopping us.
The Stakes for Britain
For Britain, trapped between American power and its own diminished status, the choices ahead are stark. London can continue playing junior partner to Washington’s maritime enforcement operations, providing bases and support while pretending this involves no risk and costs nothing. Or Parliament can insist on democratic oversight over how British territory and assets are used for operations that could spark conflicts affecting British security and economic interests.
The first option is easier. It requires no difficult conversations with Washington. It maintains the fiction that Britain still punches above its weight through its special relationship. It allows ministers to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and public debate about the risks they are taking with other people’s security.
The second option requires courage that has been conspicuously absent from British foreign policy for decades. It means telling Washington that British bases cannot be used for operations Parliament has not debated. It means recognising that Britain’s interests do not always align with American interests, particularly when American policy is being driven by an administration willing to tear up international norms in pursuit of hemispheric dominance. It means accepting that the special relationship has become a relationship where Britain provides the bases and America makes the decisions, and asking whether that serves anyone except those profiting from perpetual instability.
The Marinera was seized on Wednesday. The tanker Sophia was seized the same day in the Caribbean. More operations are planned. The blockade of Venezuelan oil continues, backed by naval assets and special forces operating from bases that include British territory. Each seizure is a precedent. Each boarding is a rehearsal. And rehearsals have a habit of becoming opening nights, whether the audience wants the show or not.
This is not just a tanker. It is a signal about the world being built while democratic publics are kept in the dark. It is a preview of how power will operate when even the pretence of agreed rules has been discarded. And it is a test: not of naval strength or legal interpretation, but of whether democratic societies can reclaim control over decisions that put their security, their prosperity, and their future at risk.
The answer to that test will determine far more than the fate of one empty oil tanker in the North Atlantic.
The high seas are supposed to be free for all nations, but freedom costs nothing when you own all the warships. The price comes later, in currencies democracy never agreed to pay.
Support Independent Journalism Today
Our unwavering dedication is to provide you with unbiased news, diverse perspectives, and insightful opinions. We're on a mission to ensure that those in positions of power are held accountable for their actions, but we can't do it alone. Labour Heartlands is primarily funded by me, Paul Knaggs, and by the generous contributions of readers like you. Your donations keep us going and help us uphold the principles of independent journalism. Join us in our quest for truth, transparency, and accountability β donate today and be a part of our mission!
Like everyone else, we're facing challenges, and we need your help to stay online and continue providing crucial journalism. Every contribution, no matter how small, goes a long way in helping us thrive. By becoming one of our donors, you become a vital part of our mission to uncover the truth and uphold the values of democracy.
While we maintain our independence from political affiliations, we stand united against corruption, injustice, and the erosion of free speech, truth, and democracy. We believe in the power of accurate information in a democracy, and we consider facts non-negotiable.
Your support, no matter the amount, can make a significant impact. Together, we can make a difference and continue our journey toward a more informed and just society.
Thank you for supporting Labour Heartlands
