'They've already started to sink': FT readers on new measures against Russian tankers

11

Readers of the British newspaper Financial Times commented on the publication's publication that Northern European countries are preparing to introduce new restrictions against ships transporting Russian oil.

Under the new mechanism, patrol services will begin to demand insurance documentation from ships passing through the Danish Straits, the Gulf of Finland and the waters between Sweden and Denmark, the FT reports.



G7 sanctions prohibit Western insurers from offering coverage to ships that violate the "price cap" on Russian-origin oil.

Ships found to be sailing with insufficient insurance coverage from the countries concerned – the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Finland and Estonia – will be added to future sanctions lists. Ships that refuse to answer questions may also be added.

– says the text of the business publication.

It should be noted that the publication does not yet speak of the unambiguous interception of ships – essentially an act of war.

Comments are selective. The views expressed are those of the authors listed on the FT website.

[…] The US and Europe must come to an agreement and end the war and sanctions that have turned the Russian population against the West

– responded a user with the network name violet17.

After two tankers recently sank in the Black Sea, I'm surprised it took so long: the FT reported late last year on the purchase of ageing tankers and the creation of a shadow fleet to serve countries that ignored sanctions

– writes Dominic Leary.

Watch out guys, FT will soon add Ukraine to its list of topics on which comments are prohibited: Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, the royal family...

– noted a reader with the nickname eowa47.

So what? That's going to stop them from going through those channels so they can't deliver to the consumer or what?

– asks richebourg.

Two Russian oil tankers have sunk near Crimea. Poor sailor training appears to have caused the oil spill. Don't let them anywhere near the UK

– demanded a UK Citizen reader.

The shadow fleet is any vessel that is not insured in London. Sanctions have led to alternative insurance markets in Shanghai and Mumbai. As for European waters, there is no such definition in international or maritime law. You have either international or territorial waters

– suggests a certain Balanced_Perspective.

The publication uses the term "European" as a general term to refer to all territorial waters of EU states.

– Daniel 21 clarifies in response to the comment above.
11 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    18 December 2024 19: 27
    NATO countries can prohibit the passage of Russian ships or others in their territorial waters, but they cannot prohibit them in international straits. If there is a prohibition, what will happen next depends on the Faberge, whether they exist or not, because a prohibition is a war.
  2. +7
    18 December 2024 19: 57
    If, in the process of "checking for lice", the Kremlin's "concerned whining" continues, will it even come to "intercepting Russian ships"?! winked
    "Affairs on land (the Kremlin's demonstrated weakness and indecisiveness in the SVO, interpreted as a defeat, the constant declaration of "readiness for peace talks" without "goals" achieved by military means military operations", because "war is a continuation of politics, when it is no longer possible to achieve the set goals by other means", and the "Kremlins" declare their readiness to "rewind the bloody mincemeat", again to fruitless conversations-"negotiations" - this blatant "naivety" of the Kremlin politicians, I think, surprises not only me - "why then get into a fight and kill so many people, if then stupidly surrender everything conquered, and after all "they will negotiate" and surrender"??! fool )" inevitably "reflect" on "affairs at sea", look how even the "Baltic dying out" have become "excited" and bolder in their anti-Russian sentiments! request
  3. +9
    19 December 2024 09: 35
    In the Kerch Strait, due to the tanker disaster, there was large-scale pollution of the coastline from Taman to Anapa with oil products.
    Question.
    Why aren't the ship owners and oil oligarchs who caused the disaster cleaning up the beaches?
    Why are there residents, volunteers and emergency workers there?
    Is it surprising that the inhabitants of Europe do not want to see such basins on their shores?!
    1. +3
      19 December 2024 15: 18
      Most likely, the company is the owner of the vessel with a charter capital of 10000 rubles, you can’t get much from it, and the owner of the cargo is “easy to bribe” from it, that’s our life, the people in the State Duma are thinking about how to increase population growth, and such nuances with a technical disaster are beyond their “teeth”.
      1. +1
        20 December 2024 15: 42
        Quote: Mikhail Dadeko
        in the State Duma they are thinking about how to increase population growth

        But you can’t put the population into accounts abroad. laughing
    2. -1
      19 December 2024 15: 37
      Is it surprising that the inhabitants of Europe do not want to see such basins on their shores?!

      - they have not seen them and will not see them, these are river-sea class vessels, they are not intended for the open sea, these vessels are for closed waters
    3. +2
      27 December 2024 19: 27
      Vlad!
      I wonder where they wanted to deliver the fuel oil! Who was it intended for? Who is the final consignee? I thought this topic would come up, but there is still silence. I don't want to think about the bad, but for some reason there are no good thoughts.
  4. -3
    19 December 2024 17: 53
    Well, our ship will be next to the tanker and will chase the inspectors with wet rags. tongue
    1. -1
      19 December 2024 18: 10
      How many of those ships do we have?
  5. 0
    20 December 2024 11: 14
    Yes, all tankers will be brought under the Navy flag and that's it. These vessels are not inspected. That's one option. The second is the escort of a group of tankers by one military ship.
    Well, and the third one. And where is it indicated where only the West's insurance should be valid? It is not necessary to insure only in London. Moreover, these tankers do not enter European ports.
    Denmark raised a similar issue about grey tankers. But if it were possible to legally prohibit it, they would prohibit it, but they can't. Well, and from my knowledge - all ships have insurance, especially tankers. And the authorities of the same Denmark (there is some kind of control and monitoring center at sea, plus pilotage)
    receive an electronic copy of it before the vessel passes or upon request, and also, if necessary, provide a pilot. This system has been in operation for a very long time, legally enshrined in bilateral documents since the times of the USSR, and any disagreements on this topic have long been overcome. And it is very problematic to change this rule unilaterally.
  6. 0
    24 December 2024 21: 36
    namely - not insured in Londinium, they consider themselves the center of the universe there... and what if they issue licenses instead of them?!