111
Kremlin outraged by detention of Russian shadow fleet tanker, calls it "piracy"
(www.pravda.com.ua)
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
111 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2179 readers
678 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Aren't they technically correct, though? Please spare me with Russia bad, I'm talking technically.
No. Piracy cannot be applied to actions of a state agency.
~~Who~~ Why not?
Piracy by definition only applies to private entities.
Ok, how do we call it when a state does piracy?
We don’t, as it’s impossible for a state to commit piracy.
ie illegally according to international law seize a foreign ship in international waters and sell it's cargo for own profit. How do we call that? Not talking about this case.
Depends what the foreign ship was up to. Could be drug interdiction, sanctions enforcement, warfare etc.
Let's say transporting oil. Nothing illegal according to international laws.
Depends on the ship. You may remember an incident a few months ago where the US intercepted a tanker departing Venuzuela. The tanker was trying to evade sanctions by flying a false flag. This made it stateless and therefore it was within the rights of the US to sieze it and its cargo.
Is it really? I get seizure and everything, but selling it - I guess that could be possible only if owner didn't pay a fine and wouldn't oppose it legally?
OTOH what'd happen if the ship is in order and it still happened that? Or just seizure and torture of its crew just like happened with Global Sumud Flotilla?
Getting off topic here. The actions of a state may not be lawful or justifiable, but they aren’t piracy.
Sure, but how do we call such actions? Just unlawful?
Mostly. In specific circumstances actions can be a cassus belli.
A state can't do piracy itself, so nothing. Define your question in words that are not self contradictory.
Every definition of piracy I've seen includes the fact it's a crime. Lawfully seizing a ship therefore isn't piracy.
Whether or not it's legal is down to deciding who has a better argument: those that subscribe to international law recognized by a majority of countries, or Russia and its allies.
I'm not a legal expert, but this definition sounds like it
Sure, we are talking about piracy in general, not Russian opinion.
It's not for private ends, the Sanctions on Russia are gery very public.
So if Russia passes sanctions against France they can legally seize their freighters too.
Neat!
No.
"Barrel of a gun" (but you kay mot know what that means). But also you didn't lay out what France has done in this hypothetical, but no.
In fact your thinking is absolutely Trumpian, where rules are just there to be manipulated. If not Putin-like, where everything comes down to respect and mafiosa stlye thinking.
Sounds like you have no idea about politics or geopolitics. At least learn the basics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
I know that video but under the name "The Rules for Rulers".
It's obviously not a video for anarchists.
Ideology is a false god.
Oh I quite agree with that. In the end only power matters, and that is what we're seeing in regards to Russia. The USA set a trap and Russia walked right into it. But just because a majority of people agree with something like sanctions, doesn't make it right or "legal". Only power does that, together with the propaganda to ensure everyone thinks the same.
I mean imagine we treated the US like we do Russia lol. Inconceivable because of money of course.
Again, not for private ends
Fuck off with your pro-Russia shit. Bot.
Great argument, thanks.
Hard to argue with someone who is ignoring central arguments.
That's the single critical part on which the remainder of that definition rests.
If a court operating within the confines of the law declares an act legal, then it is to anyone that subscribes to that system of law.
That other guy is trying to defend the rights of an Authoritarian Russian regime that if they got the chance, would take away his rights in a heart beat.
People like that never learn.
It's any illegal acts of violence or detention, wasn't the latter the case?
Also what court has a jurisdiction over international seas?
The international Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, following the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the big one, though in this case really only covers the manner one can legally seize a ship -- the how, not the why.
For that you'd refer to the International Court of Justice (specifically Ukraine v. Russian Federation ), the International Criminal Court (This case in particular. ), and the United Nations General Assembly's United Nations Security Council Resolution 2623.
And yes, those case are all linked and part of determining the legality of seizing Russian "shadow fleet" ships.
You are really trying hard to bend very clear language into you desired outcome. The sentence clearly states "illegal acts of", if the act is not illegal it can't be an "illegal act of violence or dedention". Also, official state forces cannot commit piracy, if acting according to orders from the state. Read your own quote.
You are saying that a XY country could have a law where it says that it's fine to seize any ship in international waters and thus it's all good and legal then when it does so?
That was not your question. Your question was if it was piracy and it is clearly not, based on your own legal quote. Are you ready to agree to that or still denying it?
Words mean something. Funnily enough not even Russian propaganda is making that claim that it was actual piracy.
You are probably right that it's not piracy due to the private ends part, my bad, misunderstood. Hence the question what it is called then since is quite similar to piracy.
What exactly is similar? Who enriched himself?
A vessel suspected to sail under a false flag was inspected in the open sea and the suspucion was confirmed. As such it was diverted in compliance with international law and based on the order if a prosecuter. No profit was made out if that at any point, nor has any report suggested that the vessel lost ny if its freight.
It's literally in the headline and article. It's called detention. As a comparison, when police stop you it's called "being detained". They could seize it too, which is called seizure. Neither of those are piracy, though piracy does require detention or seizure. Obviously not every detention or seizure is piracy though.
Ok, but still, in international water it is an illegal act, isn't it. When police detains you, it is usually legally.
It's legal by whatever state is saying it's legal. If they say it's illegal for Russia to export oil, it is legal for them to detain a ship they suspect of doing so.
That doesn't might it "right" or whatever, however you'd want to try and define that for something like this. It does make it not piracy though. Piracy isn't even necessarily "evil" either. It's a tool. States have sanctioned pirates against their opponent many times in the past. The difference is it isn't the state doing it then.
Yes, but only within that state. In international waters it isn't. So it turns out that the said tanker, at least according to France, was not properly registered and thus was detained, not because of sanctions or whatever where emphasis on articles was. If that's really the case, then it was indeed a legal operation.
Depends, if the ship is sailing as russian and has all paperwork in order. Sure it might be piracy.
More likely however, it’s doing shady shit and that’s a known factor before the boarding.
No, detaining a ship and then a state government having to admit that yes, it is actually theirs isn't piracy, because no wealth or resources were taken from the ship.
It has forced Russia to admit something though.
Not sure whether I follow, can you elaborate? If one detains a ship in international waters under Russian flag full of oil or whatever, how is this not a piracy? And if it is not, then what it is?
It wasn't "under a Russian flag"... hence them having to admit that it was their ship after all.
It is under European sanctions though, as Russia invaded Ukraine. That's why they've been running a "shadow fleet" in the first place. Because their are sanctions against Russian ships and trade. Sanctions from a federation of counties against the war.
Does it matter under what flag, though? As long as they are legally registered it shouldn't. TBH ships are usually registered in all sorts of shady countries.
Also if a group of countries declares sanctions, it doesn't allow them to stop the ships in international waters, does it?
Yes it does, and yes it does.
It matters that it's Russia (because they started the war).
...and it gives Europe the right to do anything they like to oppose Russia.
I'm not into people like YOU propagandistically "arguing the rights and freedoms of authoritarians and fascist".
You're a fucken idiot for defending and devils advocating these fucks. And you can fuck off away from me with your pro Russia BS. Loser.
Their comment history is kinda sus.
*theirs