France says it has seized an oil tanker in the Mediterranean suspected of being part of Russia's sanction-busting "shadow fleet".

French President Emmanuel Macron said the tanker, named the Grinch, was "subject to international sanctions and suspected of flying a false flag".

The French navy, with the assistance of allies including the UK, boarded the vessel on Thursday morning between Spain and Morocco. French maritime authorities said that a search of the vessel had "confirmed the doubts as to the regularity of the flag".

Russia's embassy in Paris said it had not been informed of the seizure.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -37 points 9 months ago (23 children)

So now the EU stealing oil as well?

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago*

    When Finland has been boarding ships in the Gulf of Finland (not just oil, the last one was carrying steel), it has eventually let them go.

    But the context has been different: Finland has boarded ships when they've dragged their anchors, which places a gas pipeline, electrical and communications cables in immediate danger, and has resulted in those breaking in the past, which is very expensive and threatens people with loss of services.

    France boarded the ship because they suspected it was not displaying its true flag.

    Last I checked, they ordered it to travel to an anchoring place and wait, while officials and courts move to sort out the matter. What will become of the ship is not yet known. But there is a precendent, if you read the article:

    Last October, France seized another sanctioned tanker, the Boracay, off its west coast before releasing it a few days later.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 17 points 9 months ago (21 children)

    Well technically it's embargoed oil so not quite the same as the Venezuelan fiasco (and Venezuela just got a $300M cheque from Trump for some of that oil).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 9 months ago* (20 children)

    If you beat up someone and then leave some money in their pocket, this is still an assault, not a boxing match.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

    You're stretching it - it's not highway robbery when you catch someone driving a car with fake plates and smuggled goods in the back

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Your scenario makes sense only from the perspective of basically the police and in international relationships there is no police.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Flying false flags is a valid reason for a country to board a ship, according to UNCLOS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    And america painted their planes as civilian ones.

    This is a war crime. I am pointing it out because my point is that international law doesn't exist. The only differentiating factor is wether you are strong enough avoid being judged.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    The existence of crime is not a proof of the inexistence of law. Not that I disagree with the general sentiment that international law is applied to the convenience of whoever is stronger, but the US doing something wrong and not getting punished for it has very little to do with France doing something specifically allowed

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    So countries should be entirely free to do anything they want and nobody is morally correct to stop them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Of course not on either of the statements.

    But I am wondering how can enforcement be done without concentrating power in one county like the US because as we can see this system is very easy to abuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    The difference is that the US is beating up someone who was sitting quietly in a corner, while the EU is beating up someone who has been beating Ukraine to a bloody pulp for the past 4 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    I do agree, and tbh I am trying to work through what a world without a "rules based order" looks like.

    I do not want to defend Russia by no means, but why when Russia invades a neighbor it is bad, but when the US kidnaps a president it isn't(at least portrayed in the news as bad)?

    Especially when both are threatening to invade Europe and allegedly sharing information?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    It's still bad when the US illegally invades a country (without congressional approval) and abducts its head of state. The only people who don't seem to mind that are magas, and they don't seem to mind fascist russia violating international law either.

    This juxtaposition is a bit of a strawman, because both examples are bad and anyone with a moral conscience understands that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Tell me you are an American without telling me you are an American...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    And what exactly do you mean by that?

    Is saying "What trump did is bad, and the only people who support it are maga lunatics" something only an american would do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    No, saying that the problem with invading another country is that it is done without congressional approval is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Way to butcher what I said for the sake of argument.

    Adding what basically amounts to a footnote that he acted without congressional approval doesn't imply that the only reason it was bad was because it lacked congressional approval. It only means that he acted without the consent of the governed, and thus was an unconstitutional overstep of presidential authority.

    You must be king of the scarecrows to have so many strawmen at your disposal...

    What he did was bad, AND he lacked congressional approval. Not "what he did was bad because it lacked congressional approval."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Tbf, makes sense, should have read your comment more carefully.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    After rereading it, I can see how you could get the wrong idea. The important thing to remember is that parenthetical clauses are to be read independently, without modifying the meaning of the clauses outside the parentheses.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Kidnapping foreign presidents is also bad. Maybe not quite as bad as 4 years of bombing and killing, but still bad. I'm no fan of Maduro, and I think Venezuela will be better off without him (but maybe only if it's also without his VP and her family's extensive control of the government apparatus), but this is not a good way to accomplish that.

    So reality is complicated and nuanced, and media doesn't handle that very well. Especially not when they're increasingly becoming propaganda outlets for a fascist regime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Not at all better off. What just happened, since the news is not going to tell you apparently, is the administration made a deal with the military to give up maduro and stand down on the operation to become the de facto power, directing the selling out of concessions through their now puppet civilian leadership.

    There will be resistance when they start moving oil out, the army will commit abuses, likely including paramilitary death squads financed with drug and gun sales on black markets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment