site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   692 thread views

Transnational Thursday for May 15, 2025

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Estonia has asserted its right to inspect tankers transiting the Baltic under the international laws for maritime protection, which was also backed up by a European Commission decision requiring tankers to provide proof of insurance when transiting European waters. Last month, Estonia briefly held a tanker which it asserted was operating with a false registry and from the reports yesterday the Estonian Navy again attempted to inspect another suspicious tanker.

The crude oil tanker identifying as Jaguar (105,000 dwt) registered in Gabon was inbound for Primorsk, Russia when the Estonian Navy contacted the vessel. The Equasis database reflects the same vessel as the Argent, registered in Guinea-Bissau with unknown managers and a registered owner in Mauritius.

Yes, how dare Estonia... attempt to inspect a tanker, possibly one traveling in its territorial waters? And not even one sailing under the Russian flag. Which, yes, we all know that maritime registries are fig leafs and tax evasion, but it still counts.

"The Insider was able to confirm, using Sentinel navigation charts and data from tracking service MarineTraffic, that Jaguar was indeed located in neutral waters during its encounter with the Estonian patrol boat Kurvits.

However, the video shared by the pro-Russian Telegram channels shows coordinates on the vessel’s navigation display indicating that, at the time of filming, the ship was positioned just south of the neutral waters boundary — within Estonia’s territorial waters."

If anything, the overreaction here was by Russia:

Russian SU-35 fighter entered Estonian airspace overflying the area. The plane was reported to be in Estonian airspace for less than one minute, but the media is saying its transponder was turned off and it was not in radio contact with Estonian air traffic control. It had not filed a flight plan.

I don't see anything wrong with Estonia attempting to enforce the sanctions the West has imposed on Russia, and trusting in its alliance with the West to then back it up when it attempts to enforce them. Any policing effort is backed by the state's authority and not just the physical capabilities of the arresting officer (although it certainly helps to be a bruiser), so if you expand it up a bit to geopolitics, this is no different.

If you're an arthritic, 50 kg woman without a gun, you shouldn't try to enforce rules you and your friends invented the other day on a 200 kg heavyweight boxer with a 20 mm autocannon in his back pocket just because your friends also have big muscles, autocannons, bazookas and miniguns. It puts stress on your relationship and raises tensions.

It's obnoxious behaviour to go 'oh you need insurance to sail in these waters' and 'oh only we provide acceptable insurance, we'll sanction whoever provides insurance'. Sanctions are one thing, trying to mess with freedom of the seas is another, it's like a passive-aggressive blockade albeit 90% passive. This kind of behaviour is how you get your car keyed or your airspace violated.

Yes, how dare Estonia... attempt to inspect a tanker, possibly one traveling in its territorial waters?

Well, was it in its territorial waters or not? This seems like it's the deciding question, since ostensibly all actors involved more or less agree on the underlying conventions. There is a corridor of international waters along the centreline of the Finnish Gulf. The version I've read suggests that the tanker was following it (indeed, why would it not?), though some insinuate that it might have veered narrowly into Estonian waters at some point during the incident? It's pretty hard to discern the facts in a conflict where so many consider it their patriotic duty to lie if it makes their side look better.

I don't see anything wrong with Estonia attempting to enforce the sanctions the West has imposed on Russia, and trusting in its alliance with the West to then back it up when it attempts to enforce them.

Well, it all depends on what in fact happened, and what the sanctions really say. Are they in fact an explicit guarantee to participating state that amounts to "we will give you military cover to seize Russian ships in international waters"? Are they ambiguous, or in fact explicitly not saying that much? It's known that the Estonian state has a white-glowing hatred for Russia, and if they could press a button that made the US and Western Europe fight a hot war against it, they probably would (regardless of how the would-be belligerents feel about it). I could easily imagine a situation where whoever formulated the sanctions did not anticipate such a situation, but left enough ambiguity and lack of clear public information that Estonia saw something that to them looked like the aforementioned button and decided to press it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats