Russia Plays It Cool On Estonia's 'Shadow Fleet' Ship Seizure

Putin might hope that Trump could pressure the UK and Estonia into not carrying out any more such provocations, perhaps by having the US convey (whether openly or discreetly) that it wouldn't extend NATO's Article 5 defense guarantees to them if future seizures result in armed clashes of any sort with Russia.

The precedent for this proposal rests in what US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared in early February about how the US won't extend these same guarantees to NATO countries' troops in Ukraine.

Whether in parallel with the above or in place thereof, the US could also convey that it will pull its troops from Estonia if this happens again, though that could backfire by prompting the UK to transform its rotational presence there into a permanent one.

The consequence would be that no return to the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act would be possible like Putin wants without London's agreement, just like that's no longer possible without Berlin's approval after Germany just opened a permanent base in Lithuania.

If France does something similar with regard to its rotational presence in Romania , then Western Europe's three traditional Great Powers would essentially be leapfrogging eastward to collectively prevent Trump from potentially reaching a deal with Putin for restoring the NATO-Russia Founding Act.

It was already assessed here that the US is unlikely to withdraw its forces from Central and Eastern Europe, so such developments might be part of these countries' competition for leadership in post-conflict Europe.

Neither Russia nor the US might be able to stop this since the first won't risk World War III by using force in response to such low-level intra-NATO deployments, no matter how threatening it regards them, while the second has lost control over its rebellious German, British and French allies.

In any case, the relevance of this scenario to British-backed Estonia seizing one of Russia's alleged“shadow fleet” vessels is that a strong political reaction from Moscow could be exploited to justify the UK doing this.

The decision might have already been made in order to complicate the Russian-US rapprochement and compete with its traditional Western European Great Power peers, even if this latest move doesn't sabotage the positive trajectory of the Russian-US talks.

A militarily restrained response from Russia (regardless of how strong its political one is), however, could expose the UK's possible plan of establishing a permanent military presence in Estonia as provocative by removing the main pretext.

Although the end result would be the same, namely that this might happen no matter what, Russia could at least be able to more compellingly present it as a destabilizing move before the global public.

That's better than Moscow falling for London's trap by issuing credible military threats against Tallinn that could risk reversing the recent progress in ties with Washington and even rallying NATO against Russia. If Putin won't risk war over this, then it's the best course of action for now unless there are repeat incidents.

In that event, he might eventually overcome his innate reluctance to escalate just like he did in late November when authorizing the use of his country's hitherto top-secret medium-range hypersonic Oreshnik missiles, in which case the US stance toward Article 5 in this context would be paramount.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

Repeat incidents would only happen if the US is unable or unwilling to control British-backed Estonia. It might respectively therefore withhold such defense guarantees or explicitly reaffirm them.

Trump's decision will ultimately come down to whether he would by then become impatient with Putin over his unwillingness up until this point to majorly compromise on his maximum goals .

He already expressed such sentiments right before Dmitriev's latest trip and once again posted about them during Witkoff's visit on Friday so he could possibly support future seizures as a form of pressure upon Russia. That would be an extremely dangerous way to“escalate to de-escalate” on better terms for Ukraine.

This is one of the worst-case scenarios since Putin couldn't back down without Russia losing the sizeable budgetary revenue that it reportedly derives from its“shadow fleet's” Baltic activities, not to mention losing face across the whole world, so he might very well escalate then.

As of now, however, everything remains manageable but that could suddenly change. Russia's restrained response to Estonia's provocative naval seizure is pragmatic but even Putin's patience has its limits.

This article was first published on Andrew Korybko's Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.

Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories Or Sign in to an existing accoun

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)