US seizes oil tanker off Venezuela bound for Cuba

[MrBirdman]

As soon as the seizure became public, it was pretty clear where the tanker was headed. Just reinforces the Venezuela moves as partly of a piece with long term strategy on Cuba. Can other Latin American countries like Mexico pick up the slack if Maduro's oil dries up? We're about to find out. Venezuelan oil has been a major source of foreign currency for Cuba.

US seizes oil tanker off Venezuela bound for Cuba - POLITICO

[El Presidente]

2 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

As soon as the seizure became public, it was pretty clear where the tanker was headed. Just reinforces the Venezuela moves as partly of a piece with long term strategy on Cuba. Can other Latin American countries like Mexico pick up the slack if Maduro's oil dries up? We're about to find out. Venezuelan oil has been a major source of foreign currency for Cuba.

US seizes oil tanker off Venezuela bound for Cuba - POLITICO

Mexico and Russia have been the No 1 and 2 Cuban supplier of oil in 2025. Venezuela No 3. 

Taking Venezuela off the table would hurt. Pressure on Mexico to cease supply would be the next logical step. 

[MrBirdman]

5 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Mexico and Russia have been the No 1 and 2 Cuban supplier of oil in 2025. Venezuela No 3. 

My understanding is that there is an important difference with Mexico - the oil isn’t “free” (in other words it’s subsidized rather than bartered for like with Venezuela). Pemex relies on SEC listing for its access to international debt markets, meaning it’s subject to more disclosures, scrutiny, and nominally US securities regulations. Giving oil to Cuba risks serious sanctions, not to mention that the subsidized oil is weighing on their balance sheet (assuming they even collect on it). They’re already the most heavily indebted oil company in the world and need access to capital to expand production. Keeping up their recent pace of exports to Cuba will be hard enough.

To be clear, I’m not saying this will lead to regime collapse on its own - history shows that predicting the end is a fools errant. But I’m skeptical that Mexico can make up much of the shortfall for very long.

I’m less familiar with their deals with Russia, who have their own issues and interests vis-a-vis the US.

[Chibearsv]

I must’ve missed something. Under what authority or circumstance can an oil tanker be legally seized by anyone? I’m not trying to get into politics, I’m asking a literal question as it applies to maritime law. 

[chasy]

I don't know maritime law at all, but my guess is that there is a labyrnth of laws and interpretations. Is this clear cut legal? Who knows. Is it legally defensible in some gray area interpretation? Likely. I haven't been following super closely but it appears that Venezuela is in the US crosshairs. Curious to see the end game.

[BrightonCorgi]

6 hours ago, Chibearsv said:

I must’ve missed something.  Under what authority or circumstance can an oil tanker be legally seized by anyone?  I’m not trying to get into politics, I’m asking a literal question as it applies to maritime law. 

I've wondered the same. In addition, with how they can seize Russian oligarch assets just the same. Who's going to stop the seizure either way?

[Cigar Surgeon]

[JoshD]

6 hours ago, Chibearsv said:

I must’ve missed something. Under what authority or circumstance can an oil tanker be legally seized by anyone? I’m not trying to get into politics, I’m asking a literal question as it applies to maritime law. 

I read elsewhere that the vessel was flying a false flag. Registered in Russia but flagged as Guyanese.  

[NYGuido]

2 hours ago, JoshD said:

I read elsewhere that the vessel was flying a false flag. Registered in Russia but flagged as Guyanese.  

Yep -- and the vessel, itself, is reportedly on the sanctions list.

[Chibearsv]

Ok, plot thickens.  Thank you both

37 minutes ago, JoshD said:

I read elsewhere that the vessel was flying a false flag.  Registered in Russia but flagged as Guyanese. 

6 minutes ago, NYGuido said:

Yep -- and the vessel, itself, is reportedly on the sanctions list.

[El Presidente]

2 hours ago, JoshD said:

I read elsewhere that the vessel was flying a false flag.  Registered in Russia but flagged as Guyanese.  

 

2 hours ago, NYGuido said:

Yep -- and the vessel, itself, is reportedly on the sanctions list.

That's it then. 

Officially, one of my favourite movies of all time has become a documentary 

 

[Ciscojohansson]

[NYGuido]

1 hour ago, El Presidente said:

That's it then. 

Officially, one of my favourite movies of all time has become a documentary 

YES!!! I liked you before knowing this, but now, good sir, you have gained in status in my eyes. This movie is PERFECT.

[MrBirdman]

2 hours ago, NYGuido said:

Yep -- and the vessel, itself, is reportedly on the sanctions list.

Exactly - the vessel is part of one of the “shadow fleets” that transport oil from sanctioned countries like Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. This ship is apparently owned through a shell company by a Russian. They frequently use GPS spoofing to mask their location. Normally if they are interdicted they are just sent back to their port of origin. 

Here, the Feds got a warrant to seize the ship - the warrant itself is sealed so we don’t know all the specifics, and it isn’t even clear whether the warrant was for the ship itself or the oil.

 

[MrBirdman]

7 hours ago, Chibearsv said:

I must’ve missed something.  Under what authority or circumstance can an oil tanker be legally seized by anyone?  I’m not trying to get into politics, I’m asking a literal question as it applies to maritime law. 

Just to add, while I am not a maritime lawyer I’ve done a brief perusal of the applicable law. There’s some odd wrinkles here, but the TLDR is that using the facts available, the seizure itself was arguably not unlawful.

The prevailing international treaty governing seizures like this is the UN Convention for Law of the seas (Unclos). The US follows the rules laid out therein, though it is not actually a party so Unclos isn’t technically the “law of the land” here. The US, nevertheless typically treats it as binding as far as I can tell. 

Without getting into why, under UNCLOS the seizure would probably be illegal had the ship flown its true flag. A domestic warrant does not normally allow seizing a commercial vessel on the high seas, unless it sails under the seizing country’s flag or is within their coastal waters. Here, however, the vessel was flying a false flag, which technically makes it stateless. No state = no treaty protection. So, if true, there’s a case the US didn’t violate international law in seizing the vessel. Whether the cargo can also be seized and kept is another matter, likely of international commercial law.

FWIW, I think that the US would have seized the ship had it been flying the correct flag, and will probably seize more. Seizing vessels with a warrant does not appear to violate any US laws; given that the administration is breaking not only international but also domestic laws with the boat strikes, I can’t see them worrying excessively about a treaty they technically aren’t bound by. Even if the administration cared what its allies think (they don’t), it’s hard to imagine them seriously protesting the seizure of sanctioned oil. 

[El Presidente]

Brett, all US allies (and others) are fully aware this admin will do what it likes, when it likes. 

Just to circle around. 

Venezuela outcome is an interesting topic because of its close allignment with Cuba. Cuba doesn't have a lot of friends who still provide essentials. 

Cuba is teetering. 

We may be witnessing the final days/weeks/months.Should Venezuela fall, will Cuba? When the Soviet Union broke up, Cuba suvived , but it was a desperate period. They were in a much stronger position then than today. 

Fascinating period 

[MrBirdman]

30 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Cuba is teetering. 

We may be witnessing the final days/weeks/months.Should Venezuela fall, will Cuba? When the Soviet Union broke up, Cuba suvived , but it was a desperate period. They were in a much stronger position then than today. 

You have your ear closer to the ground there than I do - I feel like predicting internal collapse is a fool’s errand since there’s no organized resistance. But this would be a major blow, I think there’s no way around that.

I am still not sure Trump cares enough about Cuba to press home the advantage cutting off Venezuela would offer. It probably depends partly on how smoothly things go in Venezuela.  We know Rubio wants regime change in Cuba - let’s be honest, it would undeniably be a major achievement for a Cuban-American Secretary of State to achieve a 65 year old policy goal of the country and Cuban community here - IF it can be done without military action. 

Rubio, however, isn’t really part of Trump’s inner orbit; Vance is sure to push against any kind of signature achievement for a likely competitor in 2028. 

Also, I haven’t heard a realistic outcome that doesn’t get ugly. The regime would have limited options for a soft landing. The days of kleptocratic leaders riding off into the Swiss sunset are pretty much over (though maybe Maduro will prove me wrong). Unless they give up the fight very early in a US pressure campaign, Cuba’s cronies aren’t getting to Russia or China without a risky military extraction.