[Goose]

The problem is that there seems to be an ansymmetric application of the rules.  Russia has no compunction about severing fiber optic cables in the Baltic, mostly because it has plausible deniability.  The offending vessels are not Russian flags, and it’s impossible to prove that it wasn’t negligence that the vessel was dragging an anchor rather than an intentional effort to sever fiber optic lines.

Actually it isn't so hard to "prove" that it was intentional. The vessel was underway and yet had gear (the anchor) deployed at depth. That is intentional. It was not anchored originally and then had the anchor drag. Also, there would be no reason to be anchoring in a shipping channel unless some kind of casualty had occurred. It is also no longer a "passage" if you anchor while in transit. If the ship was operating with its AIS turned off that is also a breach of the law. The real problem is that the owner of the ship may be judged liable for damages (due to carelessness or criminal intent, doesn't matter) but so what? Such a judgement doesn't immediately repair the damage and  the corporation that owns the ship undoubtedly doesn't have the money to pay anyway. The ship's master may go to prison, but again so what? Who cares? Certainly not Russia.

The more serious problem, at least from Ukraine's point of view, is the ships that carry Russian oil that don't tear up seabed cables or do anything else "illegal" for that matter. They just move oil at above the sanctions limited price. This allows Russia to get enough cash to keep fighting.

The West tries to pay lip service to international rules, so it’s not going to detain vessels with Russian oil sailing in international waters.  If I were Ukraine, I would “accidentally” hit one of the vessels with a drone ship.

BC

It may indeed be true that the West will not elect to stop these tankers in international waters. That clearly is beyond any legal right they have. However interfering with the right of innocent passage/uninterrupted voyage is equally beyond their legal rights. The West is indeed already violating international rules by stopping vessels making such transits. In the cases where there is reason to believe the vessel in question has committed some breach of the law, it can be justified. However, the majority of the "grey" tankers don't commit such actions. They are "just" violating sanctions. Yet some of them have been stopped.

IMO unless the West decides it is going to enforce its sanctions Russia will continue to evade them. Enforcing these sanctions would require either stopping the "grey" tankers on the high seas or sanctioning all nations who receive cargo from these ships. Either one will create issues.

Ukraine does not have the ability to hit tankers in the Baltic Sea with drone ships. The Baltic nations would not take kindly to the damage it would cause environmentally even if Ukraine could accomplish a "one off" attack. Ukraine could probably accomplish such attacks (at least occasionally) in the Black Sea. However, Russia would respond by sinking "neutral" flagged grain ships leaving Ukraine. Tit for tat, nobody could claim otherwise. If Ukraine thought it was a reasonable tradeoff they would already be doing it. I suspect Ukraine anticipates the Russians would have more success than Ukraine would in such a battle. Ukraine needs the money from grain just as Russia does from oil.

[Goose]

The problem is that there seems to be an ansymmetric application of the rules.  Russia has no compunction about severing fiber optic cables in the Baltic, mostly because it has plausible deniability.  The offending vessels are not Russian flags, and it’s impossible to prove that it wasn’t negligence that the vessel was dragging an anchor rather than an intentional effort to sever fiber optic lines.

Actually it isn't so hard to "prove" that it was intentional. The vessel was underway and yet had gear (the anchor) deployed at depth. That is intentional. It was not anchored originally and then had the anchor drag. Also, there would be no reason to be anchoring in a shipping channel unless some kind of casualty had occurred. It is also no longer a "passage" if you anchor while in transit. If the ship was operating with its AIS turned off that is also a breach of the law. The real problem is that the owner of the ship may be judged liable for damages (due to carelessness or criminal intent, doesn't matter) but so what? Such a judgement doesn't immediately repair the damage and  the corporation that owns the ship undoubtedly doesn't have the money to pay anyway. The ship's master may go to prison, but again so what? Who cares? Certainly not Russia.

The more serious problem, at least from Ukraine's point of view, is the ships that carry Russian oil that don't tear up seabed cables or do anything else "illegal" for that matter. They just move oil at above the sanctions limited price. This allows Russia to get enough cash to keep fighting.

The West tries to pay lip service to international rules, so it’s not going to detain vessels with Russian oil sailing in international waters.  If I were Ukraine, I would “accidentally” hit one of the vessels with a drone ship.

BC

It may indeed be true that the West will not elect to stop these tankers in international waters. That clearly is beyond any legal right they have. However interfering with the right of innocent passage/uninterrupted voyage is equally beyond their legal rights. The West is indeed already violating international rules by stopping vessels making such transits. In the cases where there is reason to believe the vessel in question has committed some breach of the law, it can be justified. However, the majority of the "grey" tankers don't commit such actions. They are "just" violating sanctions. Yet some of them have been stopped.

IMO unless the West decides it is going to enforce its sanctions Russia will continue to evade them. Enforcing these sanctions would require either stopping the "grey" tankers on the high seas or sanctioning all nations who receive cargo from these ships. Either one will create issues.

Ukraine does not have the ability to hit tankers in the Baltic Sea with drone ships. The Baltic nations would not take kindly to the damage it would cause environmentally even if Ukraine could accomplish a "one off" attack. Ukraine could probably accomplish such attacks (at least occasionally) in the Black Sea. However, Russia would respond by sinking "neutral" flagged grain ships leaving Ukraine. Tit for tat, nobody could claim otherwise. If Ukraine thought it was a reasonable tradeoff they would already be doing it. I suspect Ukraine anticipates the Russians would have more success than Ukraine would in such a battle. Ukraine needs the money from grain just as Russia does from oil.