US tanker seizure 'not surprising', says former NATO official

The US seizure of a Russian-flagged oil tanker that was being shadowed by a Russian submarine in the Atlantic is 'not surprising', according to a former NATO official.

Jamie Shea, former NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, also dismissed talk of an US invasion of Greenland as "rhetoric" while admitting that it was "not good news" for NATO.

Shea told CGTN that the most interesting element of the mid-ocean tanker seizure was its potential effect on US-Russian relations.  

He said: "The US has made it clear that it wants to clamp down on Venezuela's oil traffic. It's been doing this, of course, off the coast of Venezuela, but it's not surprising that the United States should now go further."

He added: "It's going to be very interesting to see how Moscow reacts as a result of this US seizure and if it makes relations between Moscow and Washington worse at a time when the Europeans are very much hoping that Trump will swing back behind a Europe-Ukraine-US peace plan and be prepared to put more pressure on Putin."

The operation to seize the Marinera, originally known as the Bella 1, was carried out by the US Coast Guard and military.

The vessel had previously slipped through a US maritime blockade of sanctioned tankers in the Caribbean and refused Coast Guard efforts to board it. 

US officials said Russian military vessels were in the general vicinity of the operation but there were no signs of a confrontation between US and Russian military forces.

'Rhetoric'

On Tuesday, the White House said that US President Donald Trump is discussing options for acquiring Greenland, including potential use of the US military. It's a revival of his ambition to control the strategic island despite European objections.

According to Shea, any military option to take Greenland by force makes no sense. 

He said: "I don't think it can be more than rhetoric, although you never know of course with this administration and you have to take it seriously but US military action, to my mind, doesn't really make sense." Shea argued that it "lacks military rationale" because the US already has the right to station military forces in Greenland under a bilateral Denmark US defense agreement and has no need to resort to force. 

"Denmark has always been clear that if the US wants to put more military forces into Greenland, then Denmark and the NATO allies have absolutely no objection to that. All the more so as under the NATO Treaty, the US already has a military obligation under the Article 5 collective defense agreement to defend Greenland."

'Alternative scenarios'

Shea, who became the face of NATO during his daily televised briefings during the 1999 Kosovo War, said the US would be "breaking its most sacred NATO commitments" if it seized Greenland. 

But he admitted it was troubling times for his former employers. He explained: "The US, under the NATO treaty, has a responsibility to defend Danish sovereignty and to defend Denmark and not try to undermine it. 

"So even if the US does not move on Greenland, at least in a military sense, all of this talk undermines NATO, gives President Putin the impression he's dealing with an increasingly dysfunctional and divided alliance."

Shea believes that the crisis will prompt European leaders "to offer Trump alternative scenarios."

He said: "The Europeans can come forward with proposals of their own for joint US-European investments in Greenland, for greater European participation in Greenland's defense."

Shea thinks those leaders could use Trump's repeated demands for increased defense spending to its advantage. 

"The US is always saying to the Europeans that you must do more for our common defense, and so Europe can put Trump on the spot by saying, 'Fine, Mr. Trump, we'll be prepared to do that by helping you share responsibility for the defense of Greenland and we'll show that we're carrying more of the common burden.'"