Missing Baltic buoys mark maritime border fault lines

Unlock Editor's Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, editor-in-chief of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The writer is an advisor to Gallos Technologies and author of “Goodbye Globalization”

In the early hours of May 23, Russian officials appeared in the Narva River, which divides Russia and Estonia, and removed buoys that mark the maritime border. By this simple act, Russia demonstrated its intention to challenge these borders. China is already bitterly contesting the maritime borders of several countries in its neighborhood. This is important because if nations do not respect them, the global maritime system will collapse.

It was a covert operation: around 3 a.m. local time, Russian border guard officers arrived and simply hoisted the buoys indicating the Estonian side of the river. For years, the buoys and their predecessors have been there, showing ship crews and the rest of the world where the Russian side of the river ends and the Estonian side begins. But last year, Russia said it no longer approved the placement of the buoys; now he has deleted them. “This was a pure Russian provocation, aimed at testing our response and trying to create a gray zone on NATO's borders,” Marko Mihkelson, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, told me of the Estonian Parliament.

In a statement, the Estonian Foreign Ministry said the removal of the buoys “fits perfectly into the broader framework of Russia's provocative behavior, including on its borders with its neighbors, most recently vis-à-vis of Lithuania and Finland. The latter refers to another apparent case of Russian interventions at the maritime border a few days earlier. The Russian Defense Ministry planned, according to Russian media, to unilaterally change sections of the country's maritime borders with Finland and Lithuania.

So there are problems in the Baltic Sea and other nearby waters – although many thought that the accession of Sweden and Finland had made this small ocean a “NATO lake”. And these incidents illustrate a growing puzzle: There are many ways a country can harm its maritime neighbors.

In the South China Sea, Beijing has reinforced its self-proclaimed “nine-dash line” maritime border by building militarized artificial islands. In both the South China Sea and the East China Sea, the country's massive coast guard has been increasingly harassing ships linked to other countries, including Japan and the Philippines. The goal is to wear down other countries and force them to live with Beijing's maritime claims.

Although maritime border violations seem less dramatic than land border crossings by soldiers, they are just as important. They too define what belongs to a country. If violated or changed unilaterally, nautical activities like shipping will face upheaval and the rules on which the world's nations base their coexistence will begin to weaken.

Indeed, even before the latest incidents, it was clear that NATO enlargement had not made the Baltic Sea a quiet lake. On the contrary, Russia could resort to innovative ways to harm its Baltic Sea neighbors.

For months, old and poorly maintained “ghost” ships, owned by questionable owners and lacking internationally recognized insurance, have threatened several neighboring countries by transporting oil through their waters in an inherently risky manner. Another provocation is that some ships are hanging around off Gotland and refusing to operate in the Danish Great Belt, which increases the risk of accidents. “They are testing the waters, both metaphorically and literally,” Vytautas Leškevičius, Lithuania’s former ambassador to NATO, told me.

What will the Kremlin try next? Other changes to maritime borders? Harassment of merchant ships in the style of China or blockade of navigation in the Baltic Sea under the guise of maintaining order? Either way, it will have repercussions far beyond the EU's second busiest water body. The Baltic countries cannot afford even a mild case of marine blindness.