- The Russian cargo ship Ursa Major sank in Mediterranean waters following a suspected terrorist attack.
- The ship was carrying cranes under U.S. sanctions and was en route from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok.
- After distress calls, the Norwegian ship Oslo Carrier 3 was accused of refusing to rescue the 14 surviving crew members.
- Spanish maritime authorities instructed the Norwegian ship not to take on the crew, sparking an international debate over maritime law.
- Russian officials condemned the Norwegian ship's behavior, viewing it as a potential violation of maritime law and a breach of humanitarian obligations.
The Russian cargo ship Ursa Major sank in the waters between Spain and Algeria on Monday, shortly after a suspected terrorist attack blew a hole in its hull in a maritime disaster that led to a potential breach of international law. The vessel, which was carrying two massive cranes to develop port infrastructure in Vladivostok, Russia, left behind a trail of controversy.
The 142-meter-long, state-owned Oboronlogistics ship was en route from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok, a journey that took an unexpected turn on December 23 when the Ursa Major began sinking. According to the ship’s operator, the disaster was the result of three explosions in the engine room, indicating a terrorist plot. Two crew members were reported missing as the ship began its fateful descent into the Mediterranean.
Spanish maritime rescue services quickly responded to the distress call, sending two vessels and a helicopter to the scene. However, in the early hours of Tuesday, the incident took another twist when the Norwegian ship Oslo Carrier 3, owned by Bulkship Management AS, was accused of refusing to rescue the 14 surviving crew members.
In a statement released on Friday, the Norwegian company refuted these claims. They explained that their ship provided assistance by securing the lifeboats of the crew and ensuring they were safe until the rescue boat arrived. However, they strongly emphasized that they were under orders from the MRCC Cartagena, the Spanish maritime authority in charge of rescue operations in the area, not to allow the crew to board their ship.
The Spanish maritime authority’s decision to instruct the Norwegian ship not to take on board the distressed crew is a point of contention. This decision raises questions about the handling of the rescue operation and the priorities given to maritime law and safety. Spain’s decision could be seen as a critical failure to provide immediate assistance to those in peril, despite the Norwegian ship’s willingness to serve as a temporary sanctuary.
Russian officials condemn Norwegian ship for not rescuing crew members
Russian officials were swift to condemn the Norwegian ship’s behavior, calling it “outrageous” and a potential violation of maritime law. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that if confirmed, such a refusal would warrant “universal condemnation.” The incident has sparked international debate over maritime law and the obligations of ships to assist those in distress at sea.
However, the Norwegian company’s stance highlights the complex interactions between international maritime authorities and commercial shipping companies. The company’s claim that they were following instructions from the Spanish maritime rescue service challenges the narrative of callousness often associated with shipping companies avoiding difficult decisions.
Despite the controversy, the situation remains mired in uncertainty. The exact circumstances that prompted Spain’s decision to advise against immediate rescue efforts remain unclear. The case of the Ursa Major serves as a stark reminder of the high stakes involved in international maritime operations and the potential consequences when different nations and agencies are called upon to work together in emergencies.
The sinking of the Ursa Major, a Russian cargo ship carrying equipment to Vladivostok that was under U.S. sanctions, has left a wake of controversy. Despite the Norwegian ship's apparent willingness to assist, a complex interplay of maritime authorities led to the ship's crew not being immediately rescued. This incident highlights the sometimes murky waters of international maritime obligations and the potential for differing interpretations of the law at sea.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
