An obscure, Turkish-built, Maltese-flagged, Russian-owned dry cargo vessel named ‘Arctic Sea’ performing a routine freight, captured the attention of the global media. For three weeks the media coverage grew in a steady crescendo, reaching a climax at the end of August. The story eventually snowballed into a mega-conspiracy, in which state it has largely been laid to rest.
The most prominent version of the story is one which claims that the Russian state, or rogue elements within it, attempted to smuggle a surface-to-air missile defence system S-300 to Iran aboard the Arctic Sea. The Israeli intelligence service Mossad allegedly monitored the shipment, and disrupted this rogue transaction by hiring a gang of Russian-speaking criminals to perform, or stage an act of piracy.
Proponents of this version cite an unnamed Israeli security source who had allegedly told a BBC correspondent that Israel was linked to the interception of the hijacked cargo vessel. Also supporting this version was the alleged ‘secret’ visit by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Moscow only a few days after the ship’s ‘rescue’ off Cape Verde. In early October, it had been reported that the visit was linked to Iranian nuclear programme, and that the Israeli PM had informed the Russian President about the list of Russian nuclear scientists working for Iran.
However, this story has significant flaws. The major one being the fact that the S-300 is nothing more than a long-range air defence weapon, and not considered an offensive weapon. Therefore, it is not restricted by the UN and can be traded legally with Iran, giving no reason for the secret trade to happen. Russia has also never tried to hide their intentions to supply Iran (and other paying customers) with weapons, and reports have appeared in the Iranian, Russian and international press from 2006.
Had the cargo been more ‘sinister’ and in need of covert smuggling, something simply does not tie in with the geography. It is much easier to smuggle illicit cargo along the shared sea border between Russia and Iran in the Caspian Sea, rather than across the Atlantic, the Baltic and Mediterranean seas.
Other versions of events, including the official Russian version are even more flawed. The mysterious disappearance, alleged hijacking of the vessel by ‘peaceful ecologists’, alleged ransom demands and the ship’s spectacular ‘rescue’ could not be explained as an ordinary act of piracy, which is almost unheard of in European waters. Indeed any motives behind the alleged hijacking were almost certainly not of an economic nature. Unless the ‘pirates’ were a bunch of total lunatics, the gamble was simply not worth the risk.
Neither was there much logic in the official Russian reaction, when the Russian President instructed the military to use ‘all assets’ to find and rescue the ship. The ‘assets’ deployed in the operation apparently included two nuclear submarines, which co-incidentally had earlier caused some stir in the US after being spotted by the US Navy off the Eastern Coast of the US. Similar instances over the last five years have hardly received any publicity, let alone a response on this scale from the Russian military.
The only plausible explanation as to why the Arctic Sea was treated differently is that it was different and was somehow too valuable to be lost. But that contradicts the official Russian version which claims that investigators have found no secret cargo or anything untoward. Yet, the crew were detained, interrogated, and released, allegedly under an official gag order not to disclose any of their experiences. Why, if according to the official version there was nothing untoward?
Further suspicion is added by the story that Mikhail Voitenko, the editor of Sovfracht Maritime Bulletin, reported that the signal from the ship re-appeared briefly on August 15 in the Bay of Biscay off the French coast. He also reported that the French authorities had initially denied knowledge of the ship’s position, and then speculated that the signal may have come from a Russian navy ship in the area. There were no reactions to this allegation from the Russian navy. A couple of weeks later, Voitenko reportedly fled to Thailand in fear for his life, after allegedly receiving threats linked to his reports.
On August 14 the ship was reportedly sighted off Cape Verde and on August 17, Russia announced that the ship had been apprehended by the navy frigate. Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to NATO said that false information was deliberately supplied to the media in order to keep Russian plans secret. This statement was echoed by the Malta Maritime Authority, which said that at all times it was aware of the ship’s location, but did not disclose this information to the media out of safety concern for the crew – though reasons for these thoughts were never given.
It appears that we may not get to the truth for some time. It also appears that information was deliberately manipulated to create a widespread confusion.
There are two fundamental methods of deception. The first is to simply withhold information. Shroud everything in secrecy. Muzzle those in the know. Cut off all sources. Destroy or bury the evidence. Project an official version of the story that is to become the truth. This is a crude information weapon of choice for most totalitarian – and perhaps not so totalitarian – regimes. It is not very efficient though, as the method requires a large and expensive policing machine to suppress the truth.
The second method is more subtle, but by no means less effective. Flood everyone with information – lots and lots of it. Let them drown in it, sink in it, try to make sense of it. Let them speak of it, speculate on it, draw all sorts of theories and conclusions. Let them think they are free to make their own choices and draw logical conclusions. At the end, they will be no closer to the truth.
The art of using both methods is not new. Described by the legendary ancient strategist Sun Tzu in the Art of War, it is at least 24 centuries old. Deception is a weapon of choice in virtually every situation where control over people’s minds is, for some reason, important.
At first glance, the two approaches seem mutually contradicting, yet they perfectly complement each other. Both produce the intended result: a confused and disoriented audience believing in fragmented explanations of their choice, some closer to the truth than others, but no version credible and powerful enough to cause an undesired deviation from the script.
The perfectly engineered mystery of the Artic Sea combines the elements of both ways of disinformation. The effectiveness of deception was enhanced by masterful use of the global media. Journalists were continuously fed snippets of newsworthy information that, like building blocks, could be used to construct all sorts of logical plots.
The script that was acted out contained several powerful keywords that were bound to captivate a global audience. Who could resist a story of a ‘Disappearing Ship’ and ‘Piracy in European Waters’; a story of ‘Nuclear Submarines and a Secret Cargo’; a story of ‘Russia, Putin, Israel, Mossad, Iran and NATO’; and, on top of all this - a ‘Fleeing Journalist Fearing for his Life’?
The list of dramatis personae featuring in this story is worthy of a Hollywood blockbuster, and perhaps the script will be screened one day.
Although the strange circumstances of the story may never truly unfold, we can be certain of one thing: something rather extraordinary happened behind the scenes, and the public has been deliberately deceived about the nature of what it was.