Did the US capture captains from scottish owned waters
Executive summary
The available reporting shows that American forces interdicted the Russian‑flagged tanker Marinera in the North Atlantic, escorted it into the Moray Firth, and that the vessel’s captain, Avtandil Kalandadze, and an unnamed first officer were removed onto a US Coast Guard ship and subsequently taken out of UK territorial waters to US custody; Scottish courts were told the two had left UK jurisdiction and the interim order to keep them in Scotland was recalled [1] [2] [3]. There is active dispute over whether UK/Scottish authorities were informed or consented and whether the removals amounted to lawful detention under US authority or an unlawful “abduction,” a point stressed by the captain’s lawyers and Scottish politicians [4] [5] [6].
1. How the Marinera came under US control and where it was taken
US forces say the Marinera was intercepted on 7 January in the North Atlantic and escorted toward the Scottish coast after being “interdicted” in international waters; reporting describes the tanker being brought into the Moray Firth east of Inverness for supplies and processing of crew [3] [1] [7]. News organisations and court hearings confirm the vessel was in UK waters in the fortnight after seizure and that US and UK agencies were “working together closely” on disposition of the ship [4] [7].
2. Removal of the captain and first officer — the factual record
Multiple outlets and court submissions state the captain, identified by name as Avtandil Kalandadze, and an unnamed first officer were taken aboard the US Coast Guard cutter Munro and, according to the US Department of Justice notification to Scottish prosecutors, were removed from the Marinera and left UK territorial waters on a US vessel [1] [8] [2]. A Scottish court’s interim interdict aimed at preventing removal was recalled after the court was told the two officers were already outside British territorial waters [2] [1].
3. Competing legal narratives: “lawful detention” vs. “abduction”
The US Embassy and Justice Department messaging to Scottish authorities described the transfers as lawful processing and detention in connection with prosecution plans in the US, and said the interdiction occurred in international waters [5] [1]. By contrast, the captain’s wife’s lawyers and prominent Scottish politicians argued the removals violated Scottish jurisdiction and human‑rights protections, with solicitor Aamer Anwar saying the captain had been “whisked away” and Scottish Green co‑leader Ross Greer calling it “piracy” and “abduction” [4] [5] [6].
4. What Scottish officials say about control, notification and sovereignty
Scottish ministers repeatedly stated they were not in control of the vessel while it was in the Moray Firth and that they were not informed in advance about the removal of the two officers; First Minister John Swinney said communication was “absolutely appalling” and the Scottish Government only learned the two had been taken off after the fact [7] [9] [10]. Solicitor General Ruth Charteris told the Court of Session that Scottish authorities had not detained the crew and had no legal basis to board while the ship remained under US control [2] [11].
5. Where reporting leaves open questions and the legal hinge
The fact pattern in reporting establishes that US forces removed the captain and first officer from the tanker and they were then aboard a US Coast Guard vessel outside UK waters, which led the Scottish court to recall its interim order [1] [2]. What the sources do not fully resolve—and what the court proceedings and competing statements reflect—is whether the removals breached domestic or international law in a way that obliges UK or Scottish authorities to seek redress; reporting documents the clash of legal interpretations but cannot by itself adjudicate those claims [5] [7] [4].
6. Political implications and motivations visible in the coverage
Political voices in Scotland have used the incident to frame grievances about sovereignty and US military activity on Scottish soil, while US statements emphasize enforcement of sanctions and curbing of “shadow vessels”; those competing framings suggest distinct domestic political pressure points—legal protection of individuals and Scottish jurisdiction versus US sanctions enforcement and disruption of sanctioned oil flows [6] [1] [7]. Observers should treat both framings as politically charged and linked to wider debates over sanctions, maritime law and Anglo‑US cooperation.