On August 13th, I blogged about the mysterious case of a missing ship which “disappeared” even though it was passing through heavily-traveled commercial lanes. It was supposedly carrying Finnish timber on a Maltese-owned ship to Algeria, and it had an all-Russian crew. If you have not read that first blog, I suggest you read the previous one first and then come back to this blog as I won’t repeat extensive details of the first blog here. The ship reportedly was supposedly attacked by “pirates” on July 24 near Sweden (an area devoid of piracy), and neither Russia nor the NATO nations reacted at all to this report of piracy. Then, three weeks later, Russia went ballistic and sent naval ships to the Atlantic to look for it with bellicose statements about getting it back. My first blog noted some of the possible explanations (none of which can be confirmed at this time).

It does seem evident that this missing ship, called the Arctic Sea, was on some kind of secret mission. If “pirates” seized the ship off Sweden on July 24, why was Russia not at all alarmed until almost mid-August? This seems to argue that the “pirates” may have been additional Russian special forces or technicians who came aboard later. If so, the “pirate” report was simply a ruse, as was the scramble of Russian naval ships to locate it. However, the more-recent link below provides additional details which make this entire story even more bizarre.

Russia reported that the ship’s beacon indicated it was last located in the Bay of Biscay off France. French marines deny that report, and a French source indicates the ship may be off West Africa. There is now a new report that the “pirates” off Sweden departed the ship after tying up the crew. If they were special ops forces opposed to Russia’s aims and they seized something important on the ship and left, Russia’s concerns should have surfaced back in July, not weeks later so that story lacks credibility in my eyes. There is an EU report the ship was attacked a second time off Portugal, but Portuguese officials deny it. The story below also notes (quite accurately) that the ship’s beacon, if it was ever really located, may have been giving a false signal re: the ship’s whereabouts because the beacon could have been removed from the ship and sent elsewhere to cover the ship’s tracks.

Clearly, there is a lot of disinformation being spread about this ship and its mysterious mission and importance. There are also two unreported clues which are based on the ship’s name and physical appearance in the link below. The missing ship is shown in a photo equipped with some kind of diving submersible submarine located on its aft (rear) portion. This is entirely inconsistent with reports that this was a routine ship carrying a cargo of wood to Africa. The presence of a high-tech submersible indicates this ship was equipped for high-tech missions. The submersible sub could easily have detached from the ship, taken the beacon to a decoy position and then either rendezvoused with the mother ship or have been picked up by a Russian submarine. This makes sense if the Russians were in control of this mission and the scramble of Russian naval ships was just a ruse in itself.

However, the report of a second attack later could argue that an anti-Russian group found out about the ship’s real mission and captured the ship to thwart its mission, setting off an unfeigned angry response by the Russians who realized the mission had “gone wrong.” If US or NATO forces took over the ship in the second attack, one would expect Portugal to deny that it happened because Portugal is a NATO nation. Supporting this explanation is the fact that the link below reports that even more Russian ships have been sent to find the missing one.

The second clue about the ship is that its name argues that it was intended for Arctic missions. The submersible would be a logical piece of equipment for missions conducted under the polar icecap or other high-tech missions. The link below also notes that the ship’s Russian crew was from the Russian city of Arkhangelsk, a city with sea access to the Arctic region. The Russian sailors of this ship were all likely very skilled in operations in polar or northern waters. If I were a Russian KGB master of this operation, I’d have the ship’s beacon removed via the submersible and transferred to a Russian submarine which would take the beacon to a location where it would send a signal in the opposite direction of the ship’s true course.  The missing ship may have headed north to a Russian port near Murmansk (familiar waters for Russia’s northern sailors on the missing ship) and a region which hosts protective Russian naval and air bases. On the other hand, the ship may have been simply destroyed by someone and sent to the bottom of the ocean. The submersible could have also transferred secret cargo from the missing ship to another ship which then “hosted” the submersible.

I think most readers will agree that this Russian-crewed ship was on a secret mission and either it was carried off successfully or it was intercepted by western special forces and the mission was stopped. It makes no sense to use a sophisticated vessel with a high-tech submersible mini-sub on it to transport a routine shipment of wood to somewhere. I also doubt so many nations would be involved in a missing shipment of mere wood. The link below speculates the ship’s real purpose was to transport narcotics. Given the economic stresses that are threatening to devastate the global economic/monetary system, the ship may also have been carrying cargo vital to an economic agenda (gold, reams of a planned new global currency unit or counterfeit currency intended to be released in the world market to discredit another nation’s currency unit). 

We commoners are not being told the truth about this missing ship’s mission. However, a ruthless superpower rivalry is being played out in global affairs and this missing ship apparently is involved in this rivalry. This superpower geopolitical, commercial and monetary rivalry will ultimately fulfill biblical prophecies as winners and losers emerge in the future. As always, God will either decide the outcome or allow something to happen which will fulfill his prophecies. The outcome of these behind-the-scenes struggles will affect us all. I Timothy 2:2 urges us to pray about the affairs of “kings and those in authority” so we Christians can lead a “quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” In the times we live in, we should all pray that God intervenes in the superpower rivalries in such a way that we can live peaceable lives without persecution. Paul  tells us to pray for those ends. That means we should not take such an outcome for granted. We need to pray for such an outcome!