Autopsy: an emblematic militant narrative of the Russian ship « Shtandart »

For more than three and a half years, the Russian ship Shtandart has been the subject of a French peculiarity that persists, while other European countries have resolved it in a matter of weeks. The case of ‘Caeso Fabius Gallus’ (sic), alias ‘Fabio Caeso Gallus’, is an example of discourse that has been repeated for several years, based on emotional narratives or biased interpretations, perpetuating a distorted view of this affair.

Note: in addition to ‘Caeso Fabius Gallus’ alias ‘Fabio Caeso Gallus’, some readers have made repetitive comments repeating emotional language already widely used in the debate. The response below addresses these circulating assertions and is intended solely to clarify the facts, place the ‘Shtandart’ case in its institutional and documented context, and enlighten all readers.

Comment Received (January 22, 2026)

“Have you considered that this ‘relentlessness’ in trying to have the law recognized as unfair in this case might come from wanting to protect the ship and its crew, to safeguard this priceless heritage?
What other way does the ship have to exist and allow all lovers of tall ships to enjoy it?
It’s all well and good to make analytical fences and other ex-nihilo thought exercises, but a bit of empathy and practical sense would be welcome, rather than a torrent of bile. Or is blind hatred too much?”
— Caeso (caeso.fabius.gallus@gmail.com)

Original comment available here.

Why Does the Russian Frigate “Shtandart” Persist in Legal Actions with a Foregone Outcome?

26 décembre 202527 décembre 2025

M. “Caeso Fabius Gallus”,

1. Reminder of Previous Exchanges

I have responded to your three previous emails courteously, with argumentation and references:

Nothing in that correspondence explains the tone or accusations you express here. Nonetheless, I will once again attempt to clarify.

2. Absence of Factual Contradiction

If you carefully reread your January 22, 2026 comment, you will reach the same conclusion as any other reader. Your remarks contain no factual basis, no verification, and no precise references. You simply recycle an emotional narrative, part of recurring language elements, regularly used by Shtandart supporters as a diversion and victimization tactic.

3. Origin and Use of a Diversionary Narrative

Personal conflict, alleged hatred, lack of empathy — this rhetoric was launched on March 21, 2022, by Michel Balique⁴. Its circulation preceded by two and a half months the Shtandart’s installation in La Rochelle. It has been repeated for several years. It has been repeated indiscriminately here⁵, there⁶ and even there⁷, as a diversion. It is not possible to cite all instances of this. It has been reused indiscriminately, as a diversionary tactic. This dogma permeates the Shtandart team to such an extent that it led to false testimony⁸. by sailor Arthur Gazzarin in the newspaper Libération. It has also been the source for attempted strategic “SLAPP”-type lawsuits⁹.

This included judicial harassment by Thierry Clerc¹⁰, lawyer for Vladimir Martus. The professional ethics of the legal profession were thereby compromised. This inappropriate action led us to file a complaint with the Rouen Bar Association¹¹ regarding the instrumentalization of justice.

In any case, this rhetoric now only deceives those who refuse to examine its factual basis. These factual elements were presented to you courteously, in detail, and with references in my three previous responses. I invite you to review them while trying to set aside any cognitive bias.

4. An Institutional Affair, Not Personal

Later than many others, you followed the same path with a copy-paste. Yet you do not address or refer to any substantive point developed in the article. These phrases are interchangeable and respond to nothing specific in the text. Moreover, they do not reflect the approach¹² of the whistleblowing collective No Shtandart in Europe, as anyone can verify.

Our previous exchanges have evidently not allowed you to move beyond this narrative framework. You are personalizing an affair that is not personal, by repeating without caution what others have prepared and worn out.

5. A Documented French Singularity

If this were only about Vladimir Martus, there would be no “Shtandart affair.” In all other European countries, the law was applied quickly¹³. This summer, seven countries denied access to the Shtandart; fourteen planned port calls were canceled. Elsewhere, the Russian ship’s case was resolved in less than fifteen days.

In France, the situation has lasted more than three and a half years. Such singularity cannot be explained by heritage, emotion, or culture, but by administrative dysfunctions, networks of influence, and documented exceptional treatments¹⁴.

6. Responsibilities and the Real Scope of the Shtandart Affair

Thus, unlike in other European countries, there is indeed a “Shtandart affair” in France. Neither Vladimir Martus nor our collective is the originator. It was constructed and maintained by actors operating at the heart of the state apparatus.

Patrice Bernier, director of the La Rochelle marina, recently confirmed in the newspaper Sud-Ouest¹⁵ that the Secretariat-General for the Sea remains involved in mechanisms allowing the circumvention of European sanctions by the Shtandart.

Vladimir Martus is just one Russian among millions. Like them, he acts according to his own interests and those of his country, in a framework of practices that do not comply with European rule-of-law standards. There is no reason to elevate him to bogeyman or martyr. Making him a focal point only prevents any analysis of the institutional responsibilities that made this situation possible.

Conclusion

Accusing without argument, without documentation, and without discussing the presented facts is not a contradiction; it is a posture. It contributes nothing to the debate.

I wish fair winds to the Russian ship Shtandart.