Russia has deployed navy assets to escort an oil tanker also being pursued by US forces across the Atlantic, CBS News, BBC’s media partner in the US, reported.

The ship, which currently isn’t carrying anything, historically has transported Venezuelan crude oil and was thought to be between Scotland and Iceland on Tuesday.

President Donald Trump said last month that he was ordering a “blockade” of sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela, a move the government there described as “theft”.

Ahead of the US seizure of the country’s former leader Nicolás Maduro on Saturday, Trump repeatedly accused Venezuela’s government of using ships to bring drugs to the US.

The US Coast Guard tried to board the Bella 1 last month in the Caribbean when it was believed to be heading towards Venezuela. It had a warrant to seize the ship, which was accused of breaking US sanctions and shipping Iranian oil.

It then dramatically changed course – as well as its name to Marinera – reportedly reflagging from a Guyanese to a Russian vessel.

Its approach to Europe has coincided with the arrival of around 10 US military transport aircraft as well as helicopters.

Russia says it is “monitoring with concern” the situation around the ship.

Two US officials told CBS News earlier on Tuesday that American forces were planning to board the ship, and that Washington preferred to seize it rather than sink it.

On Tuesday, the US military’s Southern Command posted on social media that it “remains ready to support our US government agency partners in standing against sanctioned vessels and actors transiting through this region.

“Our sea services are vigilant, agile, and postured to track vessels of interest. When the call comes, we will be there.”

The Marinera was believed to be between Scotland and Iceland overnight Tuesday, with the distance and weather making boarding difficult.

Before any US military operation was launched from the UK, Washington would be expected to inform its ally.

For now, the UK Ministry of Defence says it will not comment on other nations’ military activities.

The US officials quoted by CBS suggested that America could mount an operation like one conducted last month when US Marines and special operation forces working with the Coast Guard seized The Skipper, a large crude oil tanker flagged out of Guyana, after the vessel left port in Venezuela.

AIS (automatic identification system) tracking data for the tanker, which can be spoofed or faked, suggests it was in the North Atlantic approximately 2,000km (1,200 miles) west of continental Europe on Tuesday.

Under international law, vessels flying a country’s flag are under the protection of that nation but Dimitris Ampatzidis, senior risk and compliance analyst at maritime intelligence firm Kpler, told BBC Verify changing the ship’s name and flag might not change much.

“US action is driven by the vessel’s underlying identity [IMO number], ownership/control networks, and sanctions history, not by its painted markings or flag claim,” he said.

Ampatzidis added that changing to the Russian registry might cause “diplomatic friction” but would not stop any US enforcement action.

“At present, our vessel is sailing in the international waters of the North Atlantic under the state flag of the Russian Federation and in full compliance with the norms of international maritime law,” Russia’s foreign ministry said.

“For reasons unclear to us, the Russian ship is being given increased and clearly disproportionate attention by the US and Nato military, despite its peaceful status,” it said.

“We expect that Western countries, which declare their commitment to freedom of navigation on the high seas, will begin adhering to this principle themselves.”

The potential stand-off over the oil tanker comes days after the US shocked the world with the Maduro seizure from the capital Caracas. It bombarded targets in the city during the operation to extricate him and his wife on suspicion of weapon and drug offences.

The attack on Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro over the weekend have sent shockwaves across Latin America, where many countries fear a return to a period of overt United States interventionism.

Those fears are particularly prominent in Mexico, the US’s neighbour and longtime ally.

The country was one of several — along with Cuba and Colombia — that US President Donald Trump singled out in remarks after Saturday’s attack on Venezuela, which killed dozens of people and was widely condemned as a violation of international law.

Trump suggested that the US could carry out military strikes on Mexican territory in the name of combating drug traffickers.

“Something’s going to have to be done with Mexico,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News on Saturday morning, after the Venezuela strikes.

“She [President Claudia Sheinbaum] is very frightened of the cartels,” he added. “They’re running Mexico.”

‘We are free and sovereign’

Sheinbaum has responded to Trump’s threats with a firm insistence on Mexican sovereignty.

“We categorically reject intervention in the internal matters of other countries,” Sheinbaum said in comments to the media on Monday.

“It is necessary to reaffirm that, in Mexico, the people rule and that we are a free and sovereign country,” she added. “Cooperation, yes; subordination and intervention, no.”

Even in good times, Mexican leaders have walked a line between seeking productive relations with their powerful northern neighbour and defending their interests from possible US encroachment.

That balancing act has become more difficult as the Trump administration employs rhetoric and policies that have drawn parallels to earlier eras of imperial intervention.

“Historically, there’s a record of US intervention that is part of the story of Mexican nationalism,” Pablo Piccato, a professor of Mexican history at Columbia University, told Al Jazeera.

Many of those instances loom large in the country’s national memory. The US launched a war against Mexico in 1846 that saw US troops occupy Mexico City and annex enormous swaths of territory, including modern-day California, Nevada, and New Mexico.

Later, during the Mexican Revolution, from 1910 to 1920, US Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson worked with conservative forces in Mexico to overthrow the country’s pro-reform president.

US forces also bombed the port city of Veracruz in 1914 and sent forces into northern Mexico to hunt down revolutionary leader Pancho Villa.

“These are seen as important moments in Mexican history,” said Piccato.

“There is a quote attributed to Mexican President Porfirio Diaz, ‘Poor Mexico. So far from God, so close to the United States.’”

In recent statements, Trump has linked the US’s history in the region to his present-day agenda. While announcing Saturday’s strike, he cited the Monroe Doctrine, a 19th-century policy that the US has used to assert primacy over the Western Hemisphere.

“The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a real lot. They now call it the ‘Donroe Doctrine’,” Trump said.

On Monday, the US State Department also shared an image of Trump on social media with the caption: “This is OUR hemisphere.”

‘Balancing on a thin wire’

Sheinbaum’s insistence on Mexican sovereignty has not prevented her from offering concessions to Trump on key priorities, such as migration, security and commerce.

When faced with Trump’s threats of 25 percent tariffs last February, Sheinbaum agreed to deploy 10,000 Mexican National Guard troops to her country’s border with the US, to help limit irregular immigration and drug-trafficking.

Mexico has also maintained close security ties with the US and cooperated in its operations against criminal groups, including through the extradition of some drug traffickers.

In February, for instance, Sheinbaum’s government extradited 29 criminal suspects that the US accused of drug trafficking and other charges. In August, it sent another 26 suspects to the US, earning a statement of gratitude from the Trump administration.

Washington has historically pressured Mexico to take a hardline stance towards combating drugs, leading to policies that some Mexicans blame for increasing violence and insecurity in their country.

Still, while Sheinbaum has received praise for managing relations with Trump, she has consistently said that unilateral US military action on Mexican territory would be a red line.

Experts say Sheinbaum’s willingness to cooperate should be an incentive for the US government not to launch attacks on Mexican soil.

“Sheinbaum has gone out of her way to cooperate with the US,” said Stephanie Brewer, the director of the Mexico programme at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a US-based research group. “There would be no rational reason to break this bilateral relationship by crossing the one red line Mexico has set out.”

But the strikes on Venezuela have also underscored the Trump administration’s increasingly aggressive posture towards Latin America.

“I don’t think US strikes on Mexican territory are any more or less likely than they were before the attacks in Venezuela,” said Brewer. “But they do make it abundantly clear that the Trump administration’s threats need to be taken seriously, and that the US is willing to violate international law in its use of military force.”

“Sheinbaum is doing a balancing act on an increasingly thin wire,” she added.

Where is Greenland and why does it matter to Trump?

What has Trump said about the US controlling Greenland?

What have Denmark and other Nato allies said?

Why does Denmark control Greenland?

Reuters

What do the people of Greenland think?