By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian security sources have confirmed that underwater drones were used in attacks on two tankers, part of Russia’s shadow fleet, in the Black Sea. The strikes, which occurred on the Gambian-flagged Virat and Kairos, resulted in critical damage, effectively taking them out of service and disrupting the transportation of Russian oil. The Virat, sanctioned by multiple countries, sustained damage over two days while the Kairos saw all crew members evacuated following an explosion and fire. Additionally, a mooring point at the Russian port of Novorossiysk was hit by a marine drone.
Read the original article here
Ukraine says it hit Russian ‘shadow fleet’ tankers with underwater drones in Black Sea, and this news is making waves, no pun intended. The core of the matter is that Ukraine’s security services claim to have used underwater, or rather, surface drones, to strike two tankers belonging to Russia’s “shadow fleet” operating in the Black Sea. The attacks reportedly took place over a Friday and Saturday, causing explosions on the vessels. While there’s been no immediate confirmation from Russia, the Ukrainian side says the Sea Baby maritime drones, a joint operation by the SBU and the navy, were responsible.
It’s clear that this is a significant move, and the potential repercussions are multifaceted. One of the immediate impacts is likely to be financial. The shadow fleet, often comprised of ships with questionable insurance and in generally poor condition, exists to circumvent sanctions on Russian oil. If these vessels aren’t properly insured, or are underinsured, the damage could be incredibly costly for whoever is ultimately footing the bill. A destroyed or damaged VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) can be a hit of $50-70 million down the drain for a newer or used vessel. Moreover, even if they are insured, insurance companies are going to be far less willing to cover these kinds of risks if Ukraine continues these kinds of attacks.
This also highlights the effectiveness of Ukrainian strategy, and how it is hurting. The Ukrainian actions target what are essentially Russia’s war funds and are a response to what they view as Russian actions. The strikes themselves are a signal that Ukraine is willing to use all available resources to target Russia’s ability to fund its war efforts.
The debate about whether attacking civilian ships is “fair game” is inevitable. However, these tankers are not simply civilian vessels; they’re integral to Russia’s ability to export oil and bypass sanctions, a direct contributor to the war effort. The fact that the crews were evacuated does seem to indicate a calculated effort to minimize civilian casualties, focusing on the ships themselves.
It seems these oil tankers were empty at the time of the attacks. That’s an important detail. The targets aren’t the oil itself, and the Ukrainians are taking steps to avoid environmental disasters, which might happen if the ships were to release their cargo. Considering the Russians have been targeting hospitals and other non-military targets, these are all strategic and smart moves.
The use of surface drones is also worth noting. The drones involved, the Sea Baby maritime drones, are actually surface drones, not underwater ones.
The implications for international relations are also present. Turkey might not be pleased, but it could avoid these problems by simply not allowing ships to transit the area with illegal cargos. It’s a situation where nations and companies that choose to work around sanctions may face increased risks. This strategy has proven how Russia’s military adventurism isn’t just catastrophic for Ukraine and its people, but also for the environment and the world as a whole.
The issue of insurance also gets interesting. Given the nature of these attacks, can insurance even cover damage from drones? The potential is there, but even then, insurers will be less and less inclined to insure ships that face such risk. It’s a risk assessment question.
Finally, we also see the complexity of international law. The law about targeting vessels is somewhat vague, and depending on the situation. If it is supporting the war effort, then it is a legitimate military target.
In summary, the Ukrainian attacks on the Russian shadow fleet tankers are a strategic move with potential financial, political, and even environmental consequences.