By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Adding to a series of recent maritime incidents, a Russian-linked tanker, the Midvolga 2, was struck in the Black Sea on Tuesday while en route from Russia to Georgia, carrying sunflower oil. This marks the fourth such attack in a week, following the bombing of the Mersin off the coast of Senegal and the attacks on the Kairos and Virat near the Bosphorus. While the crew was unharmed and the Midvolga 2 is heading to Turkey, the attacks have been linked to Ukrainian drone strikes targeting vessels suspected of circumventing sanctions against Russia.
Read the original article here
Fourth Russia-Linked Tanker Hit in a Week, and the situation is undeniably escalating. It seems that a series of incidents targeting vessels connected to Russia, specifically tankers, have occurred in a remarkably short timeframe. Considering that this is the fourth confirmed hit within a single week, it is natural to examine the potential implications, and whether this represents a shift in the ongoing conflict or a series of isolated events. The focus here is on the tankers involved, their potential role in supporting the Russian economy, and the emerging consequences of these attacks.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of these incidents is the specific targeting of tankers. If these vessels were indeed participating in sanctioned activities or acting to circumvent existing sanctions, then these attacks might be seen as a direct effort to disrupt the flow of resources fueling the Russian war effort. These vessels have, in some views, become strategic targets, reflecting a growing determination to hinder Russia’s ability to finance its operations. The sentiment expressed by some is one of little sympathy for the vessels, emphasizing that they are contributing to the very war machine that has initiated a devastating conflict.
One notable incident, according to some assessments, occurred in the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Dakar, Senegal. While other attacks in the Black Sea were closer to Ukraine’s territory, this one’s location is noteworthy because it signifies that the disruption now extends far beyond the immediate war zone. This geographic scope suggests a potential broadening of the strategic approach, aimed at squeezing Russia’s maritime trade network on a global scale. This highlights a clear message of intent from those responsible for these strikes, whatever the motives.
These tanker hits appear to be causing ripples throughout the maritime industry. The financial repercussions are already being considered. Assuming that these vessels lack proper insurance, the impact on Russia’s ability to operate its fleet, transport oil, and circumvent sanctions is significant. Even if insurance policies are in place, they likely contain war exclusions, meaning that damages resulting from acts of war are not covered. This means that even with insurance, these attacks could inflict substantial financial damage on the involved parties.
The absence of insurance coverage due to war-related exclusions creates a domino effect. The risk involved in transporting Russian goods and products has drastically increased, likely resulting in higher insurance premiums, if insurers are even willing to take on the risk. Any carrier might think twice before agreeing to transport Russian oil. The result is the possibility of further isolating Russia’s maritime trade operations, squeezing its access to revenue, and hampering its ability to fund the war.
The attacks raise ethical and strategic questions. The targeting of commercial vessels has become a part of the war, and this will inevitably change the calculations of those involved. There is a debate about whether such actions are justified, given the context of war and the vessels’ perceived role in supporting the conflict.
The very concept of these tankers is now being mocked. One might even describe the ships as “floating Ladas”, referring to a specific type of vehicle. The state of the ships’ engineering and manufacturing has been mocked and scrutinized, with questions being asked if they are even seaworthy.
The overall sentiment is a mixture of satisfaction and expectation. Many see these strikes as positive developments that could eventually cripple the capacity of Russia to wage war. There’s a widespread hope that such actions will continue to occur and, potentially, increase in frequency.
However, the situation has its complexities. There’s also the question of targeting and the desire to go after the root cause of the conflict. One perspective is that instead of focusing on commercial vessels, the ultimate goal should be the disruption of those at the very top. This is the desire to take down the figureheads driving the war.
The immediate consequences of these attacks are easily identifiable. While the financial ramifications are significant, there is also the potential for environmental damage, depending on the nature of the incidents and the types of cargo the tankers were carrying. The long-term effects of this emerging trend are less certain but could include a shift in the global oil market, increased risk for maritime trade, and further economic isolation for Russia.