By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Overnight on July 11, Ukrainian drones launched a significant operation in the Sea of Azov, reportedly hitting 21 Russian tankers and seven other vessels. These targets, including tugboats and cargo ships, are believed to be involved in transporting oil and supporting Russian military logistics, with the strikes potentially disrupting traffic through the Kerch Strait and the Don-Azov Canal. This action follows similar Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian shipping near occupied Crimea, underscoring ongoing efforts to cripple Russia’s maritime operations and sanction circumvention. The extent of the damage is still being assessed, but market analysts note that disruptions to Russian grain exports, a significant portion of which transit through the Sea of Azov, could impact global wheat futures.
Read the original article here
Ukraine has reportedly struck a significant number of Russian oil tankers, an action that has led Moscow to halt civilian shipping through a key waterway. This development is a major blow to Russia’s ability to supply fuel, particularly to occupied Crimea, and highlights Ukraine’s evolving and increasingly effective maritime capabilities. The focus of these strikes has been on specialized vessels carrying refined oil products, primarily gasoline and diesel, which are crucial for supplying Crimea. These aren’t the massive crude carriers one might typically picture, but rather mid-size ships, around 7,000 tons, designed for this specific purpose.
The Sea of Azov has become a focal point for these operations. While precise numbers for total vessels in this smaller sea are elusive, it’s understood that the number of refined product tankers supplying Crimea through this route was relatively small, estimated at around 60. In a remarkable surge of activity over just five days, Ukraine claims to have hit 76 ships in the Sea of Azov, with a staggering 60 of those being these vital gasoline and diesel carrying tankers. This means Ukraine has, by its own account, targeted nearly every single ship of this specialized class that fuels Crimea via the Sea of Azov.
The impact of these strikes is undeniable, as evidenced by Russia’s reported decision to suspend civilian shipping in the area. Crimea, crucially, lacks the infrastructure to refine crude oil into gasoline. This dependency on refined products makes the targeting of these specific tankers a strategic masterstroke. Russia cannot simply substitute these specialized tankers with crude carriers to circumvent the problem. This situation effectively amounts to Ukraine imposing a naval blockade on a sea where it doesn’t control any coastline and, notably, without possessing a conventional navy. The very fact that shipping has been halted suggests Ukraine, through its calculated strikes, has achieved what many thought impossible.
The effectiveness of Ukraine’s strategy lies in its ability to disrupt Russia’s logistical chains. With rail links to Crimea severed, including damage to the Kerch bridge’s rail line and the destruction of land-based rail infrastructure, seaborne transport became paramount. Furthermore, attempts to use the land bridge for trucks face significant risks, with drones systematically targeting them, leading to shortages of both trucks and drivers willing to undertake the perilous journeys. Fuel tankers are also reportedly barred from the Kerch bridge due to the risk of them being targeted and causing catastrophic damage. Therefore, these smaller seaborne tankers were essentially the sole remaining method for Russia to deliver fuel to the estimated 2.5 million people on Crimea.
The targeting strategy appears to be more nuanced than simply sinking vessels. While some ships might sustain significant damage, the focus often seems to be on disabling critical systems such as bridges, engineering, or steering. The objective is not necessarily to pollute the sea, which could antagonize neighboring countries and harm Ukraine’s own economic interests, but rather to immobilize the ships. Even “light” damage, when it affects these crucial components, requires towing and extensive repairs. This adds a significant strain on Russia’s already stretched repair and maintenance capabilities, especially given the lack of insurance coverage for these vessels.
The financial implications for Russia are also substantial. Beyond the direct costs of repairs and potential loss of vessels, the recruitment and retention of crews become a major challenge. The inherent risks associated with sailing in a conflict zone, particularly with Ukrainian drone capabilities extending deep into Russian territory, necessitate significantly increased salaries, further draining Moscow’s budget. The difficulty in finding willing crew members mirrors the struggles Russia faces in finding semi-truck drivers for Crimean routes, highlighting a broader crisis in logistics and personnel due to the perceived risks.
While there might be debate about the exact number of unique vessels hit, with some strikes potentially being follow-up hits on previously damaged ships, the overall impact remains profound. Even if the numbers are slightly inflated, the targeting of multiple dozen ships is a significant achievement. The fact that Russian sources have, at times, corroborated Ukrainian claims regarding the number of vessels hit lends credibility to Ukraine’s reporting. The focus on disabling critical ship functions rather than outright sinking also presents a unique set of challenges for Russia, requiring resources for towing, repair, and management of a growing fleet of incapacitated vessels.
This strategic disruption by Ukraine effectively transforms Russia’s historical advantage of vast territory into a liability. By intelligently identifying and targeting critical supply lines, Ukraine has managed to impose significant pressure on Moscow’s operations in the region. This clever approach to naval warfare, utilizing drones and precision strikes against specialized shipping, demonstrates a significant evolution in Ukraine’s defense capabilities and its understanding of Russia’s vulnerabilities. The ability to curtail Russia’s “shadow fleet,” a network of vessels often used to circumvent sanctions and maintain trade routes, is a testament to Ukraine’s innovative and determined defense.