By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On July 11th, Ukrainian forces launched significant strikes across the Sea of Azov, targeting 21 oil tankers, four tugboats, and two dry cargo ships. These actions aimed to diminish the Russian aggressor’s military-economic potential by disrupting oil transportation that finances the war and hindering military logistics and port operations. The extensive damage has forced a halt to shipping through the Kerch Strait, impacting global food markets, particularly wheat shipments. Further strikes in Taganrog involved drones attacking four vessels, with Russian authorities reporting only minor damage and successful air defense interceptions.
Read the original article here
Ukrainian Defense Forces recently executed a significant series of strikes in the Sea of Azov, targeting Russia’s maritime logistics with considerable success. On Saturday, July 11th, the Ukrainian forces successfully hit an impressive tally of 21 oil tankers, along with four tugboats and two dry cargo ships. This operation was a strategic move aimed at crippling the “military-economic potential of the Russian aggressor,” as stated by the General Staff in a Telegram update. The focus wasn’t just on the lucrative oil tankers, which are crucial for Russia’s ability to circumvent international sanctions and finance its aggression, but also on auxiliary and supply vessels that underpin military operations.
The General Staff’s detailed report confirmed the broader scope of the attack, highlighting the targeting of vessels vital for military logistics, cargo transport, and port infrastructure maintenance. This included the four tugboats, the two dry cargo ships, and even a dredger. While the full extent of the damage is still under assessment, the strikes represent a substantial blow to Russia’s maritime capabilities in the region. The fact that 21 tankers were directly impacted underscores their importance in the Russian logistical chain, particularly their role in transporting oil and petroleum products.
Interestingly, the reports and subsequent discussions suggest a deliberate strategy behind these strikes, one that prioritizes disabling rather than sinking vessels, especially tankers. This approach appears to be a calculated move to avoid catastrophic environmental damage, such as widespread oil spills, which would negatively impact Ukraine as well. The explosions seen in some videos might be attributed to ship’s fuel or components igniting, rather than the entire oil cargo. The tactical decision to target empty ships heading towards Russian ports, or to focus on disabling critical ship systems like the bridge, makes strategic sense. When a loaded ship is destroyed, the immediate financial loss often falls on the ship owner rather than Russia, whereas disabling an empty vessel on its return journey directly impacts Russian logistics and operational capacity.
The method of attack, likely employing drones with smaller warheads, is designed to cause maximum disruption without necessarily sinking the vessels. Hits to control rooms, bridges, and other vital operational components can render ships inoperable for extended periods, requiring extensive repairs and specialized parts that are becoming increasingly difficult for Russia to procure and deliver. This “attrition warfare” approach focuses on taking vessels out of commission, thereby making sea logistics untenable for Russia. Even though the warheads might not have the capacity to sink large vessels, they are highly effective at wrecking crucial systems, effectively leaving the ships “dead in the water.”
The repeated targeting of ships, even after repairs, further amplifies the pressure on Russia’s already strained resources. This strategy creates a continuous cycle of disruption and repair, consuming valuable manpower and resources. The effectiveness of disabling a ship by targeting its bridge or other critical systems means it might not sink, but it is effectively removed from active service. This approach avoids the environmental disaster of sinking oil tankers, a concern that resonates with the idea of “doing God’s work” by avoiding pollution.
The sheer number of vessels impacted suggests a significant mobilization and increased capability on Ukraine’s part. The targeting of the bridge, for instance, is a clear indicator that the intent is not necessarily to sink the ship but to disable it, forcing it to cease operations. This strategic focus on crippling operational capacity rather than outright destruction is a testament to a sophisticated understanding of naval warfare and resource management in the context of the ongoing conflict. It’s about creating a sustained state of logistical paralysis for the aggressor.