Some of you might know that, so far, I’ve written four articles in a series on the deceptions and lies told to us in the West about the war in Ukraine. I had been thinking on writing a couple more, including one on the covert war at sea, but had put it off as this is a very busy time of the year for me, and I’m struggling to cope.
However, my hackles were well and truly raised by a recent piece in the Telegraph by their warmonger in chief, Tom Sharpe, on what he alleges to be aggression and provocation of the Russian Navy because of it escorting a couple of tankers, which Sharpie claims are part of Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’, through the English Channel. Leaving aside that the article is full of waffle, assertion and dubious claims, Sharpe’s article is a masterclass in selective outrage and geopolitical hypocrisy, conveniently omitting the crucial context of why Russia feels the need to provide naval escorts for its so-called "shadow fleet", and failing completely to acknowledge the West's escalation of tensions at sea.
The article portrays Russia's decision to have a corvette escort oil tankers through the English Channel as an aggressive, almost unprecedented act, while completely ignoring why Moscow feels compelled to take such measures. The reality is that Russia's shadow fleet, or more accurately the network of tankers and other cargo vessels operating to sustain its oil exports and seaborne trade amid Western sanctions, has been systematically targeted by sabotage, fires, and mysterious explosions. These incidents are not isolated mechanical failures or coincidence for they bear all the hallmarks of covert operations by a state actor, widely suspected to be operating with Western approval, if not direct involvement.
Some very powerful organisation with world-wide operational bases is targeting ships that trade with Russia. This has been going on since the war in Ukraine started. For example the case of the major, mysterious fire in 2023 on the Liberia-flagged oil tanker Pablo, reportedly part of Russia's shadow fleet, after she suffered a major explosion and fire off Malaysia, killing crew members. Officially blamed on "technical faults," few marine casualty investigators (my former profession) believed a word of it, as all the timing, circumstances and technical details were deeply suspicious.
Numerous ‘shadow fleet’ vessels have experienced "accidental" groundings or collisions in key chokepoints — the kind of incidents that conveniently disrupt Russian oil exports without any logical reason for the incidents being apparent. Further, Western-aligned states have been pressuring insurers, repairers and port authorities to refuse service to shadow fleet ships, effectively weaponising the global maritime logistics system against Russian commerce. Ships leaving Russian ports have been stopped, hijacked in fact, in international waters and detained for allegedly damaging undersea cables. After a mass propaganda campaign, the ships have all be quietly let go with no charges made.
These illegal tactics, and the targeting of infrastructure, creating insurance blacklists, and facilitating unexplained ship failures, amount to nothing short of state-sanctioned terrorism on the high seas. That term, often used to describe Iranian or Houthi activity, applies just as readily to clandestine efforts to cripple a sovereign state's civilian shipping for political ends. And it is almost certainly being carried out with major US and UK involvement.
The Daily Telegraph article subtly champions "deterrent messaging" by the Royal Navy, conveniently framed as lawful protection of Western interests. But when Russia, facing demonstrable threats to its commercial lifeline, provides a naval escort for its tankers, it is portrayed as sinister militarisation of the seas. This blatant double standard undermines any pretence of impartiality in maritime security debates.
Further hypocrisy emerges in the broader context of freedom of navigation. If the UK, US and allies escort their ships through the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea, it is hailed as upholding international law. But Russia escorting its tankers through the English Channel, through international waters, is reported as a threat and deliberate provocation. You cannot have it both ways. Freedom of navigation is a universal right, not a geopolitical privilege for the West alone.
The DT article implicitly condemns the shadow fleet as an enabler of sanctions evasion, but fails to acknowledge that many countries, particularly India, legally purchase Russian oil. India, commendably, has made it clear that its energy policy is driven by its own national interest, not Western geopolitics. Efforts to block, sabotage, or threaten the transport of Russian oil to India or other nations infringes their sovereign economic rights and violates the principles of free trade and maritime neutrality.
Rather than stoking hysteria over Russian escorts, an honest analysis would admit that Western states have quietly waged a covert campaign to disrupt Russian shipping and trade, and that Russia, like any nation under threat, has the right to protect its civilian maritime assets. Any reasonable journalist – and Sharpe must know all this – would point out that applying "freedom of navigation" selectively undermines the international law of the sea, and freedom of navigation, a policy that historically was the Royal Navy’s main job. And obviously, pressuring nations like India not to engage in legal trade with Russia is neo-colonial interference, not principled diplomacy.
If the West truly cares about global maritime security, it should end its hypocritical narrative that only its ships deserve safe passage, halt covert sabotage that endangers civilian crews, the maritime infrastructure and the marine environment. Respecting the sovereignty of non-aligned nations to trade freely should go without saying. Otherwise, the only "messaging" happening at sea is that international law is whatever powerful states like the US say it is, a very dangerous precedent indeed.
I return to incidents at sea involving ships trading with Russia, lest you think that this is a small, isolated problem. Here are several more documented incidents involving Russia’s “shadow fleet” or vessels calling at Russian ports (there are more) which point directly to covert sabotage and, in effect, terrorism.
The tanker Koala, an Antigua flagged ‘shadow‑fleet’ tanker experienced three explosive blasts in its engine room while moored at Ust-Luga, near St Petersburg, on 9 February 2025. The crew evacuated safely, but the ship sank by the stern. In what was almost certainly a “man-made incident”. Some shipping experts pointed to external involvement, and other, western analysts, cited similarities to sabotage tactics seen in Nord Stream pipeline attacks.
Another shadow fleet tanker, Seajewel suffered two explosions offloading oil at Savona, Italy on 14 February 2025. Underwater inspections later found punched‑in holes in its hull with dead fish floating nearby, almost beyond doubt an act of external sabotage with classic indicators of limpet mine damage, a covert naval sabotage method historically favoured by western special forces. Italian authorities downplayed the event, but western maritime security experts blamed “likely state actor involvement.”
The tankers Seacharm and Grace Ferrum, which had also previously called at Russian ports, both suffered explosions while operating in Turkish and Libyan waters respectively in early 2025.
Another tanker, Panama‑flagged Wind, carrying Russian oil was struck by a missile in the Red Sea on 18 May 2024. The strike damaged steering gear and caused a fire, though the crew managed to continue the voyage. The missile strike was reported by the MSM as being Houthi‑launched, but they have strenuously denied it.
The tanker Ursa Major, a militarily linked Russian cargo ship, sank on 23 December 2024 between Spain and Algeria after at least three engine‑room explosions. Russia branded it an “act of terrorism”
Volgoneft‑212 & Volgoneft‑239: on 15 December 2024, these two Volgoneft tankers (shadow‑fleet participants) both broke apart near the Kerch Strait during storms, causing major leaks. One sailor died, and another tanker grounded. The MSM, when they bothered to mention them, said that the tankers ‘repeatedly violated safety rules, sailing in winter and exceeding recommended operational lifespans’. No evidence to support these assertions were ever produced, and there is no such thing as a ship’s recommended operational lifespan.
Following these suspicious incidents, Russian authorities now require diver inspections on inbound high‑risk tankers to check for explosives or other sabotage — a stark sign of escalating threats.
These aren’t isolated engineering failures. They reflect a clear pattern of targeted sabotage. The frequency, consistency, and nature of these incidents strongly imply state-actor involvement, whether via clandestine operations, proxy forces, or hybrid warfare elements. International investigations and journalists should treat them accordingly. They have a great geographical spread, with incidents in Russian, Mediterranean, Red Sea, and EU ports (Italy) demonstrating global, coordinated operations. They also have a consistent modus operandi of underwater explosions, engine room blasts, targeted missile strikes — all hallmarks of sabotage, with technical precision beyond random accidents.
No state claims responsibility, but methods align with capabilities of Western intelligence services and their allies, using hybrid warfare with echoes of the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, now widely attributed to state-level actors with naval special operations capabilities i.e. US/UK.
In summary, the sabotage of civilian shipping, even if linked to sanctioned trade, constitutes state-sanctioned terrorism under any fair legal definition. Escalating these covert attacks forces Russia to militarise its shipping lanes, as seen with warship escorts through the English Channel. Western outrage over Russian naval escorts is, therefore, highly hypocritical, especially given their own unacknowledged role in making these escorts necessary.
Targeting ships buying or transporting Russian oil, especially when destined for countries like India or China, which legally purchase Russian oil, violates the principles of freedom of navigation and sovereign trade rights. The war against ships involved in trade with Russia, the so-called “shadow fleet” isn’t just a loophole in sanctions, it's a battlefield in a clandestine, undeclared maritime war. To me, it is clear that state-sponsored operations, and we can all make a very good guess who’s behind it, are actively targeting Russian maritime trade. The Western MSM, with egregious armchair warriors like Sharpe and his equally bellicose mates at the Daily Telegraph, by ignoring or downplaying these realities, which they must be aware of, fosters a false narrative of unilateral Russian aggression that makes a real war more likely.
Until this covert maritime war is acknowledged for what it is, a campaign of western state-sanctioned terrorism, escalating flashpoints like warship escorts will only increase. The result could be catastrophic.