Bulgaria has suggested Russia was behind two attacks on cargo ships near its waters on Tuesday that left eleven sailors missing, calling the escalation of the war in the Black Sea “unacceptable”.
Cargo ship HS Dignity was sunk off the Bulgarian coast overnight and 11 of its crew members remain unaccounted for. Ukrainian-owned cargo vessel Chelsea 3 was also hit by drones 18 miles from the coast, but all of its sailors have been rescued, according to Bulgarian authorities.
“We do not have solid and clear evidence to level accusations against any of the parties, but . . . logic suggests that the outcome benefits the Russian Federation,” Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev said on television on Tuesday. Radev requested help from allies to ascertain the origin of the attacks.
...
Strikes in the Black Sea have vastly increased since the summer, when Ukraine began an intensive drone campaign against Russian shipping in the region. In late September, Kyiv said it had hit more than 300 Russian shadow fleet vessels in 11 weeks.
...
Radev said he had spoken to Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte, who said Nato would step up its defence posture in the region as needed.
...
Meanwhile, French forces intercepted a Chinese-owned crude oil tanker in the Indian Ocean which had been involved in “illicit fuel-trafficking activities”, according to French President Emmanuel Macron.
The tanker, sailing under the false flag of Benin, had a history of carrying Russian cargoes, according to commodities platform Kpler. Russia’s RIA state news agency said that the Russian embassy in Paris had denounced the move as “piracy” and a violation of international maritime law.
More than 20 shadow fleet vessels have been detained by European and US forces since the start of 2025.
...
No. It's allowed to sink merchant ships of the opposing state. Energy infrastructure used to power e.g. arms production while also generating power for civilians is a legitimate target too.
For that reason an attack on the district heating system of Kiev is illegitimate, while an attack on an russian oil raffinery isn't.
It literally is, even though the US and Russia like to claim civilian infrastructure is "dual use" to pretend they're actually military targets.
https://iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/SAN-REMO-MANUAL-on-INTERNATIONAL-LAW-APPLICABLE-TO-ARMED-CONFLICTS-AT-SEA-2.pdf
`PART III: BASIC RULES AND TARGET DISCRIMINATION SECTION I: BASIC RULES
In any armed conflict the right of the parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.
Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and militaryobjectives.
In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.`
Is the important part here. And the rules set forth leave quite a bit of room for interpretation. It pretty much boils down to what you define as otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy's military action. That can be interpreted as including the transportation of export goods whose sale is used to finance the war.
Also, every protection is only granted under the precondition that the protected craft strictly stick to a clearly defined set of rules.
For example, the technically "neutral" shadow fleet vessels that have been dragging their anchors through undersea cables in the Baltic in the recent years would have been legitimate targets for the fact of engaging in the cutting of undersea cables. Likewise does the act of intelligence gathering void the protection afforded to merchant (and other protected) vessels.
By that logic all merchant vessels of every conflict are military targets because they facilitate economic activity.
You can support someone while still being critical of their actions.
Hell even Iran and Ansar Allah's blockades attempt to warn ships and follow proper maritime procedure when possible, what Russia and Ukraine are doing both on land and at sea is inexcusable considering they have far more capability to minimize damage to non-military targets.
The problem is that it will in the end boil down to such hair splitting. In the war crimes trials after WW2, for instance, the sinking of merchant vessels by submarines with no prior warning, then illegal under rules that had been written well before practical submarines had been invented, ("cruiser rules") was deliberately overlooked, because all sides had been doing it. On top of that comes the problem that the only side that will ever agree to voluntarily submitting its personnel to a truly fair and impartial trial is the side that is less inclined to committing war crimes in the first place.
Even the requirement for giving a warning before attacking a merchant vessel under a neutral flag isn't absolute (Section V.67 f): Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning
What exactly constitutes as warning isn't specified either. What exactly the permitting circumstances are, is also left open to interpretation. I am fairly certain that this rule was included to accommodate the way submarine warfare was conducted by everyone from WW2 onwards.
The only vessels for which giving a warning prior to an attack is unconditional, even if they are violating a precondition for their protection, are hospital ships. (Section III.49)