Talk:Russian shadow fleet

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the following to the list of sanctioned ships in the article:

1. ROCKY RUNNER (IMO 9288899) (Unique ID: RUS2169)
2. DYNAMIK TRADER (IMO 9286657) (Unique ID: RUS2170)
3. FIGHTER TWO (IMO 9296391) (Unique ID: RUS2172)
4. SCF AMUR (IMO 9333436) (Unique ID: RUS2166)
5. SCF PECHORA (IMO 9333424) (Unique ID: RUS2165)
6. ZALIV AMURSKIY (IMO 9354313) (Unique ID: RUS2164)
7. NS LOTUS (IMO 9339337) (Unique ID: RUS2173)
8. NS COMMANDER (IMO 9306794) (Unique ID: RUS2174)
9. ADYGEYA (IMO 9292204) (Unique ID: RUS2171)
10. KOROLEV PROSPECT (IMO 9826902) (Unique ID: RUS2167)
11. PRIMORSKY PROSPECT (IMO 9511533) (Unique ID: RUS2168)

Source: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/UKFCDO/bulletins/3a955ad TamsaVakaras (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: Can you fill all the information from these for the table? Ultraodan (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This should be a list in a new section. The article does not list UK sanctions now. TamsaVakaras (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following ships were in the latest round of EU sanctions on the fleet:

MIANZIMU PIONEER ALISSA MARABELLA SUN CHRISTOPHE DE MARGERIE ALTAIR PETA LUMINA SAN DAMIAN SAN COSMAS SAN SEVERUS GALAXY RIGEL CASSIOPEIA CONSTELLATION ANDROMEDA CALLISTO ALLIANCE PHOENIX LEO ZENITH TURBO VOYAGER SIRIUS SATURN LIFE KRISHNA 1 VLADIMIR VINOGRADOV MOSKOVSKY PROSPECT BOLERO VEGA TYAGARAJA ATTICA LA PEROUSE ELBRUS PREMIER PATHFINDER SIERRA TRUST ZALIV AMERIKA ZALIV AMURSKIYA AMBER 6 EMILY S FJORD SEAL HEIDI A LINE OKEANSKY PROSPECT CAPELLA SIRI NORTH WAY NORTH SKY NORTH AIR NORTH MOUNTAIN

Source: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/maritime-news/15/maritime-security/2024/11724/eu-sanctions-52-new-vessels-of-russias-shadow-fleet-in-its-1 TamsaVakaras (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: Can you fill all the information from these for the table? Ultraodan (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This page's "Short description", which isn't directly visible in this article, but displays on all pages linking here using "annotated links", describes Russia's so-called "shadow fleet" as "Vessels illegally operated by Russia". But on what basis, exactly is this "illegal" label being used? Obviously the fleet isn't illegal under Russian law, and I don't believe it's illegal under international law either, since, AFAIA, the UN Security Council has not passed any resolution against this fleet, nor has any international court ruled that its operation is illegal. From what I understand, these are simply ships which aren't insured in London or by other Western insurers, and which ignore that price-cap which the G7 and a few of its allies tried to impose....But of course the G7 and whatever allies don't get to write international law on their own. So I think a more neutral and fact-based description is needed....It's interesting that in this article itself, no claim is made, nor is any citation provided for the fleet's supposed "illegality", so it strikes me that this annotated link description was edited to be biased/misleading while doing an end-run around the normal process of having to cite sources for such factual descriptions. -2003:CA:873C:A85B:4110:7A43:F02E:8AF8 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

"Illegal" as laid out in the sanctions imposed on Russia for it´s war on Ukraine. Russian oil can not be transported through waters belonging to states who imposed those sanctions. Since a large percentage of the tankers travels through the European Union part of the Baltic sea, all those transports are "illegal", regardless what flag they fly. Additionally, a lot of those ships lack proper insurance, pose a threat to enviroment and would thereby not be allowed to travel. Unfortunately, as "illegal" as they may be, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea grants them all the right of innocent passage anyway. Alexpl (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a comma that should be removed. Final sentence after the 2nd word. The line is - "After determining, that the Eventin" this is incorrect comma usage. 138.92.105.180 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Two vessels were sunk, the 9500 ton freighter Ursa Major off Spain on 24 December 2024" - please add wiki link for MV Ursa Major article. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Nubzor [T][C] 15:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@TylerBurden I will insist that changing sections position is the right approach to improve the structure of this article. In my edit the section positon according to their importance. Information about sanctions against ships is the primary information that reveals the meaning of the article (for example, the number of ships sanctioned), while incidents are secondary information.

And if you make a revert, please disclose your motive in more detail. "not an improvement shift of order makes no sense" - it's a matter of taste, if not backed up by a stronger position. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Well that's ironic, given that the reason you gave for making the change in the first place, "positon according to their importance", I don't really think one is more "important" than the other, but one of them mostly consists of a table, I don't see how it is good article flow to have the reader go through a huge table before even getting to the notable instances that have actually happened on sea. Tables are generally placed close to the bottom of the article. TylerBurden (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're right here that the table is blocking the space. And I even thought that it could be hidden via collapsed block, but as far as I understand, it is not recommended to do this (MOS:COLLAPSE). On the other hand, we shouldn't use the not quite correct partition order just because of this table. In other words, the table should not be a block. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@TylerBurden I don't understand why you're revert an edit about the old G7. Oil price cap by G7 and EU, but not US, UK and EU only. Therefore, it is a big mistake not to use this in the article. I think it's unnecessary to say that the "2022 Russian crude oil price cap sanctions" clearly indicate to the G7 at the top of article.

If this is not enough for you, then here is another mention in the sources:

• Following Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the European Union (EU), G7, and allied partners imposed extensive sanctions targeting Russia's economy... (source)
• including the oil price cap introduced in December 2022 by a coalition including the Group of Seven countries and the European Union (source)

AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The article lead is based on the article body per WP:LEAD, the article doesn't talk about G7 at all, it does however specifically mention the US, the UK and the EU.

If you want to change the wording, you should make sure it's supported by an alteration to the article body. I would also suggest reading WP:NPOV, because your initial creation of the "legislation" section was incredibly unbalanced with the sources cited towards giving a favorable legal status of the shadow fleet. TylerBurden (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

"the article doesn't talk about G7 at all, it does however specifically mention the US, the UK and the EU" – if this is the only reason, then I will return the G7 mention with this reference (moreover, it is already used in the article).

"I would also suggest reading WP:NPOV, because your initial creation of the "legislation" section was incredibly unbalanced with the sources cited towards giving a favorable legal status of the shadow fleet" – ok, but I just translated the section from the ruWiki article as indicated in the edit description. Anyone can always add or edit in the future, as you consider necessary (which you did). AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

If you're adding translated content, you're the one fully responsible for making sure it's in line with policies on the English Wikipedia, not just translating it and leaving it for others to fix. In this case, you caused a WP:NPOV issue in a WP:CT, so I would suggest being more careful. TylerBurden (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, there is my flaw here, I admit. Do you have any objections about the G7 right now? AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

"Do you have any objections about the G7 right now?" - I don't think there can be any objections. Returned the mention of the G7. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Well it took you 6 hours until after you had already edited it back in to actually address the problem I mentioned, which was that G7 wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article body. You're once again proving impatient with your editing much like on Ekaterina Kotrikadze, and feel like you have a right to enforce your own consensus, hopefully you can avoid WP:BLUDGEONING this time at least. TylerBurden (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

"which was that G7 wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article body" – sorry, but when it's written exclusively about the US, UK and EU (but not G7), it can be regarded as misleading info. Therefore, it needs to be fixed. I don't think you'll have any objections to why you can't mention the G7 countries. The fact that they are not mentioned in the article body, itself does not mean that they cannot be mentioned in the lead (with ref). There are more questions about the content of the article itself, because now it does not reveal all the points. For example, today I added information about insurance, which also mentions the G7. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm the one citing actual guidelines, you're just enforcing your own opinions. TylerBurden (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I think my changes also have a basis, backed up by sources.

> This whole paragraph is oddly written and I'm guessing was pasted and translated from the Russian Wikipedia, it's fine to include some content about the sabotage, but saying that the fleet is having a ″hybrid war″ waged on it is ridiculous. Appears to be citing a Russian official as well, not some independent think tank as implied

The paragraph was not copied from Russian Wikipedia. The content is based on a reliable secondary source (Forbes Russia), which includes comments from Alexey Gromov. He is a well-known energy expert and a published specialist in the field, and the source presents his remarks as part of broader analysis.

Including an attributed expert opinion from a reliable source can help reflect the range of views on the issue, provided it is clearly attributed and proportional. If there are concerns about the reliability of the source or the appropriateness of including his opinion, you can request at WP:RSN to clarify the source evaluation. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

How many others sources describe this alleged "hybrid warfare" against the Russian shadow fleet? If you actually look more at the source, he goes further and says that the Russian shadow fleet is victim of "terrorist attacks". I don't think his narrative is generally in line with the WP:CONSENSUS in WP:RS, and he doesn't offer anything not already described, including the numerous others sources you have added fixating on Ukraine being guilty of these attacks, and things like sanctions are also covered to the point they have their own section on the article. In other words, the guy doesn't seem to contribute much other than sensationalism painting the fleet (and Russia) as a victim. TylerBurden (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

A few points:

The statement about "hybrid warfare" is attributed, and attributed expert opinions from reliable secondary sources are normally acceptable per WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, even if they represent a less common viewpoint. Rarity of a view is not itself a reason to exclude it, so long as it is properly attributed and presented with due weight.

Forbes Russia is considered a reliable secondary source unless there is evidence to the contrary. Under WP:ONUS, if an editor believes a source to be unreliable or unduly sensationalistic, the burden is on the editor raising that concern to provide policy-based rationale or to open a discussion at WP:RSN. I don’t think we should pre-emptively remove content solely because one expert opinion is not repeated elsewhere.

The proposed text does not assert that hybrid warfare is a fact; it simply reports that one energy analyst described the situation this way, alongside other sourced information already in the article.

Regarding Ukraine, all the additions I make are strictly based on what reliable sources state. If multiple RS discuss possible Ukrainian involvement, then neutrally summarising that reporting (without asserting it as fact) is consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didn't find any other sources discussing this, so it's a WP:UNDUE opinion by a single Russian analyst, who is also calling these attacks "terrorist attacks", another narrative I would be very interested to see a source that isn't Russian state aligned media (who usually refer to any force used on the fleet as piracy) be spreading.

Are you even reading the policies you are attempting to cite at this point? Because WP:ONUS says: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That means you, and so far you haven't done anything other than continue to repeat how great this one guy saying this allegedly is, even though no other expert is saying the same thing.

As for "Forbes Russia" that you're also embellishing and listing as an argument to include this fringe narrative:

"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/25/how-russia-independent-media-was-dismantled-piece-by-piece

https://meduza.io/en/news/2018/08/06/forbes-russia-staff-goes-on-strike-after-owner-stops-paying-them

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/08/01/forbes-russia-losing-independence-should-world-care-a62399 TylerBurden (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat myself several times. If you have doubts about the quality of Forbes Russia, you can sent a request to WP:RSN. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Then you can stop repeating yourself and provide what is asked per WP:ONUS, which is that you demonstrate that this "hybrid warfare" is anything but a fringe view by a single alleged Russian expert published on a website which several actual WP:RS have identified issues with. TylerBurden (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that this view is mainstream. This is why it is clearly attributed and presented as the opinion of one expert. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, properly attributed expert assessments may be included with appropriate weight, even if they are not widely shared.

If you believe that Forbes Russia fail WP:RS, the correct venue is request to WP:RSN. Until then, the source remains usable according to existing guideline practice.

That said, I'm fully open to adjusting the wording so it reflects minimal weight and avoids giving the impression of broader acceptance:

> Alexey Gromov, Principal Director for Energy Studies at the Institute for Energy and Finance Foundation (FIEF), has suggested that the confirmed cases of tanker sabotage may be viewed as part of what he describes as a “hybrid war” against the Russian “shadow fleet”. According to Gromov, this interpretation includes sanctions, vessel inspections and detentions by customs authorities in various countries, as well as acts of sabotage. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

You continue to be unable to find a single other source describing this alleged hybrid war, probably because in actuality there are more sources describing the shadow fleet being used as part of Russian hybrid tactics, for example as described by the European Policy Center seen here. Wikipedia cannot include every minority opinion that exists even if it is written with attribution.

The article can only contain so much information about the "attacks" on the fleet per WP:DUE, and given how much article space has already been given to incriminate Ukraine being behind the attacks (also added by you), which is content that unlike this makes sense given that it is reported by not just one source but several, including this fringe narrative that doesn't belong in the first place is making the section even more unbalanced than it already is.

What guideline are you making up now? There is no guideline that says I need to take it to RSN, the actual guideline WP:ONUS, which at this point has been pointed out to you numerous times but you don't seem to grasp it, making me wonder if you're even reading it in the first place, places the responsibility on you to gain consensus for using the source after its reliability has been disputed. Aside from the sources above calling it into question, even Wikipedia's article on Forbes lists "Forbes Russia" as a ceased publication, which might explain the website's significantly lower quality.

Instead of adding Russian fringe narratives, the section should be fleshed out with actually WP:DUE content like different viewpoints regarding justification and legality of such attacks, risks including escalation, etc. TylerBurden (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The correct link to the article about the Kairos is: MV_Kairos. Jan Vlug (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed it. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Can someone add this? I do not have time today. Thanks (:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-targets-russia-shadow-fleet/ Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "scrutiy" to "scrutiny". ~2025-43753-68 (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching this. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Typo needs correction ~2026-16880-2 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! LordCollaboration (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the current 'Enforcement actions' section has become very large, which violates the WP:WEIGHT. The main purpose of the article is an presentation of the essence of the shadow fleet, its legality and other international and legal issues. I suggest considering the option of transferring the 'Enforcement actions' chronology to a separate article and here we leave only a small part (as it is done with the 'Attacks on vessels' section). AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

For example, such an article may be called as "Seizure of Russian shadow fleet vessels". @Amitchell125, @TylerBurden — you are active members in this article, and I'll be glad to hear your suggestions about this. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Coverage on the article depends on coverage in WP:RS, currently the "enforcement actions" section contains more references than the entire Ukrainian attacks on the Russian shadow fleet article does, which would indicate it is more WP:DUE. That being said the section is growing large and there is evidently enough sources for a standalone article. TylerBurden (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I also support the creation of a new article for this, as the section is already large and likely to keep growing as Russia grows even more reliant on their sanctioned exports. A question I have is how many incidents do we keep in this article and how do we determine which those are? My intuition says keep 3-4 of the most famous incidents here to give readers a sense of what's been covered most, but maybe a more curated selection of events that more accurately reflect the broader dataset could be more helpful. Thoughts? Trilomonk (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. TylerBurden (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)