Category World News

One of the busiest maritime corridors in the world is being cited as having a growing number of “shadow fleet” or “rogue” tankers operating off its shores.

At least 27 of these ships crossed the Singapore Strait in early December, according to Lloyd’s List Intelligence data that was cited by international maritime authorities, and 130 more are tucked away around Indonesia’s Riau Archipelago.

Ship-spotters and analysts claim that the profile of some of the ships using these waters has recently changed despite the dense traffic through the strait and appearing routine (more than 80 000 vessels pass through it each year).

Why are there so many “rogue” tankers near Singapore?

Due to the conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East, sanctions from the West have increased against oil exports from nations like Russia and Iran. Both the Trump administration and the European Commission have recently renewed or extended sanctions against Venezuelan oil.

In response, a parallel, unofficial maritime network has developed to facilitate the movement of sanctioned oil.

Around one-third of the world’s traded goods will pass through the Singapore Strait at some point along its route, making it a crucial artery for international maritime trade. The strait, which serves as a natural gateway between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, is almost unavoidable for tankers at sea because it is a busy trade route.

The Maritime and Port Authority keeps tabs on vessel movements in Singaporean waters. However, international law restricts what can be done once ships enter high seas, effectively allowing shadow fleets to flourish in regulatory grey areas.

Suspect shipping activity has recently been documented in international waters, far outside the jurisdiction of the city state, just outside Singapore’s territorial waters, which is roughly 22 kilometers from its coast.

How do “shadow fleets” avoid sanctions and what are they?

The number of falsely flagged ships on the world has more than doubled this year to over 450, the majority of which are tankers, according to the International Maritime Organization database, as a result of record sanctions by Western governments in recent years over Russia’s war in Ukraine, Iran’s nuclear program, and, most recently, Venezuela’s campaign.

A flag that identifies the legal authority governing the operation of ships at sea must be carried by all vessels. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the body that grants ship nationalities.

A shadow ship, or “ghost ship,” has a long history of being in disrepair and having obscure ownership. When the US seized the tanker, Skipper, off the coast of Venezuela earlier this month, the neighboring government of Venezuela declared it was “falsly flying the Guyana flag” and stated that it was not registered there.

Operators of shadow ships also falsify registration information, broadcast false geo-location information, or even completely disable tracking systems to avoid detection and evade UNCLOS regulations.

These vessels typically transport military equipment and other restricted items, including sanctioned oil. They frequently conduct dangerous ship-to-ship cargo transfers without being discovered at night. This poses a significant risk to both the environment and safety.

Additionally, it’s even more difficult to identify the locations of the tankers because the majority of them are owned by shell companies in jurisdictions like Dubai, where quick transactions by newly formed or anonymous companies can occur.

The growing number of shadow fleets poses a “real challenge,” according to Jennifer Parker, a specialist in maritime law at the Australian University of New South Wales.

Because of the [murky] paper trail surrounding them, Parker claimed that it has been “incredibly difficult to find out who owns them and who insures them.”

She continued, “often they would do what is known as bunkering, which involves moving fuel between ships at sea.” So it becomes difficult to determine the origin of that ship and the source of that oil.

She continued, “Sometimes, what they do is actually mix oil,” so you will have a legitimate ship that will ship the oil to a shadow fleet and mix it so it becomes difficult to really trace where the oil came from, avoiding sanctions.

What issues do these tankers bring about?

Accidents involving older, uninsured vessels can result in environmental disasters like oil spills.

A shadow tanker spill, which can seriously harm the environment, wildlife, and local coastlines, can cost up to $1.6 billion in response and cleanup alone, according to Bunkerspot, a specialist maritime publication.

Russian authorities worked to stop two 50-year-old tankers from spilling oil into the Kerch Strait last December after they were seriously damaged by a stormy weekend. The extent of the damage and the associated cleanup costs are still undetermined.

They can also lead to environmental harm from illegal waste disposal and chemical leaks, among other things.

Who makes the most of shadow fleets?

Ghost Fleet Trading primarily benefits Russia. Despite Western sanctions, Moscow has largely kept its oil exports, keeping its war in Ukraine steady. Iran and Venezuela also sell fossil fuels through ghost fleets, though not in the same way.

Russia and China, which are currently the biggest buyers of Russian crude, profit from steep discounts, frequently purchasing oil far below the $60 per barrel cap, which was set by the West in December 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Russia’s shadow tanker fleet was heavily dependent on it in 2025, according to S&amp, P Global, and Ukrainian intelligence tracking. Between January and September, India has been the main source, importing about 5.4 million tonnes of Russian crude oil via shadow tankers.

About 15% of that share is held by China, which is still a smaller but significant portion. Overall, the shadow fleet plays a significant role in this trade, highlighting the fact that the majority of Russian seaborne crude moves outside Group of Seven (G7)-compliant shipping.

What steps have governments taken to combat shadow fleets?

Many shadow tankers have departed from major shipping lanes to avoid being subject to sanctions. This is partly due to European authorities’ recent requirement for physical inspections during ship-to-ship transfers, which makes it riskier for these vessels to travel on conventional routes.

For instance, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Finland, and Estonia have recently started examining tankers’ insurance status while they are moving through the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea. This aims to enforcing the 2022 sanctions against Russian oil.

In order to reduce Russia’s shipping capacity and reduce its energy earnings, the United Kingdom imposed measures in July 2025, including restrictions on access to UK ports, insurance, and financial services, on 135 shadow fleet vessels and two linked firms.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s South Kivu province, rebels are regaining control of the important city they seized last week. However, not everyone in the neighborhood they were occupying seems relieved to see them leave.

More than a week ago, there was a recent uprising in violence in the DRC’s east. The last true eastern haven for the Congolese army was attacked by fighters from the M23 rebel group, which has been fighting the government for years.

The rebel fighters have waged bloody hostilities with Congolese soldiers and their allies’ “Wazalendo” militias, which the United Nations and the United States claim are supporting from Rwanda. M23 earlier this year seized other regional capitals from the government’s control.

A regional peace agreement between Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Paul Kagame was signed just days after M23 launched its offensive in the United States, and a separate agreement was signed in Qatar to put an end to years of conflict between M23 and the DRC government.

By last Wednesday, M23 had taken control of Uvira and pushed the army out.

We made it there the day after the takeover, joining the first group of international reporters since then.

On the way there, we could see and smell the remains of war: corpses piled up soldiers and some civilians, military vehicle burns, and displaced people walking in groups.

As M23 made its way through territories towards Uvira, many of the people we spoke to were returning from Uvira to the towns and cities they had fled when they were attacked recently.

We witnessed the destruction caused by the most recent fighting as we made our way to the city. Trucks were destroyed all around us, some of which had burned soldiers’ bodies inside, emptied homes, and unexploded bombs in the streets.

When we finally arrived in Uvira, the streets and city were quiet and empty. Residents waited in line in front of their homes to see what was happening, but no cars moved along the streets.

Members of the Red Cross were gathered the bodies along various avenues. Residents told Al Jazeera that many people died in the crossfire and fervor as the army and militias retreated as M23 stormed in, despite it being difficult to determine how many of those people had died.

We haven’t been able to independently verify the death toll from the violence, which the government claims was more than 400.

versus reassurance

In Uvira, there was a sense of fear immediately following M23’s takeover. Some residents expressed concern about the city’s potential as a result of the rebels’ presence.

Businesses suffered when the group seized control of Goma, the capital of neighboring North Kivu province, in January and then seized Bukavu, South Kivu’s capital, in February. Government employees, civil servants, and other professionals without formal employment.

No banks have operated in Goma since M23 took control, for instance, where I have worked as a reporter there for four years.

However, some residents seem relieved in the midst of the fears. Many people said they were relieved that the city had escaped a bloody conflict between M23 and the Congolese army, which had the potential to besiege and bombard Uvira for weeks.

Residents of the city were evicted from their homes on Saturday as M23’s control of the city came into effect. Those who could have worked resumed their jobs, opened shops, and went on with their lives as of Monday.

Many Kinshasa residents are more concerned about the daily struggle of getting by without the threat of violence, despite the fact that the residents we spoke with are aware that political discussions are taking place there. Some people believe the Congolese army and its militias, who started massing in the area this year to serve as a base for M23, have turned their quiet lives around less than by the rebels.

We shared the armed groups’ suffering.

More than ten years ago, M23 was created as a result of a conflict within the national army of the Congo. The group, which consists primarily of Tutsis, claims to fight for the rights of members of its ethnic minority who have been subjected to state marginalization.

A coalition of Congolese forces, the UN, and international troops forced the rebels to surrender in 2012 when M23 captured Goma.

However, the group reappears in late 2021 thanks to the UN’s claim that Kigali denies. Around 4, 000 Rwandan soldiers are responsible for for fortifying the claim. Since then, this stronger, more recent M23 has made significant gains, capturing Goma once more this year, Bukavu and other important regions.

The Congolese army has joined other armed organizations to support M23’s advance in battling the rebels.

However, according to critics, the government lacks effective control over these diverse militias, with many reporting abuses in the areas under their control.

Uvira, an important port city on the northern tip of Lake Tanganyika, directly across from Bujumbura, Burundi’s largest city, became a symbol of resistance after the M23 seized Goma and Bukavu. The gatherings included politicians from Kinshasa, militia leaders, and military leaders.

But for many residents, putting themselves in the shoes of those soldiers and militia groups has meant seven to eight months of uncertainty. Many Uvira residents claimed that the militias had traumatized them and that some of them had allegedly beaten and stolen from locals.

They are relieved that at least the gunshots stopped when the rebels took control of the city, even though they do not necessarily support the M23 rebels.

Eliza Mapendo, one of the many people who blame the army and militias for overruling the area and occasionally harassing the community, said, “We suffered here a lot with the armed groups operating under the government.”

“For the moment, we feel confident and secure; this is how we operate in this industry.” They [the armed militias] have the power to systematically beat you and take your business. However, Mapendo said, “It’s okay here right now.”

We don’t have any issues with anyone, they say.

Both the UN and the US demanded that the rebels leave Uvira shortly after the M23’s capture.

In a “unilateral trust-building measure,” the group eventually began pulling out on Wednesday to give the peace process a chance to succeed.

On Thursday and Friday, a horde of fighters scurried through the city and departed from it with large cars, weapons, and heavy machinery.

Some Uvira residents were content because they believed the change would bring back administrative order.

Others, however, expressed concern for Al Jazeera. Will the militia groups return and take action against us when the rebels leave? some enthousiasm.

The Congolese military resumed firing on some of the M23’s positions close to Uvira on Friday, keeping the situation in South Kivu fragile.

Most people in the city, in contrast, are just happy to see someone take the reins of the violence.

Feza Mariam, a resident, told Al Jazeera, “We don’t know anything about the political process they are talking about.” “Peace is all we need,” he says. Anyone who can calm us down is welcome here. We as citizens don’t care about it for the rest.

Another city resident, Bishi Bishala, experiences similar emotions.

This week, Russian military victories and Russian narratives clashed as Moscow’s claim of an unavoidable victory sank in the face of local realities.

After isolating Russian forces inside its northern city of Kupiansk, Ukraine gradually relinquished control of almost all of its territory, defying Russian claims that they had seized it.

Ukrainian defenders from the eastern city of Pokrovsk were also unable to dislodge Russian forces, which supported Moscow’s claims of total control.

In spite of the visual evidence, Moscow attempted to refute Ukraine’s claim that an underwater unmanned vehicle had caused severe damage to a Kilo-class submarine.

Ukrainian forces operating in the northern Kharkiv region reported that on December 12 they had evacuated Russian forces from forests north of the city and had blocked Russian logistics to Kupiansk, surrounded a group of 200 Russians inside, and removed Russian forces.

Geographical footage showed Ukrainian forces advanceing in the city the following day, leading to the capture of Yuvileynyi, a southern suburb, and directing Russian forces to its northern and western suburbs.

By Monday, the Russian position had become even more uncertain. Russian forces claimed that they had used a tactic to control reinforcements during the siege of Chasiv Yar, and that they had only provided them with drones. On Friday, the General Staff of Ukraine announced that its forces were still repressing Russian attacks.

The Russian Defense Ministry asserted that it was in charge of the situation. According to the statement from the Zapad Group of Forces on Monday, “Units of the Zapad Group of Forces maintain reliable control over all Kupiansk districts,” claiming that Ukraine’s efforts to enter the city from the south were being thwarted.

A Russian military reporter wrote on the Telegram messaging app that the only thing that can be confirmed is that the Russian Armed Forces are still occupying some of the center and north of Kupiansk, but the majority of it is already either in the grey zone or the Armed Forces of Ukraine are in charge of.

Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskii, the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Army, reported to an audience of Ramstein’s allies on Wednesday that his forces had retaken 90% of Kupiansk. Russian President Vladimir Putin was informed at the same time that “the enemy is unsuccessfully trying to regain” the city by Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov.

Belousov, the head of the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation, and Andrii Kovalenko, the minister of the country, continued to fabricate information that Russia controls Kupiansk. The Ukrainian Defense Forces, which are still removing Russians from the area, actually control the majority of the city. However, all of Putin’s officials, including Belousov, who was the first to deny having any control over the city, continue to lie in front of Putin.

Belousov insisted that Russia was about to conquer neighboring Myrnohrad, which Russia calls Dimitrov, and that Pokrovsk, which Russia calls Krasnoarmeysk, was under Russian control. Both towns are almost entirely surrounded by Russian forces in the eastern Donetsk region, north, south, and east.

According to Belousov, Russian soldiers continue to fire at Ukrainian troops in Dimitrov, the last stronghold of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Krasnoarmeysk agglomeration.

However, Syrskii informed allies that the northern region of Pokrovsk and 56 square kilometers (22 square miles) west of the city had been regained by Ukrainian forces after claiming 16 square kilometers (6 square miles) of territory there. He wrote, “The operations continue, but the logistics in Myrnograd are complex.”

On December 2, Russia asserted complete control over Pokrovsk, and it continued to tell a story.

Explosions at submarines and oil refineries

Ukraine’s use of an underwater unmanned vehicle (UUV) to attack a Russian Kilo-class submarine on Monday (15 December) is regarded as the first such attack in military history.

A massive explosion occurs in the stern section of the submarine in a video of the Russian fleet docking in Novorossiysk in the Black Sea.

Later, the State Security Service of Ukraine claimed responsibility for the attack.

However, the Russian Defense Ministry stated that the sabotage caused damage to not just one ship or submarine, but also to the Black Sea Fleet’s crews stationed in the Novorossiysk naval base.

The ministry released video of the submarine it claimed was attacked, which showed it to be undamaged above the surface, but the video did not show the stern section.

Russia did not comment on any of the long-range strikes launched by Ukraine against Russia.

On December 12, Ukraine struck Yaroslavl, northeast of Moscow, and … Ukrainian drones went off the Afipsky refinery in Krasnodar Krai and the Uryupinsk oil depot in Volgograd on Sunday, causing explosions at both locations. Additionally, they struck Smolensk’s Dorogobuzhskaya power plant.

On Sunday and Monday, the United States and Ukraine’s negotiators met in Berlin for two days. Russian officials announced that the results of those discussions would be communicated to them the following week.

Russia clearly indicated that it plans to continue conducting aggressive operations next year, despite making claims that it was interested in pending peace negotiations.

Belousov said at an expanded board meeting of the Defence Ministry on Wednesday that the key task for the coming year is to maintain and accelerate the pace of the offensive.

The devastation of Ukraine, supported by the West, essentially, was what caused the war in 2022, according to Putin. We are only attempting to put an end to it by completing it.

There was little room for compromise on Moscow’s side, with Putin saying “Russia will undoubtedly achieve the goals of the special military operation” and “Russia will achieve the liberation of its historical lands by military means.”

Sergey Ryabkov, Putin’s deputy foreign minister, made the same prediction in a Tuesday interview with ABC. He said granting the seized Ukrainian land was “a deep and wrong” revision of Russian peace proposals from Europe and Ukraine.

We can’t make a compromise on this because, in our opinion, it would be a revision of a fundamental component of our statehood, as stated in our constitution, Naryshkin said.

Russian recruitments are more expensive than Russian losses.

Russia has made an effort to imply that it has insufficient resources to pursue the conflict it started in Ukraine.

Nearly 410, 000 Russians volunteered for the military, according to Belousov, exceeding expectations for 2025.

32, 800 monthly, that’s the figure. According to the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, “Data from the Ukrainian General Staff indicates that Russian forces suffered an average of 34, 600 casualties per month between January and November 2025.”

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, claimed that the majority of these casualties were deaths. Every month, Puntin spends about 30 000 soldiers’ lives on the front. 30 000 people die each month, according to him, according to Dutch parliamentarians, and we have drone footage that confirms this.

Additionally, Syrski questioned whether the Russian recruitment quotas were adequate.

He wrote on Telegram that “Russia’s troops have long been around 710 000”. Despite ongoing recruitment in Russia, the enemy has not been able to increase this number because our soldiers are “reducing” the number of occupiers by a thousand every day through injuries and deaths.

Allies of US President Donald Trump are increasingly using the so-called “war on terror” to justify his deadly attacks on boats around Latin America, amid mounting criticism from their Democratic adversaries and rights supporters.

Because Washington is not engaged in armed conflict in Latin America, legal experts have argued that the comparison between the bombing of alleged drug boats and the subsequent US attacks on suspected al-Qaeda fighters is untrue.

According to Annie Shiel, US advocacy director at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, “we have to acknowledge that these strikes are expanding on those abuses of power that we saw in the “war on terror”,”

“These strikes are also breaking brand-new, extremely dangerous ground.”

Shiel argued that the US’s ongoing bombardment of the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, which has caused nearly 100 fatalities since September, is also devoid of congressional authorization.

Using Obama

Legislators from Trump’s Republican Party have compared the drone assassination campaign launched by former Democratic President Barack Obama against suspected “terrorists” to fend off scrutiny.

Senator Tim Sheehy stated to reporters on Tuesday that “we used this targeting system to find and kill a lot of bad guys all over the world” during the Obama administration.

Senator Markwayne Mullin echoed that assessment by reiterating the definition of “terrorists” as drug smugglers.

What distinguishes Obama attacking these individuals when they were viewed as Middle Eastern terrorist organizations rather than the ones that are currently poisoning our streets? said Mullin.

Advocates and experts claim that Trump’s boat strikes are much more violent than his ever-criticized drone policy, despite the criticisms of human rights organizations.

According to Shiel, “experts are unanimous about the absence of armed conflict in the Caribbean and the fact that drug traffickers are civilians who are not intended to serve as legitimate military targets.”

According to analysts, the US government’s claims that suspected drug smugglers are “terrorists” are actually civilians, according to Al Jazeera.

According to the Pentagon, the strikes are legal and aim to “protect the homeland,” in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict.

Critics have argued that the strikes are not governed by the Law of Armed Conflict because neither the Caribbean nor the eastern Pacific have any armed conflicts.

Ten Senate Democrats allegedly “fabricated an armed conflict” or “falsely labeled people “combatants” to kill them in a letter to the Republican chair of the chamber’s judiciary panel on Thursday.

According to the lawmakers, “These strikes are extrajudicial killings and shocking violations of fundamental principles of due process and the right to life” and “violation of American and international law.”

These extrajudicial killings are not any less unlawful because the administration claims that those they are killing have committed crimes, been linked to a criminal or terrorist organization, or were “combatants” in an already-violent armed conflict.

Obfuscation of reality

Drug cartels lack the organization, weapons, and political motivations to be regarded as “combatants,” according to John Walsh, director for drug policy and the Andes at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA).

Walsh told Al Jazeera, “The definition of drug trafficking as “narcoterrorism” already serves as an obfuscation of the reality.”

“Those drug traffickers are attempting to sell a substance that can lead to addiction and profit.” They don’t want to fight governments, they want to.

However, it appears that the Trump administration is militarizing Washington’s drug policy using the terms “war on terror” from the Obama and George W. Bush era.

Trump echoes Bush’ false claim that Iraq possessed WMDs to support the US-led invasion by designating drug companies as “foreign terrorist” organizations and naming the synthetic drug fentanyl as a “weapon of mass destruction” (WMD).

The administration’s claim that these are terrifying armies and invading forces have weapons of mass destruction is underlined by the WMD designation. Walsh continued, “I don’t believe that has any basis.”

He raised concerns that the designation might be used to “unlock authorities” so that the US government could launch strikes inside the country.

Walsh claimed that the Trump administration has the authority to impose sanctions on anyone connected to “terrorist” organizations, including alleged drug traffickers, wherever they are.

He claimed that this is a general lack of legal reasoning. There is no limiting principle for when and where President Trump could assert that authority, though. Therefore, tomorrow it might be in Caracas. The following day, it might be in Chicago.

The administration’s formal legal justification for the US Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) strikes, which remain classified, has been a top object of rights advocates’ demands.

According to experts, the OLC memo likely echoes the legal justification for drone strikes and assassinations during the “war on terror” in terms of logic.

Same procedure, exactly?

The Pentagon uses “the exact same process” it has used in targeted killings since 2021, according to Republican senator Sheehy in bombing the boats.

He told reporters that to go after the brave men and women in uniform who carry out these attacks is to indict the very system that has been abused impartially for the past 24 years.

The issue may be related to the procedure itself, according to Jessica Dorsey, assistant professor of international law at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

In an email, Dorsey wrote, “Placing too much faith in internal processes without meaningful external accountability reversed cause and effect, treating process as a constraint when it actually enabled expansion.”

In reality, “the absence of real oversight and elastic legal interpretations” resulted in the absence of real oversight and the introduction of these even more aggressive policies that the executive has adopted today.

Samuel Moyn, a professor of law and history at Yale University, criticized Obama’s use of drones to justify the current attacks, saying that “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

“It is true that, at least up until now, the Obama administration killed more people on questionable legal grounds. Trump’s actions are not necessarily sanctified, though. According to Moyn, it is a pattern of US military expansion.