Russian frigate ‘resurfaces’, chases off NATO pirates days after Kiev ‘sank’ it
By Drago Bosnic | April 13, 2026
On April 6, the Unmanned Systems Forces (USF) of the Kiev regime posted a video of the alleged “attack” on the Russian Navy’s (VMF) “Admiral Grigorovich” frigate in the port of Novorossiysk. According to Ukrinform, Robert “Magyar” Brovdi, commander of the USF, also posted the video on his Telegram channel. He claims that “on the night of April 6, the USF ‘birds’ struck the frigate ‘Admiral Grigorovich’ in the port of Novorossiysk and delivered some blessed fire to the Sivash drilling rig”. The supposed “attack” was carried out by the 1st Separate Center of the USF. The Neo-Nazi junta sources report that it was planned and coordinated by the SBU (effectively a terrorist organization at this point) and that “the extent of the damage is being assessed by intelligence”.
“The air defense missile launches were carried out directly from the frigate’s deck while approaching the target, which did not prevent us from pecking at the floating scab,” Brovdi stated, adding: “The Sivash floating drilling rig was targeted by the birds of the 413th Raid Separate Battalion in cooperation with the deep-strike forces of the Ukrainian Navy.”
This must be a great success for the Kiev regime, right? There’s “video evidence of the incident”, so the supposed “attack” undoubtedly happened, right? Well, there’s a “tiny” consistency problem with this entire story. Namely, the aforementioned “Admiral Grigorovich” frigate “magically resurfaced” in the English Channel just two days after it was “destroyed”. The vessel was sent to escort oil tankers after multiple incidents where NATO pirates hijacked Russian ships in international waters. This was also confirmed by the endemically and pathologically Russophobic United Kingdom, which sent its naval forces to track Russian warships. The British HMS “Mersey” was sent to “enforce sanctions” on Moscow’s oil tankers, but was forced to turn back after detecting naval escorts.
British sources report the vessels include the “Admiral Grigorovich” frigate, the “Aleksandr Shabalin” Ropucha-class landing ship and the “Krasnodar” Kilo-class diesel-electric attack submarine, which was transiting on the surface. These vessels passed only about 15 km from the Strait of Dover. For London, the issue is that it pledged to “take more direct action against vessels linked to Russia’s shadow fleet”. However, with the appearance of the VMF, the UK is now complaining that “this has sharpened the operational context”. In simpler terms, NATO pirates would love to hijack those tankers and steal Russian oil, but it’s too risky when the targets are protected by ships that can actually shoot back, complicating the enforcement of “freedom and democracy” in international waters.
It should be noted that the political West has long been behaving like a bunch of pirates. In a purely legalistic sense, NATO navies are in no way different from Somali pirates, as both are hijacking ships in violation of international law. However, it should also be noted that Somali pirates would certainly protest such insulting comparisons, because at least they’re not a bunch of pedophile-cannibalistic Satanists. In the last several months alone, approximately a dozen Russian oil tankers have been hijacked. Although this is only a fraction of the so-called “shadow fleet” consisting of around 3,000 vessels, the obvious goal is to disrupt Russian oil exports, particularly at a time when US aggression against Iran caused price hikes that increased Moscow’s profits.
Although the VMF’s primary role is not to protect Russian shipping, after the US/NATO decided to openly practice piracy, the Kremlin was forced to retask its naval forces for escort missions. “Admiral Grigorovich” is the first of the Project 11356R frigates, equipped with eight 3S-14 UKSK VLS (vertical launch systems). These usually house “Kalibr” cruise missiles, although they can also accommodate P-800 “Oniks” ramjet-powered supersonic and 3M22 “Zircon” scramjet-powered hypersonic cruise missiles. No Western navy has anything remotely capable. On the contrary, the US is still struggling with the disastrous Zumwalt-class destroyers, which are now slated to be equipped with hypersonic missiles after billions were wasted on far more modest weapons.
Namely, the Zumwalt-class destroyer’s Advanced Gun System (AGS) is slated to be removed and replaced by Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) launchers housing the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), better known by its US Army name, the “Dark Eagle”. However, the problem is that the Pentagon is yet to induct these missiles, leaving the entire US military without operational hypersonic weapons. Meanwhile, much smaller Russian frigates and corvettes all share the same 3S-14 UKSK VLS, enabling them to carry world-class missiles, such as the aforementioned “Kalibr”, “Oniks” and “Zircon”. This includes the smaller Gremyashchiy-class and Karakurt-class corvettes, giving them unrivaled strategic capabilities akin to those of destroyers.
Interestingly, after realizing that its little propaganda ploy failed, the Neo-Nazi junta resorted to damage control, claiming that its drones didn’t hit “Admiral Grigorovich”, but “Admiral Makarov”, which was later amended to also include “Admiral Essen”. The two ships are the third and second vessels of the same class, respectively. In other words, when caught lying and conducting its “PR victories”, the Kiev regime tries to hide it all with additional lies that only make things worse. It’s highly likely that the Neo-Nazi junta propagandists used AI-generated images as “evidence” of the alleged “hits”. This is most likely done to shift attention away from the Kiev regime’s massive losses, as the latest KIA exchange with Russia demonstrates a 1,000:41 ratio in Moscow’s favor.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Ukraine Targets Russian Merchant Fleet With NATO Intel Support – Presidential Aide
Sputnik – 13.04.2026
MOSCOW – The Ukrainian special services are targeting the Russian merchant fleet with coordination and intelligence support of NATO, Russian presidential aide and chairman of the Russian Marine Board Nikolai Patrushev said on Monday.
“The risks of illegal actions and terrorist attacks against ships sailing from or towards Russian ports are increasing. The Ukrainian special services, with the coordination and intelligence support of NATO countries, are targeting the non-military maritime infrastructure and the merchant fleet of our country,” Patrushev told Russian media.
The Baltic states and Finland’s provision of airspace for attack drones means that NATO members directly participate in the attacks on Russia, the official said, adding that neighboring countries are complicit in Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian ports in the Baltic.
“Kiev cynically regards the death of three crew members, which was a tragedy for their relatives, friends, and all normal people, as its victory. At the same time, we record the hypocritical policies of a number of states and international organizations that refrain from assessing attacks on Russian ships,” the Russian presidential aide said.
Kiev, which has flooded the Black Sea with mines and unmanned boats, remains the main source of terrorist and military danger, Nikolai Patrushev said.
“NATO countries continue to play out exercise scenarios to neutralize non-existent security threats from Russia, even though they themselves face real threats in the Black Sea. The Kiev regime, which has flooded the Black Sea with mines and unmanned boats, remains the key source of terrorist and military threats in the region,” Patrushev said.
Drifting Ukrainian mines are increasingly being discovered in close proximity to the coasts of Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania, Patrushev added.
The route of the Ukrainian UAVs through the Baltic States required a careful study and at least the consent of the leadership of those states over which it passed, Patrushev said.
“I believe that neighboring countries are also complicit in these crimes, even if Ukrainian drones are launched from the decks of ships in the Baltic Sea… The distance from the northern borders of Ukraine to the Leningrad Region is more than 1,400 kilometers [870 miles]. Such a route requires careful study and at least the consent of the leadership of the countries over which it passes,” Patrushev said.
A frigate of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet escorted tankers with Russian oil through the English Channel last week, Patrushev said.
Last month, the UK government announced that UK military personnel will be able to board vessels subject to UK sanctions and transiting through UK territorial waters. London will also impose even greater restrictions by blocking British waters, including the English Channel, for sanctioned vessels. The measure affects the so-called “shadow fleet,” allegedly engaged in the transportation of Russian energy resources.
“Given that London prefers to interpret international law in its favor, last week a frigate of the Black Sea Fleet escorted tankers with Russian oil across the English Channel,” Patrushev said.
If necessary, other measures will be taken to ensure the safety of navigation and protect national interests in international waters, the official added.
“It seems that the British are haunted by the evil fame of their ancestors, who made profit in a piratical manner on the transport passing along their shores,” Patrushev said.
NATO continues to build anti-Russian infrastructure in the Black Sea region under the guise of the recent Sea Shield 2026 exercises, Nikolai Patrushev said.
“The North Atlantic Alliance, under the guise of the Sea Shield – 2026 exercises held in early April, continues to form an anti-Russian infrastructure in the Black Sea area. Romania was chosen as the main territory of the maneuvers as a Black Sea springboard to confront Russia,” Patrushev said.
Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ makes mockery of UK naval power
By Ian Proud | Resposible Statecraft | April 13, 2026
Few things provoke British politicians into fits of rage more than mention of Russia’s “shadow fleet.” Yet last week’s impotent tracking of Russian tankers in the English Channel illustrates that Britain doesn’t have the means to do much about it.
On 9 April, two Russian “shadow” oil tankers were escorted through the channel by a Russian navy frigate armed with all manner of weapons, including anti-ship missiles. In response, the Royal Navy could only muster an auxiliary fuel tanker to follow it helplessly. The Daily Telegraph reported on this heroic operation from the deck of a 40-foot fishing boat following in the tanker’s wake.
A regular pattern is forming in which the Royal Navy deploys vessels that are overmatched by better armed Russian naval escorts.
The inability of the Royal Navy to challenge Russian tankers has drawn howls of protest from opposition politicians, including former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The United Kingdom’s attorney general has now ruled that U.K. forces cannot likely board Russian vessels to seize them anyway, as this may be contrary to international law. Yet the policy message is clear. Even if Britain sent troops to board escorted Russian tankers, they might be fired upon with no effective military means to push back the Russian navy. The Royal Navy has been rendered unable to project force, even close to British shores.
A British frigate and helicopter seeing off Russian submarines apparently lingering over undersea cables provided much-needed relief to the embattled Defense Secretary John Healey, who took to the 10 Downing Street press room to brief the media on the operation. But that won’t be enough to quell the growing sense of national embarrassment and anger at the parlous state of the British armed forces.
An already much delayed Defence Investment Plan is quite obviously being held back until after the upcoming May local elections, because it will likely list more projects that Britain can’t afford or should shelve, rather than anything genuinely new and revolutionary; when published, I predict, it will be politically humiliating for the Labour government, which is suffering disastrous polling numbers, with just one fifth of the population inclined to vote for them, a historic low for a governing party.
The case of HMS Dragon has become illustrative of UK naval decay; the single air defense destroyer that Britain rushed out of maintenance and belatedly deployed to the Mediterranean to support defensive operations against Iran, was bedeviled by technical difficulties and has been forced to dock again for repairs.
Russia, meanwhile, has been emboldened. Having significantly increased the size of its fleet in recent years, Moscow is now increasingly able to dominate the high seas off Europe and hold British and European vessels at risk. In May of 2025, a Russian jet warned off an Estonian vessel looking to interdict a Russian tanker. Following the seizure by U.S. forces of a Russian tanker bound for Cuba in January and the boarding by the French of a shadow tanker on March 20, they have clearly decided “enough is enough” and are sending heavily armed Russian naval vessels to escort oil tankers.
Since the start of the war in Ukraine, western allies have sought to bear down on Russia’s war economy by limiting the revenue it gains from oil and gas sales, which make up around two thirds of its exports. With some estimates suggesting 80% of Russian oil exported is transported on ships, attacking the network of so-called “shadow tankers’’— aging Russian tankers that sail under murky insurance and flag arrangements — might appear on the surface a sensible approach, or at least it did in 2022. But four years on, the endeavor has proved utterly meaningless. Now it appears self-defeating.
Let’s be clear: the export of Russian oil has never been sanctioned in absolute terms. Rather, in December 2022, G7 countries imposed a price cap of $60 per barrel of oil sold to minimize the revenue Russia generates from its exports. In July 2025, Europe further lowered the cap to $47.60, though the U.S. stuck at $60.
Despite their protestations, Europe has nevertheless continued to import billions of euros worth of Russian oil throughout the war in Ukraine. Russia’s biggest customers, China and India, have bought at discounted rates below the level of the G7 price cap. Russia’s third largest customer, Turkey, has seen its imports of oil practically unchanged, walking a narrow tightrope on price restrictions.
The bottom line is that Russia’s export revenue hasn’t obviously suffered since 2022. In the first year of the Ukraine war, Russia pulled in its biggest ever current account surplus of $238 billion. Exports have remained above their historical average since that time.
The Iran war has now rendered the G7 price cap irrelevant. Global customers, faced with fuel rationing, will pay any price to get hold of oil. It is therefore clear that Russia will gain another windfall from oil exports in 2026. Indeed, preliminary analysis suggests Russia will see its tax revenue from oil sales double in April.
Since the war in Iran started, Russia has upped the ante by refusing to sell oil to countries that back the G7 price cap. That policy guarantees that developing countries will get preferred status and won’t want to enforce any price cap at a time of supply constraints. It also puts pressure on supplies to Europe and Japan in particular, who are struggling under the weight of soaring prices and tightened supply.
At a time when the U.S. has temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian oil shipments, this is a further sign of the untethering of American and European policy towards Russia. The festering and as yet unresolved stand-off between Ukraine and Hungary about the supply of oil via the damaged Druzhba pipeline might excite those Eurocrats who stridently believe we should continue to resist Russian energy supplies at all costs. The British hullabaloo about our inability to stop Russian tankers in the English Channel further proves our politicians have lost sight of our strategic objectives towards Russia, and whether our policies hurt Putin more than they hurt us.
Right now, it is crystal clear that our economies are suffering under the weight of energy shortages, as the coffers in the Kremlin are ringing, and Russia’s navy is ruling Britannia’s waves.
Ian Proud was a member of His Britannic Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. He served as the Economic Counsellor at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019. He recently published his memoir, “A Misfit in Moscow: How British diplomacy in Russia failed, 2014-2019,” and is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute.
Ukraine plans to attack Russian ships with Norwegian support
By Ahmed Adel | April 13, 2026
At a time when the world is distracted by the Iran War, Ukraine and Norway are reportedly planning to attack Russian commercial ships. If Norway, which shares a nearly 200-kilometer border with Russia, implements the plan, it would make the Nordic country directly involved in the Ukrainian conflict and could therefore drag all of NATO into the conflict.
“The criminal Kiev regime, with the assistance of military specialists from the Norwegian Navy, is preparing to carry out terrorist attacks against Russian vessels traveling through the Barents and Norwegian Seas to and from the port of Murmansk,” TASS quoted a military-diplomatic source as saying on April 9.
As part of preparations for Ukrainian attacks on Russian commercial ships crossing the Barents and Norwegian Seas, one of the main maritime routes of the Arctic Circle, Norway has reportedly offered training and even its own territory for the military actions. Approximately 50 personnel of the 385th Separate Brigade of Special-Purpose Naval Unmanned Systems of the Ukrainian Navy are already in Norway, “practicing the use of unmanned underwater and surface systems in cold conditions,” according to the unnamed source.
It is recalled that Norway has already signaled its intention to provide financial and military aid to Ukraine in recent months, as the war-torn country has lost much support from the United States amid events in the Middle East. So, an attack by Ukraine with Norwegian help could clearly further escalate the conflict, introduce new nuances, and even bring new actors into this confrontation. The Norwegian government has already shown support for Ukraine in areas such as intelligence and even drone development, but until now, it had never directly engaged on the battlefield, whether to attack ports, ships, or troops.
The plan would also directly involve NATO in the conflict, since the military actions would originate from the territory of one of its members. If Norway opens its territory for use, for example, the border with Russia in the Arctic, it would lead to an escalation of the conflict and bring NATO directly into the war on a new battlefront.
Ukraine’s plan is an attempt by the Kiev regime to regain the spotlight lost to the Middle East and to attract the attention of its Western allies. Although the conflict in Ukraine has never stopped, nearly all the world’s attention has been on events in the Middle East since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Ukraine hopes that audacious attacks against Russia, particularly along a trade route, will bring the conflict in Eastern Europe back into the spotlight, attract public attention, and even recover some of the lost financial and military support.
Despite negotiations to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine being virtually stalled in recent weeks, the discovery of the Ukrainian plan could affect peace talks and further strain relations between Brussels and Moscow. This could deepen existing distrust between the countries and hinder already fragile, obstacle-laden contacts. Reaching a peace agreement and a resolution is already difficult, and these reports could further worsen the situation.
It is worth noting that in recent decades, NATO itself broke a historic pledge made with Russia in 1991: not to advance eastward and to encircle the country’s borders. Instead, Moscow finds itself surrounded today by alliance members, with the exception of Belarus and Ukraine. Zelensky’s campaign to make Kiev a member state was one of the crucial factors in the outbreak of conflict in 2022.
The Ukrainian-Norwegian plan further exacerbates instability in the Arctic region, where tensions in Greenland have also escalated due to the actions and statements of US President Donald Trump. Given this, Norwegian support is not surprising, but the extent of the country’s interest in helping is notable.
Aid would likely be limited to unmanned vessels and would not involve military personnel. When citizens of a third country are attacked, the conflict will escalate. For this reason, like all the aid provided so far to Ukraine, it remains indirect.
The plan is not surprising, given the numerous terrorist attacks by Ukraine throughout the conflict, such as the Nord Stream 2 explosion and the failed attempt to blow up TurkStream, which connects Russian gas to Serbia and Hungary. This exemplifies not only Ukrainian practices but also collaboration among European allies.
In Norway’s case, the situation is further complicated by the country’s competition with Russia in the oil market and its even benefiting from anti-Russian sanctions. This motivation may stem from Oslo’s view of Russia as an energy rival.
Ahead of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in the Ramstein format, scheduled for April 15, Ukraine and Norway agreed on priority areas for defense cooperation, including strengthening air defense, developing unmanned systems, supporting innovative projects, and enhancing the capabilities of Ukraine’s Defense Forces. It is unlikely that Zelensky can draw NATO attention back to Ukraine, but it certainly appears that he has secured Norway’s support, an Arctic country opposed to Russia’s role in the region.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Chinese jet fuel and the myth of energy independence
Inside China Business | April 8, 2026
Except for in Russia and (ironically) Iran, the war in the Persian Gulf has blown up energy markets everywhere. Worldwide, no country is self-sufficient in all its energy needs, and disruptions in a supply chains anywhere result in major problems everywhere. China is the largest refiner of jet fuel in Asia-Pacific, and has enormous reserves of crude stashed away, which can last months. But immediately after the war on Iran began, China locked down its exports of jet fuel. The effect on prices across Asia was felt immediately, with costs more than doubling in just six weeks. In the United States, fuel prices also soared, and also by over 100%.
Resources and links:
$140, and going higher: That’s the real price of oil, right now. Oil traders will be wiped out.
• $140, and going higher: That’s the real p…
Singapore’s major oil source is blocked and experts warn Australians will pay https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-0…
Australia and Japan face jet fuel supply crunch as China cuts exports https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-ec…
Daily Jet Fuel Spot Prices https://www.airlines.org/dataset/argu…
America’s energy independence https://no01.substack.com/p/americas-…
US crude oil exports decreased by 3% in 2025 despite higher production (+3%) https://www.enerdata.net/publications…
Petroleum & Other Liquids, Imports by Country of Origin https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move…
China set to extend fuel export ban with small exemptions, sources say https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pa…
South Korea to enforce 5-day vehicle rotation system as Mideast conflict hits energy supplies https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific…
Ukraine Sea Drone Fired From Libya Hit Russian Tanker in Mediterranean
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | April 9, 2026
Last month, a Russian tanker, the Arctic Metagaz, was badly damaged by a sea drone attack off the coast of Malta.
On Tuesday, two Libyan officials speaking with the Associated Press said that the government based in Tripoli is hosting Ukrainian forces under a covert deal with the West.
Libya fractured after President Barack Obama authorized a war that led to the murder of Muammar Gaddafi. Following the conflict, the US backed a government in Tripoli, while Khalifa Haftar rules in eastern Libya. The damaged Arctic Metagaz is headed to a port in the eastern city of Benghazi.
Russian officials told state media that Kiev is looking to replicate the attack on the tanker in the Northern Sea by Ukrainian forces based in Norway. One official said that Norway’s assistance is dragging NATO into war with Russia.
Throughout the war, Ukraine has attempted to target and destroy assets that allow Russia to export energy. Kiev sees the strategy as key to depriving Russian President Vladimir Putin of the funding he needs to keep the conflict going.
However, the US and Israeli war on Iran has caused the shutdown of most energy exports from the Persian Gulf. In an effort to keep oil prices from spiking, Trump suspended oil sanctions on Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.
The Ukrainian attacks on Russian pipelines have also caused significant tensions with some members of NATO and the European Union. Hungary and Slovakia have threatened to halt gas shipments to Ukraine if Kiev does not halt attacks on Russian pipelines that bring oil into Eastern Europe.
Moscow backs Tehran on status of Lebanon in US-Iran deal
RT | April 9, 2026
Moscow believes the US-Iran ceasefire has a regional dimension and extends to Lebanon, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told his Iranian counterpart Abbas Aragchi in a phone call on Thursday, according to a readout.
Lavrov stated that Russia fully supports the cessation of hostilities between the US and Iran and Israel’s accession to those agreements. He expressed hope for the success of the upcoming negotiations and reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to help “overcome the consequences of the unprovoked US‑Israeli aggression against Iran and ensure long-term peace and sustainable security in the region.”
The Russian minister also emphasized that Moscow “firmly believes that these agreements, as announced by the Pakistani mediators, have a regional dimension and, in particular, extend to Lebanon.”
Israel has insisted that Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire deal and said it intends to continue operations in the country, where it has conducted extensive airstrikes and launched a ground invasion.
Shortly after the US-Iranian ceasefire was announced, the Israeli military said it carried out its largest wave of strikes on Lebanon since the war began, hitting approximately 100 targets across the country in just ten minutes.
More than 1,700 people have been killed in Israeli strikes since March 2, and over 5,800 have been wounded, including hundreds of women and children, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry.
Iran has made clear that Lebanon must be included in any cessation of hostilities. It has also warned that the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed to shipping until Israel commits to a ceasefire on all fronts.
Araghchi thanked Lavrov for Russia’s “principled position” during UN Security Council meetings on the situation in the Persian Gulf, according to the ministry. The two diplomats also discussed broader regional security issues.
Moscow has consistently condemned the US‑Israeli campaign against Iran, which began on February 28. Russia has called for de‑escalation and a diplomatic solution, while accusing Washington of violating international law.
The Kremlin has also criticized Israel’s strikes on Lebanon, including a March attack on a Russian cultural center in the southern city of Nabatieh.
Russia, China block Bahrain-sponsored UN resolution on Strait of Hormuz
Press TV – April 7, 2026
Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Tuesday that called for states to coordinate efforts to protect commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
The draft resolution, prepared by Bahrain and supported by the United States, received 11 votes in favor, two against and two abstentions – Pakistan and Colombia.
The text was already diluted from the initial goal of obtaining clearance to “unblock” the strait by force.
The latest draft “strongly encourages states… to coordinate efforts, defensive in nature, commensurate to the circumstances, to contribute to ensuring the safety and security of navigation, including through the escort of merchant and commercial vessels.”
It also “demands” that Iran “immediately cease all attacks against merchant and commercial vessels and any attempt to impede transit passage or freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”
The critical waterway has been nearly blocked since the United States and Israel launched their war of aggression on February 28, sending ripple effects throughout the global economy.
Iran says it has not blocked the strait but imposed restrictions due to the security conditions created in the wake of the war on the country.
Tehran says all vessels must coordinate with it before trying to pass the waterway, which lies within its territorial waters.
It says it will not allow ships affiliated with the aggressors and their supporters to pass through the strait.
The Iranian Parliament has recently been discussing legislation to create a new legal regime for the strait to charge fees for safe transit through the strait.
Sri Lanka secures supplies of Russia oil – minister
RT | April 7, 2026
Sri Lanka will purchase crude oil from Russia after reaching an agreement with Moscow amid the energy crisis spurred by the Middle East conflict, the island nation’s transport minister, Bimal Rathnayake, has said.
Rathnayake told TASS on Monday that “energy is our priority today,” adding that the US-Israeli war on Iran has triggered a disruption in supplies to Sri Lanka.
“Russia’s deputy energy minister [Andrey Rudenko] visited Sri Lanka a few days ago. The deputy foreign minister has also visited Sri Lanka. They reached an agreement on oil supplies to the country,” Rathnayake told the news agency.
He added that the first crude supplies from Russia are expected in mid-April.
“Technical work is currently underway at the company level, and financial issues are being discussed, how to conduct transactions. But at the political level, almost everything has been done,” the minister said.
Rathnayake added that although Sri Lanka exports tea to Russia, a good “logistic system” is essential for crude imports.
Mayura Neththikumarage, a top Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (Ceypetco) official, said last week that the island nation has only two places where fuel can be unloaded. Ceypetco is the only refiner in Sri Lanka.
Neththikumarage has also indicated that fuel shipments for April and May have been secured and that prices might come down marginally in June.
The South Asian nation gets most of its crude from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), though refined petroleum products are imported from India and Singapore, Bloomberg reported.
In March, Sri Lanka received 38,000 tons of fuel from India.
Colombo has hiked fuel prices and imposed rationing to address the supply disruption.
After the Middle East conflict erupted, Russia expressed willingness to be a key energy partner for South Asian nations, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.
Bilateral trade between Russia and Sri Lanka stood at $700 million in 2024.
Nations across Asia strike direct deals with Iran for Hormuz passage
Al Mayadeen | April 7, 2026
As US President Donald Trump threatens to “obliterate” Iran’s energy infrastructure unless it reopens the Strait of Hormuz, a growing number of countries are now negotiating directly with Tehran to secure safe passage for their ships.
Several nations in Asia, arguably the region most affected by the ongoing fuel crisis, have been able to get their vessels through the chokepoint, through which about a fifth of the world’s oil and gas normally transits. Tehran effectively closed the Strait after the country was attacked by the US and “Israel” on February 28.
It is a state of affairs that reflects a new geopolitical reality: access to the world’s most critical energy chokepoint is no longer governed by international maritime law, but by direct diplomacy with Iran.
A ‘de facto toll booth regime’
According to maritime tracking platform Kpler, commodity traffic through the strait fell by 95 percent when the war began. Before the US-Israeli aggression, around 100 ships transited daily. On some days this past week, that number was in the single digits.
But Iran has not closed the Strait entirely. Instead, it has created what maritime intelligence firm Lloyd’s List has described as a “de facto toll booth regime,” a permissions-based system operated by the IRGC, in which vessels from friendly countries are escorted through a narrow northern corridor near Larak Island.
As of this week, a second southern corridor near the Omani coastline has become operational, with Windward Maritime Intelligence tracking 11 transits on Sunday split across the two routes.
Iran names friendly nations
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has publicly named the countries considered friendly enough for passage: China, Russia, India, Iraq, and Pakistan. Several others have since joined the list.
India was among the first countries to secure safe transit, reportedly without paying any fees. The Iranian embassy in New Delhi posted on social media that “our Indian friends are in safe hands.”
Pakistan was allocated 20 vessel slots by Tehran. “This is a welcome and constructive gesture by Iran,” Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said.
Thailand struck a deal after weeks of disruptions that included a Thai bulk carrier being struck by Iranian projectiles in March, leaving three crew members unaccounted for. A Thai tanker subsequently crossed without paying a fee.
Malaysia secures passage
Malaysia secured assurances of safe passage through what its Transport Minister described as a “good diplomatic relationship with the Iranian government.” The Iranian embassy in Kuala Lumpur said on Monday that the first Malaysian ship had passed through the strait since the war began. “Iran does not forget its friends,” it said.
A Malaysian Foreign Ministry statement confirmed that one of seven Malaysian-owned commercial vessels stranded in the strait has been granted safe passage and is now heading to its destination, following “high-level diplomatic engagements” and “constructive” talks with Iranian officials led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
Other nations join the list
The Philippines, despite its close ties with the US, became the latest Asian country to secure an agreement after what its foreign secretary described as “a very productive phone conversation” with Tehran. Iran assured “safe, unhindered and expeditious passage” for Philippines-flagged ships.
China, Iran’s largest oil buyer, confirmed that some of its ships had sailed through. Windward’s data show Chinese-linked vessels account for around 10 percent of the limited traffic still moving through the strait.
Indonesia secured passage for two of its vessels following diplomatic engagement with Tehran. Iraq has also been granted an exemption, with Windward identifying 21 Iraqi-linked tankers already operating under the arrangement.
Japan joined the list this week after a vessel operated by Mitsui OSK Lines carrying liquefied natural gas passed through the strait.
A system based on political alignment
The system is selectively allocated based on political alignment rather than open maritime norms. Of the roughly 280 global transit requests tracked by one intelligence firm, only 17 were approved. Some 670 commodity vessels were still stranded west of the strait as of last week.
Iran’s parliament is pursuing legislation to formally codify the toll system, likely making permanent a wartime measure and turning one of the world’s most important shipping routes into a fee-paying corridor controlled by its military.
A strategy that works
While Washington threatens military action and demands European naval support, Iran has quietly built a parallel system: nations that engage with Tehran diplomatically get their ships through. Those who follow Washington’s lead find the strait closed.
As the US-Israeli war on Iran enters its sixth week, the message is clear. Iran controls the Strait. Iran decides who passes. And Iran is proving that diplomacy, not threats, is the only path through. The countries that need their ships to move are making their own deals, and they are getting results.
Under fire, Moscow and Tehran close ranks
US–Israeli escalation is accelerating, rather than weakening, the Russia–Iran axis, reshaping the Caspian into a contested strategic corridor.

By Hazal Yalin | The Cradle | April 6, 2026
Hours after the US and Israel – increasingly referred to in some circles as the “Epstein coalition” – attacked Iran on 28 February, Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a sharply worded response, describing the assault as “a deliberate, premeditated, and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state, in direct violation of the fundamental principles and norms of international law.”
When interpreting diplomatic texts in general – and Russia’s statements in particular, given its near-obsessive adherence to traditional diplomacy – the importance of terminology is often overlooked. The concept of “aggression” is not an ordinary one; it signifies a violation of the very spirit of the UN Charter, especially Article 2(4).
A firm response to aggression
Just as significant as its use is its absence elsewhere. Aside from Russia, North Korea, and Cuba, no other state initially used the term “aggression” in condemning the attack—not even China, which only adopted the wording after 2 March.
This framing has been consistent across Russian statements and in President Vladimir Putin’s diplomatic readouts. At the same time, Moscow has walked a careful line in its engagement with Persian Gulf monarchies.
While avoiding endorsement of Iranian strikes on US and Israeli-linked targets in the Gulf, Russian officials have repeatedly stressed that the central issue remains US–Israeli aggression—and that criticism of Iran cannot be allowed to obscure this.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov captured this balance on 5 March during the Ambassadorial Roundtable on the Ukraine crisis. While opposing Iranian strikes on Gulf states and questioning their military utility, he warned that “Simply saying that Iran has no right to do anything effectively means openly encouraging the United States and Israel to continue what they are doing.”
In line with this approach, Russia (and China) did not veto the UN Security Council resolution on 11 March condemning Iran. However, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Vasiliy Nebenzya, stated that the resolution was one-sided and “confused cause and effect.”
This stance is largely linked to the UAE’s critical role in facilitating capital movement for Russia under western sanctions.
Israeli irritation and escalation
Such an uncompromising definition of aggression – and the Kremlin’s apparent decision to avoid even routine contact with the Israeli government – was never likely to pass unnoticed in Tel Aviv.
The first notable rupture came via an interview with Israeli army spokesperson Anna Ukolova on Radio RBK. Referencing reports that Israel had hacked Tehran’s traffic cameras to track Iranian officials, she was asked whether similar access existed in Moscow. Her response was striking:
“The elimination of key figures – the leadership of all these proxy groups, including Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei – already demonstrates that we possess quite formidable capabilities, and that no one who seeks to do us harm will go unscathed.”
“Then again, the question is: Who would want to do us harm? I hope that, at this moment, Moscow does not wish Israel ill. I want to believe that.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist government has traditionally adopted a cautious and diplomatic stance in relations with Russia. Even if it had decided to shift toward open hostility, one would expect it to do so through diplomatic, economic, or even, at most, fifth-column activities within Russia. Ukolova’s direct threat – drawing a parallel of “elimination” against the Russian leadership – was unprecedented.
Attack on Bandar Anzali
The remark itself might have been dismissed as bluster were it not followed by something far more consequential: Israel’s reported strike on Iran’s Bandar Anzali Port on the Caspian coast.
The attack was first reported on 18 March by Israel’s Channel 12 as an “unusual attack” carried out 1,300 kilometers from Israeli territory.
Curiously, western media remained silent on the matter for some time. In Russia, Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov initially stated on 20 March that he had no information about it. When asked how Moscow would view a situation where the conflict escalated to engulf the Caspian Sea region, he said: “Russia would view it extremely negatively.”
Later that same day, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova confirmed the strike, warning that the Caspian Sea basin has always been regarded “as a safe zone of peace and cooperation. The aggressors’ reckless and irresponsible actions pose a threat of dragging Caspian states into an armed conflict.”
She also stressed that Bandar Anzali is “an important trade and logistics hub that is actively used in Russian–Iranian trade, including for food deliveries. The strike has affected the economic interests of Russia and the other Caspian states that maintain transport communications with Iran via that port.” Two days later, Peskov noted that the conflict was “showing a tendency to expand its boundaries.”
Because there is a general tendency to follow events through the lens of London or Washington, The story only gained wider traction on 24 March, when the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ran it as a headline: “Israel Hits Russian–Iranian Weapons Smuggling Route in the Caspian Sea.”
Casting a sovereign logistics corridor as “smuggling” recodes the strike as pre-emptive policing rather than escalation. The same report noted that the attack threatened Iran’s food supply and signaled Israel’s capacity to inflict broader civilian hardship – language that treats civilian suffering as a strategic message.
Russia’s public response was strong – and predictably so – for two reasons.
The Caspian legal order
First, the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Unlike other bodies of water, the Caspian falls outside the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Its governance is defined instead by the 2018 Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea, agreed upon by its five littoral states.
Under this framework, all decisions concerning the Caspian must be made jointly by the five littoral states – Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Non-littoral states are prohibited from maintaining a military presence (Article 3/6), and littoral states cannot allow their territory to be used for aggression against one another (3/7). Navigation security is a shared responsibility (3/9).
An attack carried out by a non-littoral actor via the Caspian undermines not only these provisions but the broader stability they are meant to guarantee.
While no explicit breach of Articles 3/6 or 3/7 has been formally identified, the presence of Israeli, US, and British military and intelligence networks – particularly in Azerbaijan – is widely acknowledged. This latent infrastructure adds a further layer of tension.
The strike on Bandar Anzali directly engages Article 3/9. It represents a breach of navigational security by an external actor, placing responsibility on all littoral states. Yet, aside from Russia and Iran, none have responded – an omission that speaks as loudly as any formal position.
Trade routes and strategic depth
The second factor is more straightforward: geography. The Caspian is the primary trade corridor between Russia and Iran, and Bandar Anzali is one of its key nodes.
This trade is not limited to civilian goods. Since the signing of the “comprehensive strategic partnership agreement” on 17 January 2025, it is widely understood that military logistics also transit this route.
The agreement was signed in Moscow on 17 January 2025 by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. It was approved by the Russian State Duma on 8 April 2025, signed by Putin on 21 April 2025, approved by the Iranian parliament on 21 May 2025, endorsed by the Guardian Council on 11 June 2025, and entered into force on 2 October 2025.
As previously noted by The Cradle, the agreement is not a binding mutual defense pact but a statement of strategic intent. Russia’s threshold for military support hinges on legal framing – specifically, whether an action qualifies as “aggression” in terms Moscow recognizes. Iran, for its part, has resisted any arrangement that would allow foreign military use of its territory.
Still, the agreement is far from symbolic. It outlines extensive cooperation in defense, security, and intelligence, and explicitly commits both sides to countering third-party interference across the Caspian, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and West Asia.
Articles 4, 5, and 6 set out broad military and security cooperation frameworks, while Articles 4/1 and 4/2 specifically formalize intelligence exchange, experience-sharing, and operational coordination between the two countries’ security and intelligence services.
Russia Warns of Retaliation as UK Authorizes Seizure of Vessels
teleSUR – April 5, 2026
Russia has warned that British government attempts to seize vessels linked to Moscow will trigger retaliatory measures currently being prepared, with the Russian ambassador stating that London authorities will face a surprise response.
The warning came from Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom Andrei Kelin, who urged the British government to consider the consequences of its actions and the fate of illegally seized cargo. He added that shipowners will inevitably turn to international courts to demand payment of damages and related costs stemming from any seizures.
Last March, London authorized its military forces to board sanctioned vessels transiting British territorial waters. The UK plan also includes closing the English Channel passage to the so‑called shadow fleet, which transports Russian energy products to international markets.
The seizure policy follows an expansion of the UK sanctions list on February 26, which added 297 new entries. That round affected 240 legal entities, seven individuals, and 50 merchant marine vessels linked to Moscow.
According to the Castellum.AI database updated as of August 15, approximately 23,960 individual and sectoral sanctions have been imposed against Russia. That volume of punitive measures has accumulated since the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced the Western containment policy as not a situational reaction but a long‑term strategy. He maintains that the imposition of unilateral sanctions deals a structural blow to global economic stability and supply chains.
