Bulgaria has suggested Russia was behind two attacks on cargo ships near its waters on Tuesday that left eleven sailors missing, calling the escalation of the war in the Black Sea “unacceptable”.

Cargo ship HS Dignity was sunk off the Bulgarian coast overnight and 11 of its crew members remain unaccounted for. Ukrainian-owned cargo vessel Chelsea 3 was also hit by drones 18 miles from the coast, but all of its sailors have been rescued, according to Bulgarian authorities.

“We do not have solid and clear evidence to level accusations against any of the parties, but . . . logic suggests that the outcome benefits the Russian Federation,” Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev said on television on Tuesday. Radev requested help from allies to ascertain the origin of the attacks.

…

Strikes in the Black Sea have vastly increased since the summer, when Ukraine began an intensive drone campaign against Russian shipping in the region. In late September, Kyiv said it had hit more than 300 Russian shadow fleet vessels in 11 weeks.

…

Radev said he had spoken to Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte, who said Nato would step up its defence posture in the region as needed.

…

Meanwhile, French forces intercepted a Chinese-owned crude oil tanker in the Indian Ocean which had been involved in “illicit fuel-trafficking activities”, according to French President Emmanuel Macron.

The tanker, sailing under the false flag of Benin, had a history of carrying Russian cargoes, according to commodities platform Kpler. Russia’s RIA state ​news agency said that the Russian embassy in Paris had denounced the move as “piracy” and a violation of international maritime law.

More than 20 shadow fleet vessels have been detained by European and US forces since the start of 2025.

…

Archived (removepaywall.com)

  • trollercoaster@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    5 hours ago

    The problem is that it will in the end boil down to such hair splitting. In the war crimes trials after WW2, for instance, the sinking of merchant vessels by submarines with no prior warning, then illegal under rules that had been written well before practical submarines had been invented, (“cruiser rules”) was deliberately overlooked, because all sides had been doing it. On top of that comes the problem that the only side that will ever agree to voluntarily submitting its personnel to a truly fair and impartial trial is the side that is less inclined to committing war crimes in the first place.

    Even the requirement for giving a warning before attacking a merchant vessel under a neutral flag isn’t absolute (Section V.67 f): Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning

    What exactly constitutes as warning isn’t specified either. What exactly the permitting circumstances are, is also left open to interpretation. I am fairly certain that this rule was included to accommodate the way submarine warfare was conducted by everyone from WW2 onwards.

    The only vessels for which giving a warning prior to an attack is unconditional, even if they are violating a precondition for their protection, are hospital ships. (Section III.49)