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)

  • Yenaplus@europe.pubEnglish
    1·
    3 hours ago

    Don’t worry, nothing will happen and nothing to see here.

    Bulgaria’s government is not pro-russia at all. They are just “progressive” towards Russia.

    • bedwyr@piefed.caEnglish
      1·
      14 hours ago

      Cold War II, the Fascist Boogaloo. Trademark.

      And they started it over a decade back.

  • alcoholicorn@lemmy.mlEnglish
    29·
    20 hours ago

    Things that are war crimes when Ukraine does them remain war crimes when Russia does them.

    • encelado748@feddit.orgEnglish
      9·
      19 hours ago

      That is definitionally true. The problem is that Russia commits the undeniably vast majority of war crimes in the war. It is not even close, we are talking 2 orders of magnitude more war crime from Russia according to the Russia government. We are talking about things like systematic deportation of children and torture.

        • encelado748@feddit.orgEnglish
          7·
          19 hours ago

          Russia targeted nearly every type of civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. Most of them totally unrelated to the conflict or Ukrainian ability to wage war. 30% of the destruction is against houses, with more then 60 billions of dollars in damage. WHO recorded 3148 attach on healthcare facilities, and 423 schools were totally destroyed by Russia.

        • Successful_Try543@feddit.orgEnglish
          1·
          19 hours ago

          No. It’s allowed to sink merchant ships of the opposing state. Energy infrastructure used to power e.g. arms production while also generating power for civilians is a legitimate target too.

          For that reason an attack on the district heating system of Kiev is illegitimate, while an attack on an russian oil raffinery isn’t.

          • alcoholicorn@lemmy.mlEnglish
            4·
            19 hours ago

            It literally is, even though the US and Russia like to claim civilian infrastructure is “dual use” to pretend they’re actually military targets.

            https://iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/SAN-REMO-MANUAL-on-INTERNATIONAL-LAW-APPLICABLE-TO-ARMED-CONFLICTS-AT-SEA-2.pdf

            `PART III: BASIC RULES AND TARGET DISCRIMINATION SECTION I: BASIC RULES

            1. In any armed conflict the right of the parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

            2. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and militaryobjectives.

            3. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

            4. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.`