Russia uses warships to protect its shadow fleet
Source: Moscow Times
Quote: "Russia has always had a military presence in the region... What is new is that Russia is now protecting tankers belonging to its shadow fleet in the narrow waters of the Gulf of Finland. This has involved military escort operations and the presence of armed forces," said Finnish Defence Minister Antti Häkkänen.
Details: The Finnish Navy confirmed the increase in military traffic in the region. Häkkänen stressed that he did not consider this a direct threat to Finland but noted: "But it's clear that Russia is strengthening its military capabilities and remains an aggressive and dangerous neighbour to all of Europe."
On 13 May, Estonia attempted to stop the Jaguar tanker, which belongs to the Kremlin's shadow fleet. In response, Russia launched a Su-35 fighter jet that violated NATO airspace to escort the vessel to the port of Primorsk.
Background:
On 19 May, the Russian authorities released the Green Admire tanker, which had been detained in Russian territorial waters on 18 May after leaving the port of Sillamäe, Estonia, with a shale oil cargo.
The French Navy deployed the 101-metre-long reconnaissance vessel Dupuy de Lome to the Baltic Sea for the first time to intercept radio signals related to Russian activities.
Estonia decided not to use the route that passes through Russian territorial waters any more after Russia detained the Green Admire oil tanker.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
27 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump to speak with Putin after U.S. pauses some weapons shipments to Ukraine
President Donald Trump said he will speak to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday at 10 a.m. ET. The call comes two days after the U.S. said it would halt some missile and ammunitions shipments to Ukraine, which continues to fight off invading Russian forces. This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
Putin's attempt to 'play Trump' on Ukraine will fail, former national security advisor says
Russian President Vladimir Putin is intensifying his assault on Ukraine, despite previously signaling to President Donald Trump that peace might be on the table. But one former Trump advisor says Putin's strategy is unlikely to succeed. "I don't think he can play Donald Trump," retired Gen. H.R. McMaster, who served as Trump's national security advisor from 2017 to 2018, told "The Brian Kilmeade Show" on Wednesday. "You saw what happened with the Iranians. He gave them 60 days, right? And they went to 61, and he acted." Russia launched its largest aerial strike on Ukraine since the start of the war this week, marking an escalation in the conflict. McMaster said this is part of a calculated attempt by Putin to project power and reshape his image. "This is Putin's ruse. He's trying to look strong," McMaster told the "Brian Kilmeade Show." "He's throwing it all in right now because he thinks we don't have the will to support Ukraine." The increase in Russian aggression comes as the Pentagon has paused some weapons shipments to Ukraine. The scrapped deals included Patriot missile interceptors and artillery shells. U.S. officials have justified the delay by blaming it on dwindling stockpiles and concerns the United States could need them to defend itself. While Putin is projecting strength, McMaster argued the Russian leader is far weaker than he appears. "Putin is really in a hurt, in terms of his economic situation," he said. "He's not pulling as much out of the ATM as he's been able to pull," noting that declining oil prices and skyrocketing military expenses have taken a toll on Russia's economy. According to McMaster, these developments could push Trump to take a firmer stance if peace talks continue to falter. "President Trump is [going to] come to the conclusion it's time to put more pressure on Putin, and that includes sustaining support for the Ukrainians." Last month, Trump proposed taking a step back in ceasefire negotiations, likening Russia and Ukraine to two children fighting. He suggested the U.S. take a step back in negotiations until both countries are willing to come to the table. "Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart," remarked Trump in early June. Some leaders have countered the president's strategy, saying U.S. support is critical to the Ukrainian resistance. On Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte emphasized that Ukraine cannot win without American aid. "A secure Europe also means a secure U.S.," Rutte told "Fox & Friends." The Dutch leader also noted that a larger Russia that's closer to Europe could pose more of a risk to U.S. interests.
The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is crushing conservative anti-war dissent over his Iran strikes
The rift within President Trump's MAGA movement over his decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities is deepening. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) described the airstrikes as 'not constitutional' and denounced Trump's comments about regime change in Tehran, posting, 'This is not America First folks.' Trump responded with a broadside on Truth Social in which he described Massie as a 'simple minded 'grandstander'' who is 'disrespectful to our great military.' Trump has been sparring with the isolationist wing of his own movement over military action in Iran since Israel started bombing. In a conversation with Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson claimed that Trump's coalition is 'being blown up over this war on Iran.' Trump responded, 'Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that, 'IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!'' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) defended Carlson and complained that 'The Uniparty is out to politically destroy me for opposing regime change in Iran.' Pundit Charlie Kirk worried that the war will 'cause a massive schism in MAGA.' Conservative critics of the president's decision to join Israel's assault on Iran have long presented Trump as a courageous peacemaker standing up to a warmongering establishment in Washington. They celebrated when Trump declared that the U.S. would abandon Ukraine. Trump blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and NATO for the Russian invasion and drastically reduced U.S. military support for Ukraine. He then attempted to force Kyiv into accepting a terrible deal that would end Ukraine's right to join the alliances of its choosing and consign millions of Ukrainians to permanent occupation, while asking for nothing in exchange from Putin. Massie boasts that he's the 'only member of Congress who never voted for Ukraine funding.' Carlson has openly declared that he supports Russia over Ukraine. Greene describes Zelensky as an 'actor wearing army green every day, fully funded by U.S. warmongers,' claims he controls a 'Nazi army,' regurgitates Russian propaganda and calls Zelensky a 'little dictator.' It is no wonder that Trump's most rabid 'America First' acolytes believed his absurd promises about ending the Ukraine war in '24 hours.' The tension between Trump and some of his loudest supporters over the Iran strikes is the result of shattered illusions across the MAGA-verse. Many Trump supporters really believed that the president had a principled opposition to war, but he has always been a simple opportunist who scored political points by attacking what he views as a hated 'neocon' establishment in Washington. While pundits within Trump's base are free to attack Trump for what they view as a deviation from America First orthodoxy, self-described anti-war members of the administration are in a trickier spot. Vice President JD Vance has spent years pouring scorn on what he regards as a sinister warmongering elite in Washington. But he has been reduced to cheerleading for Trump's latest military adventure, which he surely would have indignantly denounced if it was launched by a Democratic administration. 'We're not at war with Iran,' Vance recently said. 'We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' Vance would have mocked this sort of Orwellian doublespeak in any other context. In a lengthy post on X, the vice president attempted to reconcile Trump's belligerence toward Iran with his constant promises to end wars rather than start them. 'Of course,' Vance wrote, 'people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.' He continued: 'But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.' In other words, Trump's attack on Iran is exactly the sort of foreign entanglement he has spent years decrying, but he's unwilling to say so because he is 'admittedly biased towards our president.' Vance isn't the only member of the administration forced to bend flimsy principles into an entirely new shape to fit Trump's latest diktat. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to Congress that U.S. intelligence 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.' Trump dismissed the assessment of his own DNI to reporters: 'I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one.' Like Vance, hostility toward 'warmongers' in the 'elite' has long been a major feature of Gabbard's political career. She blamed the war in Ukraine on NATO and the Biden administration, which allegedly failed to acknowledge 'Russia's legitimate security concerns.' She has echoed Russian propaganda about Ukraine. Gabbard was fiercely critical of Trump's first-term decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration, and she has spent many years attacking U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. Vance and Gabbard have discovered the one iron law of contemporary American politics: Joining forces with Trump means discarding your deepest principles to remain in good standing with the boss. Those who have attempted to give Trump's movement some coherent intellectual and ethical shape have made a similar discovery. As Trump recently claimed, 'America First' means whatever he says it means. Either submit to the new orthodoxy, or get out. Matt Johnson is the author of the book 'How Hitchens Can Save the Left: Rediscovering Fearless Liberalism in an Age of Counter-Enlightenment.'
