The Ministry of Defence has refused to give figures for how many Russian shadow fleet vessels have passed through British waters, been boarded or been detained, citing the risk to its operations, the UK Defence Journal understands.
The Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, James MacCleary, had asked the department, with reference to its 25 March 2026 press release headlined “Shadow fleet set to be interdicted in UK waters in latest blow to Russia”, how many Russian shadow fleet ships had transited British waters, how many had been boarded and how many had been detained.
Answering for the government, Armed Forces Minister Al Carns said the UK had supported multiple interdictions of sanctioned vessels in recent months but would not provide the numbers requested. “We will not get into details of our decision-making process as this could compromise our ability to successfully take action against sanctioned ships, only benefitting our adversaries,” he said.
The answer leaves unquantified an enforcement effort the government has publicised heavily since the spring. The March press release that MacCleary referred to set out the intention to interdict the shadow fleet in UK waters, and the Prime Minister subsequently authorised the Royal Navy and Royal Marines to board such vessels. Ministers have not, however, confirmed how many ships have actually been boarded or detained under those powers by the UK.
Figures that are in the public domain give a sense of the scale of the traffic, if not of the enforcement. Tracking reported by the BBC indicated that 184 sanctioned vessels made 238 journeys through British waters in the roughly seven weeks after the Prime Minister’s warning, with no boarding action reported to have followed at that stage.
The shadow fleet is the loose collection of ageing, often opaquely owned and inadequately insured tankers used to move Russian oil outside Western shipping and insurance networks, allowing Moscow to continue exporting crude despite sanctions and the G7 price cap.
Enforcement has been complicated by a Russian naval response. In recent months Russian warships have begun escorting sanctioned tankers through the Dover Strait, with frigates including the Admiral Grigorovich photographed shadowing convoys and loitering in the southern North Sea.
It’s zero, everyone knows it’s zero.. the Russians most definitely know how many of their ships have been boarded for FFS…
So if the Russians will instantly know how many of their ships have been boarded or seized how can it be an operational secret. That’s ridiculous.
This is pure refusal to tell the public the truth and be held accountable dressed in national security and it makes HMG look both untrustworthy and a laughing stock.
Another cover up by the MOD and the government.
Everyone knows they do not want to upset the other side. The French do not seem to mind, though I suspect no Warship escort when they have got involved. That said it was a pretty meaningless threat.
If the Russians are escorting the tankers, would we be prepared to muscle our way past Russian warships, even if we had the frigates available?
Pretty sure it’s zero because although sanctioned, we’re only legally able to board false-flagged ships. The Russians have gotten around this by reflagging the vessels going through our waters as being Russian, and no-longer under a false-flag.
It’s still a partial result if the Russian Navy is having to waste its resources baby-sitting tankers.
Still, it’s disappointing. But if we overreached in our actions at sea the Chinese would feel justified in doing the same in the South China Sea.
Can’t we board on the grounds of them suspected of being dangerous? I think that means they wouldn’t be conducting innocent passage.
And the grounds of that suspicion would be…?
(Because the last thing we need is HMG being dragged through the courts and having to pay financial compensation to a Russian shipping company.)
Ships cannot be legally reflagged mid voyage, to do so makes it a false flag and illegal so eligible for boarding.
If Russia keeps it permanently Russian flagged it’s legal but then the ship is hit with the very sanctions they’re trying to avoid.
Exactly. The ones going through the North Sea and Channel are now permanently flagged as Russian. But because they’re sanctioned doesn’t mean we can board and seize them.
The false-flagged ones are going the long-route around U.K. waters but then being caught by France.
This is a good thing. The cupboard is bare so politicians should not be able to make promises they can’t keep. A blind man knows there aren’t enough ships at sea or resources to do what politicians say.
Shame no heads of the forces challenge Starmer when he pledges troops for Ukraine to maintain any peace.
I myself think it’s a bit more complex here, David.
Stopping a single ship in the Channel wouldn’t need many ships, so I don’t think it’s a resources issue in this case if the target is close to home waters.
SBS have done it often enough. Their MCT role has a Sqn on standby, assisted by the RM SMG, or whatever it is called nowdays.
The assets are there, CT and MCT remain high priority taskings.
Helicopters, for boarding party and sniper overwatch. So Merlin HC4 or Chinook, either from the MCT Flight within CHF or 7 Sqn. And a couple of Lynx HMA8 from that forces MCT Flight. RHIB”s and/or HSIC/LRIC ( terminology seems to change depending on source ) whichever as necessary are both sitting at Poole right now in RIB Troop or LRIC Troop, if helis are not the primary means of boarding, or if both methods are used.
A single Frigate, RFA or OPV nearby, a P8 overhead.
It’s been done.
This I feel is political sensitivity over Iran and the complexities previously explained by both Spock and Jim.
Agree on your last though! All too keen to secure their pension and cosy position on the board of some lucrative MIC company.
Although I agree with Spocks explanation, HMG were quite happy to play the tough guy for spin purposes. Enough of the wider public will have been taken in.
Job done.
Meanwhile the Times is reporting that Starmer is looking for ways to ‘water down’ the £18b defence spending pledge🙄
One reads different interpretations.
I’ve read that he wants it, but Reeves would not budge. Now a compromise 15 Billion agreed, in the middle of Reeves 12 and the militaries/Healey’s 18.
Whatever. Look put for the spin.
I’ll be here to pull it apart and point out what they try to deflect and obscure, what they said, and the reality.
I have a long memory.
No doubt😀👍
FT reporting that The Treasury are ‘taking control’ of Tempest expenditure away from the MOD, and that bridging finance for Tempest expires on 30 June.
It also mentions a “15bn defence package”.
So does 2+2= by by Tempest?
Don’t think so.
They’re also reporting the Treasury want to run GCAP rather than the MoD.
Given previous experiences with MoD project control it might be the best way of ensuring Tempest doesn’t become a flying-Ajax…
It would also mean the Treasury would have egg on their face if the project failed, which should incentivise them to ensure it doesn’t.
So the treasury would bring MOD project control people in to run this then? What could possibly go wrong!
No idea where you got that idea from.
The treasury is busy enough so could they manage more work without expanding?
You mentioned Ajax isn’t the problem there quality control not the actual money spent on it? You would have the same people advising the treasury as you have now with the MOD on spending decisions!
Seems to me it’s just moving the same problem from one department to another.
I have no known of whether the Treasury is under or over staffed for the work it’s doing. What’s your source?
TBH Ajax isn’t the worst example as the contract was fixed-price. BUT it had been excessively late due to both design, manufacture, and operation faults. Maybe if the Treasury had been involved early on, they may have question the VFM of the project. Although the contract was fixed-price, its delays have cost time, and time is money as they say.
While there’s still a case for many of the variants, like the Ambulance, I would say Ajax will now be obsolete before it’s fully operational in its core role of reconnaissance.
No source just asking can they take on more work? Whatever dept takes on the problem down the line the same people will be involved somewhere unless there are wholesale changes!
TBH I think even if the Treasury take over the MoD’s role, they’ll only have control of the U.K. financing.
The programme is being run by the GCAP Agency on behalf of UK/Italy/Japan governments.
The GCAP Agency has, in turn, awarded the contract to develop and ultimately manufacture Tempest to Edgewing – a BAE 🇬🇧Leonardo 🇮🇹, and JAIEC 🇯🇵 joint-venture.
I read that. I thought it s brilliant idea, actually?
To my mind it makes sense. I’m always bemoaning the lack of priority for military capability that seems to exist in these big projects with tje industrial and jobs emphasis.
They have the potential to make a big profit for UKPLC, AUKUS being the other, and F35 is also often used as an example.
So, let other departments be involved?
It’s noticeable that the ones the French have been seizing are still false-flagged, the latest one being Madagascar. Presumably the false flagged tankers are avoiding the North Sea and Channel, and heading out into the Atlantic to avoid the UK.
(Also HMS Somerset and her helicopter were involved in monitoring the tanker up to, and including the seizure.)
Were they? Thanks, I was about to ask just that, the seeming discrepancy that France does act. Yes, MoD have announced whenever there is British involvement, they’d not miss the chance.
Starmer bought diesel and Avtur derived from Russian oil. Starmer is a two faced prik.
Method in the madness dear boy!
No he didn’t. What they announced was further sanctions… but then said they were phasing/delaying them due to the oil crisis.
Typical Starmer unecessary blunder, because the net effect was zero, but because they announced the delayed phase-in it sounded like they were easing existing sanctions (like Trump has).
Another own-goal.
Haven’t they actually bought refined products though not Russian oil directly?
The new sanctions were against products refined in third countries from oil shipped from Russia. One example is products from Indian refineries, being passed IDF as ‘Indian’.
The fact is that the Russians have been escorting these sanctioned vessels with a frigate in close formation through the whole length of the English Channel for months, and with our pretence of a navy, we are unable to face them up and do something about it.