Fifth seizure in three weeks: Washington seizes the Olina and tightens the noose around Putin’s ghost fleet

2026-06-20 23:54:11

Credit: Adobe Stock

Hundreds of Ships in the Shadows

The Russian ghost fleet is one of the worst-kept secrets in international maritime trade. Hundreds of oil tankers, bulk carriers, and cargo ships sail with little or no regulation, without known insurance, under flags of convenience. These ships change their names as often as they change their shirts, turn off their AIS transponders to disappear from radar, and falsify their documents. The Olina is a perfect example. Formerly known as the Minerva M, it was sanctioned in January 2025 by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and other countries for transporting Russian oil in violation of international restrictions.

According to data from Lloyd’s List Intelligence, a maritime data analytics firm, the Olina was sailing under the false flag of Timor-Leste. This is a classic tactic of the ghost fleet: using the flag of a small state that has neither the means nor the will to monitor ships registered under its flag. The ship’s last AIS signal was recorded 52 days before its seizure, in Venezuela’s exclusive economic zone, northeast of Curaçao. Fifty-two days of total invisibility. Fifty-two days sailing in the shadows, transporting illegal oil, defying international sanctions.

A system that funds the war in Ukraine

This ghost fleet is not merely a maritime curiosity. It is a criminal infrastructure that allows Russia to circumvent Western sanctions and finance its war in Ukraine. Every barrel of oil transported by these ships generates revenue for the Kremlin—revenue that buys missiles, drones, and ammunition. Revenue that allows Putin to continue his aggression against Ukraine. The British maritime risk management firm Vanguard confirmed that the seizure of the Olina “follows a prolonged pursuit of oil tankers linked to shipments of sanctioned Venezuelan oil in the region.”

The link between Venezuela and Russia is not new. Maduro has always been a loyal ally of Putin, receiving political, military, and economic support in return. But since the start of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, this partnership has taken on a new dimension. Venezuela has become a crucial transit point for Russian oil seeking to evade sanctions. Ships load oil in Russia, sail to Venezuela where they blend their cargo with Venezuelan crude, and then set sail again for destinations in Asia or elsewhere. It is an industrial-scale oil laundering operation.

There is something deeply revolting about this system. These ships sailing in the shadows, financing wars, enriching dictators—and doing so with complete impunity for years. How many Russian missiles fired at Ukrainian cities were paid for with money from this oil? How many Ukrainian lives have been destroyed because of these ghost ships? I think about that when I see the Olina seized. I think about all those invisible connections between an oil tanker in the Caribbean and a family torn apart in Kharkiv or Mariupol. And I tell myself that every ship seized means a little less money for Putin’s war machine. It’s concrete. It’s measurable. It’s important.

A series of spectacular seizures

The Bella 1: A Manhunt That Lasted Several Weeks

The Olina is just the latest in a series. Three days earlier, on January 7, U.S. forces had seized the Bella 1 in the North Atlantic after a chase lasting several weeks. The tanker, which was sailing under the Russian flag after evading the U.S. blockade of Venezuela in December, had attempted to defy Washington. Moscow had even sent a submarine and a destroyer to protect it. But faced with the U.S. fleet, the Russian ships turned back. “They decided not to mess with us,” President Donald Trump said in an interview with Fox News. A statement that perfectly sums up the balance of power.

The Bella 1 had changed its name and hoisted the Russian flag after leaving Venezuelan waters—a desperate attempt to place itself under Moscow’s protection. But that wasn’t enough. U.S. forces intercepted it, boarded it, and took control of the ship. The Kremlin protested, accusing Washington of violating international maritime law. But on Friday, January 9, in a surprising turnaround, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova thanked Trump for agreeing to release two Russian crew members from the Bella 1, which was renamed Marinera after its seizure.

The M Sophia and the Others

The M Sophia, another oil tanker from the same flotilla that had left Venezuela in early January, was seized earlier this week. According to Reuters, three other ships—the Skylyn, the Min Hang, and the Merope—all fully loaded and part of the same flotilla, turned back on Thursday to return to Venezuelan waters. Seven additional oil tankers from this fleet, also fully loaded, were scheduled to return to Venezuelan waters on Friday and Saturday. All the oil on board these ten ships belongs to PDVSA, Venezuela’s state-owned oil company.

It is a reverse exodus. A dozen oil tankers that had left Venezuela after Maduro’s capture, hoping to evade the U.S. blockade, are now turning back, unable to deliver their cargo. Some will likely be seized. Others will return to Venezuela, where their oil will remain stranded—useless, unsellable. The blockade is working. It’s working so well that even the ships that managed to leave are now turning back. Because there’s nowhere left to go. No more refuge. No more escape.

I have to admit something: I’m gloating. Yes, I’m gloating as I watch these ships turn back. As I watch this flotilla—which thought it could defy the U.S. blockade, which thought it could continue transporting illegal oil—find itself trapped, with no options left. Reality is catching up with arrogance. The law is catching up with impunity. And frankly, after years of watching these regimes flout international rules, after years of watching Putin and Maduro enrich themselves at the expense of their people and finance wars, finally seeing real consequences feels incredibly good. Sorry if that offends anyone. But that’s how I feel.

Operation Southern Spear: A Total Blockade

A Show of Military Force

Operation Southern Spear is not merely a maritime law enforcement operation. It is a massive military deployment, a demonstration of American power in the Caribbean. The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, one of the most powerful warships in the world, is at the heart of this operation. It is accompanied by destroyers, frigates, maritime patrol aircraft, and submarines. This armada patrols Caribbean waters, intercepting any suspicious vessels and monitoring every movement of Venezuelan oil.

U.S. Southern Command confirmed the seizure of the Olina on X (formerly Twitter), stating that the operation had proceeded “without incident” and that U.S. forces remained “unwavering in their mission to defend our homeland by ending illicit activities and restoring security in the Western Hemisphere.” ” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem added that the Olina was “another tanker from the ghost fleet suspected of transporting embargoed oil” and that it “had left Venezuela while attempting to evade U.S. forces.”

A Global Message: Nowhere to Hide

What makes this operation particularly significant is its geographic scope. The Bella 1 was seized in the North Atlantic, far from the Caribbean. The Olina in the Caribbean Sea near Trinidad. Other vessels have been intercepted in various locations. Pete Hegseth’s message is clear: the U.S. blockade of sanctioned Venezuelan oil remains in effect “everywhere in the world.” Not just in the Caribbean. Not just in U.S. territorial waters. Everywhere. Anywhere. At any time.

This marks a major escalation in the enforcement of sanctions. Traditionally, economic sanctions rely on international cooperation, diplomatic pressure, and financial mechanisms. But the Trump administration has chosen a different approach: physical interdiction. Seizing ships. Stopping cargo shipments. Physically preventing oil from flowing. It’s more direct, more brutal, but also potentially more effective. Because a seized ship cannot deliver its cargo. An oil tanker under U.S. control cannot finance Putin’s war.

There is something almost medieval about this approach. Like the naval blockades of old, when war fleets encircled enemy ports and cut off all trade routes. But at the same time, it is terribly modern. Because this blockade does not target a single port or coastline. It targets a global network, a ghost fleet operating all over the world. And for the first time in a long while, this network is encountering real resistance. A force that says no. A power that takes action. I don’t know if this is the right approach in the long run. I don’t know what the geopolitical consequences will be. But what I do know is that impunity comes at a cost. And that sometimes, it takes force to enforce the rules.

The Implications for Russia and Venezuela

A Major Blow to Russia’s War Economy

For Russia, these seizures represent much more than just the loss of ships. They threaten one of the pillars of its war economy: the ability to export oil despite Western sanctions. Russia’s “ghost fleet” includes hundreds of ships, but every seizure sends a message to shipowners, insurers, and crews: there is a real risk. A risk of losing the ship, the cargo, perhaps even their freedom. And in the world of maritime trade, risk translates into higher costs, astronomical insurance premiums, and difficulties in finding crews.

Russian oil continues to flow to Asia, mainly to China and India. But these shipping routes are becoming increasingly risky. If the United States is prepared to seize ships in the North Atlantic and the Caribbean, what would prevent it from doing so elsewhere? In the Indian Ocean? In the Strait of Malacca? The Russian “ghost fleet” operated in a gray area, taking advantage of the lack of political will to stop it. But that gray area is shrinking. Rapidly.

Venezuela: Isolated and Suffocating

For Venezuela, the situation is even more critical. With Maduro captured and detained in the United States, the country is in chaos. The interim government, backed by Washington, is trying to take control. But without oil revenues, Venezuela cannot function. Oil accounts for more than 95% of Venezuela’s exports. It is the country’s sole source of foreign currency. And now, that oil is blocked. Ships attempting to leave are seized. Those that manage to leave are turned back. Potential buyers are hesitant, fearing U.S. sanctions.

PDVSA, the state-owned oil company, is paralyzed. Its oil tankers are stuck in Venezuelan ports or seized at sea. Its production, already in free fall for years due to mismanagement and lack of investment, can no longer be exported. Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but it cannot sell them. It is a cruel irony. A country sitting on an oil fortune, yet unable to profit from it because no one wants to or can buy its oil.

And that brings me to a difficult question. A question that makes me uncomfortable. Because yes, Maduro was a dictator. Yes, his regime was corrupt, brutal, and responsible for the misery of millions of Venezuelans. But this blockade, these seizures—they don’t just affect Maduro. They affect the entire country. Every barrel of oil that can’t be sold means less money for the Venezuelan economy. Less money for hospitals, schools, and infrastructure. I know the official argument is that this oil was funding an illegitimate regime. But now that Maduro is gone, now that there’s an interim government, this blockade continues. And I wonder: who’s really paying the price? The dictators or the people?

International Reactions

The Kremlin: Between Protest and Pragmatism

Moscow’s reaction was interesting. First came anger. The Kremlin accused the United States of violating international maritime law by seizing the Bella 1, a ship flying the Russian flag. Threats were made. A submarine and a destroyer were dispatched to protect the ship. But faced with American might, these vessels turned back. Then, on Friday, a surprising turnaround: Maria Zakharova thanked Trump for agreeing to release two Russian crew members from the Bella 1.

This sudden pragmatism speaks volumes about the Kremlin’s calculations. Putin knows he cannot confront the United States militarily in the Caribbean. It is America’s backyard, an area where Washington has overwhelming military superiority. So rather than escalate, Moscow is negotiating. It’s salvaging what it can. It’s protesting for appearances’ sake. But it’s accepting reality: the United States has decided to enforce its sanctions, and Russia can’t do much to stop them.

Europe watches cautiously

The European Union and the United Kingdom, which have also imposed sanctions on the Olina and other ships in the ghost fleet, are watching with interest. These U.S. seizures are doing what the Europeans have never dared to do: physically enforce the sanctions. The EU has imposed sanctions against the Russian ghost fleet, banning these ships from docking in European ports and freezing their owners’ assets. But physically seizing ships on the high seas? That is a level of action the Europeans have never considered.

Some European countries are quietly applauding. Others are concerned about the legal implications and the precedents being set. Because if the United States can seize ships on the high seas to enforce its sanctions, what’s to stop other countries from doing the same? Could China seize ships carrying goods to Taiwan? Could Russia intercept ships in the Black Sea? These are questions that concern international legal experts and diplomats. But for now, Europe remains silent, watching to see how the situation unfolds.

And that’s where I see the divide between Europe and the United States. Europe speaks out. It imposes sanctions on paper. It condemns. It expresses its concern. But it doesn’t act. Not really. Not in any concrete way. The United States, on the other hand, takes action. It sends aircraft carriers. It seizes ships. It enforces its decisions by force if necessary. I’m not saying that’s always the right approach. I’m not saying that force is always the solution. But there’s something frustrating about this European passivity—this inability to turn words into action. Because in the end, Putin understands only one thing: force. And as long as Europe isn’t prepared to use it, it will remain a bystander.

Legal and Ethical Issues

International Maritime Law at Issue

The seizures of the Olina and other vessels raise complex legal questions. International maritime law, codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, establishes strict rules regarding what a state may do on the high seas. In principle, a vessel on the high seas is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state whose flag it flies. But there are exceptions: piracy, the slave trade, and unauthorized emissions. And now, apparently, violations of U.S. sanctions.

The United States justifies these seizures by invoking its domestic sanctions laws and its right to enforce those laws. But do U.S. laws apply on the high seas? Can Washington unilaterally decide that a ship is violating its sanctions and seize it, even if it is not in U.S. territorial waters? These are questions that international legal experts are debating. The Kremlin, unsurprisingly, asserts that these seizures violate international law. But who will decide? The International Court of Justice? An arbitral tribunal? Or simply the balance of power?

The Humanitarian Consequences

Beyond the legal questions lie the humanitarian consequences. The blockade of Venezuelan oil is affecting the country’s entire economy. Without oil revenues, the Venezuelan government—whichever one is in power—cannot import food, medicine, or fuel. Venezuela has already been in a humanitarian crisis for years. Millions of Venezuelans have fled the country. Those who remain are surviving under difficult conditions. And now, this blockade risks making the situation even worse.

Supporters of the blockade argue that Maduro and his regime were responsible for this crisis, and that Venezuelan oil financed corruption and repression. They say that now that Maduro is gone, Venezuela can make a fresh start. But critics point out that sanctions and blockades always affect civilian populations more than they do leaders. They note that dictators always find ways to enrich themselves, while the people suffer. It’s a long-standing debate with no easy answer. But it’s a debate we must have.

I’m torn on this issue. Truly torn. On the one hand, I see the logic: cutting off a dictatorial regime’s revenue, preventing it from funding its repression, and forcing change. On the other hand, I see the faces of ordinary Venezuelans who will pay the price. Families who won’t be able to buy food because the economy is collapsing. The sick who won’t be able to get medicine. Children who will grow up in poverty. And I wonder: is it worth it? Does the end justify the means? I don’t have an answer. But I think we must at least ask the question. We must at least acknowledge that there is a human cost. That behind every seized ship, there are real consequences for real people.

The Future of the Ghost Fleet

A Business Model Under Threat

These successive seizures threaten the ghost fleet’s business model. Until now, these ships operated on a simple calculation: the profits from transporting sanctioned oil far outweighed the risks. The premiums were high, but the chances of being intercepted were low. But now, the equation is changing. Five ships seized in three weeks. Pursuits lasting weeks across the Atlantic. A blockade spreading worldwide. Suddenly, the risks have become much more real.

The shipowners who own these vessels will have to reassess. Are the profits still worth the risk of losing a ship worth tens of millions of dollars? Insurers—those who are still willing to insure these vessels—will raise their premiums. Crews will demand higher wages to compensate for the risk of being detained. And oil buyers will hesitate, fearing that their cargo will be seized en route. All of this makes the transport of sanctioned oil more expensive, riskier, and less attractive.

New Tactics in the Works

But the ghost fleet isn’t going to disappear overnight. It will adapt. That’s what it has always done. New tactics will emerge. Perhaps more complex routes, passing through more intermediary countries. Perhaps cargo transfers at sea, making it harder to trace the oil’s origin. Perhaps smaller, less visible ships that are harder to intercept. The ghost fleet was born out of the need to circumvent sanctions. As long as these sanctions exist, the fleet will find ways to adapt.

The real question is: Is the United States prepared to maintain this pressure over the long term? Seizing five ships in three weeks is impressive. But it’s also costly. It requires a massive military deployment, constant surveillance, and international coordination. Will Washington maintain this level of commitment in six months? In a year? Or is this operation a temporary show of force, intended to send a message but not to be sustained indefinitely? That is a question only time will answer.

I’m thinking about this game of cat and mouse currently playing out on the world’s oceans. The United States is on the hunt. The ghost fleet adapts. Washington steps up its efforts. Moscow finds new routes. It’s a never-ending cycle, an arms race between those imposing sanctions and those circumventing them. And I wonder: who will win? Can the United States really stop the ghost fleet? Or is it like trying to empty the ocean with a spoon? Because as long as there’s money to be made, as long as there are buyers for this oil, there will be people willing to take the risk. That’s human nature. That’s basic economics. And no blockade, no matter how powerful, can change that.

The broader geopolitical context

Trump and His Policy of Force

These actions are part of the Trump administration’s broader foreign policy—a policy based on force, unilateral action, and the determination to assert U.S. interests without much regard for international conventions or the views of allies. The capture of Maduro on January 3, the strikes on Venezuela, and now this naval blockade—all of this is part of the same approach: act first, negotiate later.

Trump stated on Thursday that he had called off a “second wave of attacks” on Venezuela after securing the cooperation of the interim government. This is indicative of his method: strike hard, then offer a way out if the other side cooperates. It is a modernized version of gunboat diplomacy. And for now, it seems to be working. Maduro is in check. The ships have been seized. Russia is keeping a low profile. Venezuela is paralyzed. But at what cost? And for how long?

The Repercussions on the International Order

These U.S. actions have repercussions that extend far beyond Venezuela and Russia. They set precedents. If the United States can seize ships on the high seas to enforce its sanctions, what’s to stop other countries from doing the same? China could invoke this precedent to intercept ships in the South China Sea. Russia could use it to justify actions in the Black Sea. Iran could block the Strait of Hormuz by citing the U.S. example.

This is the danger of unilateralism. When a major power decides to act alone, without international consensus, it sets precedents that others can exploit. International law works because everyone agrees to follow the same rules. But when the rules are ignored or unilaterally reinterpreted, the entire system becomes fragile. And in a world where major powers no longer respect the rules, the law of the strongest prevails. That may not be a world in which we want to live.

And that brings me to my point: this fundamental tension between effectiveness and legitimacy—between doing what works and doing what is right. Seizing ships works. It sends a clear message. It has concrete consequences. But is it right? Is it legal? Is this the kind of world we want to build—one where major powers do whatever they want simply because they have the power to do so? I don’t know. Honestly, I don’t know. What I do know is that impunity comes at a cost. That letting Putin and Maduro act without consequences also has a price. That sometimes we have to choose between bad options. And that in this imperfect world, perhaps imperfect action is better than perfect inaction.

Conclusion

A Turning Point in the Enforcement of Sanctions

The seizure of the Olina and four other ships in three weeks marks a turning point in how international sanctions are enforced. For years, sanctions have been primarily financial and diplomatic tools—blacklists, asset freezes, travel bans—but rarely have they involved direct, forceful, physical enforcement. Operation Southern Spear changes this dynamic. It shows that the United States is prepared to use its military power to enforce its sanctions—to seize ships, block ports, and intercept cargo.

This is a significant escalation. A demonstration that Washington will no longer settle for words and paperwork. That sanctions now have teeth—steel teeth, carried by aircraft carriers and destroyers. For Russia, for Venezuela, for all those who thought they could circumvent U.S. sanctions with impunity, the message is clear: the era of the gray zone is over. There will be consequences. Real ones. Immediate ones. Inevitable ones.

The Challenges Ahead

But this approach raises as many questions as it provides answers. Can it be sustained in the long term? What will be the humanitarian consequences for the Venezuelan people? How will other world powers react? What precedents are being set for the future of international maritime law? These are questions with no easy answers. These are dilemmas that require deep reflection, honest debate, and a willingness to acknowledge the complexity of the situation.

What is certain is that we are witnessing a pivotal moment. A moment when U.S. power is asserting itself in a brutal and direct manner. A moment when the rules of the game are changing. A moment when the ghost fleet that operated in the shadows suddenly finds itself in the spotlight—pursued, hunted down, and captured. The Olina will not be the last ship seized. Others will follow. The question is: How far will this escalation go? And what will be the long-term consequences for the international order?

I end this article with mixed feelings. On the one hand, there’s a visceral satisfaction at finally seeing concrete action against the ghost fleet, against this system that finances wars and enriches dictators. On the other hand, there’s deep concern about what all this means for the future. Because force is seductive. It’s effective. It yields immediate results. But it’s also dangerous. It sets precedents. It erodes the rules. It brings us closer to a world where only power matters. And I’m not sure that’s the world I want to live in. But maybe that’s the world we’re already living in. Maybe these seizures are simply revealing a reality that already existed. That the law of the jungle has never really ceased to reign. And that everything else was just a comfortable illusion. If that’s the case, then at least now we know where we stand. At least now the masks have come off. And maybe that’s already something.

Share this post

Copied!