标签： Europe

Nearly seven weeks after UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer vowed to deploy British military forces to board sanctioned Russian vessels operating in UK maritime territory, an independent investigation by BBC Verify has uncovered that almost 200 blacklisted ships linked to Russia’s shadow oil fleet have traversed UK waters, with zero publicly confirmed interceptions or boardings carried out to date.

Starmer first announced the aggressive new enforcement policy in March, stating that British armed forces had been granted authority to intercept and board any sanctioned vessels passing through the UK’s maritime zones. But between March 25 and 15:00 BST on May 11, BBC Verify’s analysis of publicly available ship tracking data from MarineTraffic identified 184 UK-sanctioned vessels making a total of 238 separate trips through UK waters. As of the investigation’s publication, the UK government has not released any public statement or evidence confirming that any of these vessels have been boarded, despite Starmer’s high-profile pledge.

All 184 vessels in question appear on the UK Foreign Office’s official sanctions list, with documented ties to Russia. The shadow fleet, a loose network of vessels with deliberately obscured ownership and registration structures, was established by Moscow to evade harsh international sanctions imposed on its crude oil and energy exports following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The UK’s sanctions regime bars these vessels from entering UK ports, and prohibits British businesses and individuals from offering financial, insurance or brokerage services to any ship involved in transporting Russian oil. The government has framed this pressure on Russian oil revenues as a core measure to cut off funding for Moscow’s military campaign in Ukraine.

Of the tracked vessels, 173 were oil tankers, 10 were liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers, and one was classified as a multi-purpose offshore vessel. Every vessel tracked entered the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), a maritime area extending up to 200 nautical miles off the UK’s coastline, with the vast majority of transits occurring through the busy English Channel. In at least 94 of those journeys, the vessels crossed briefly into UK territorial waters, the 12-nautical-mile zone directly adjacent to the UK coast. BBC Verify confirmed that Starmer’s announced interception policy explicitly applies to both territorial waters and the EEZ.

MarineTraffic gathers its location data from vessels’ onboard Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponders, a mandatory tracking technology for most large commercial ships. However, AIS signals can be intentionally disabled by crews to hide a vessel’s true identity and location. The data shows significant gaps in tracking for many of the sanctioned vessels west of Scotland and Ireland, a common pattern for shadow fleet vessels attempting to avoid detection.

The investigation also uncovered one notable incident: satellite imagery analyzed by experts from intelligence firm MAIAR confirms that a sanctioned oil tanker named *Universal* was escorted through UK waters by a Russian frigate, almost certainly the Russian warship *Admiral Grigorovich*, in early April. Ship tracking data shows *Universal* entered UK waters in the early hours of April 8 before transiting the English Channel.

The complete lack of confirmed boardings has drawn sharp criticism from defense and maritime experts. Tom Sharpe, a former Royal Navy warship commander, described the inaction as “utterly confusing” and “pathetic.” Sharpe told BBC Verify that the UK possesses all the necessary military assets to carry out the pledged interceptions, including warships, specialized boarding teams, and customs enforcement capabilities. “We’ve got no maritime spine in us,” he said. “I see it time and time again with the way we operate our warships. We are risk averse, we’re poorly coordinated.”

However, legal experts note that significant international maritime law constraints may explain the government’s reluctance to carry out boardings. James M Turner KC, a leading shipping lawyer at Quadrant Chambers, explained that under standard international law, coastal states are generally prohibited from seizing or boarding vessels that are legally flying the flag of another sovereign nation, regardless of sanctions status. “The position with very few exceptions is that you can’t seize vessels that are flying the flag of another country,” Turner said. “If a ship travels through UK waters under a flag it is entitled to fly then there is very little a coastal state can do – regardless of whether the vessel has been sanctioned or is carrying sanctioned goods.”

Turner added that the policy appears to be unenforceable in all but a small number of edge cases, such as vessels sailing without a flag or falsely reporting their registration. “This is a case where rhetoric and reality do not coincide,” he said.

Alessio Patalano, professor of war and strategy at King’s College London, noted that while no boardings have occurred, the policy has already had a measurable deterrent effect. The investigation found that multiple sanctioned vessels have altered their standard routes to avoid UK waters entirely. For example, the *Yi Tong*, an oil tanker registered to a Chinese shipping firm based in Shandong province, previously made regular trips between Russia’s Port of Ust-Luga and China via the English Channel. In the weeks following Starmer’s announcement, the vessel took a far longer route around the west of Ireland and north of Scotland, completely avoiding the Channel and UK territorial waters. Longer routes increase fuel costs and transit time for cargo operators, cutting into the profits of Russian energy sales.

“The Russians are probably already thinking how to test the UK more, and we should expect ships taking a longer route bringing some measure of challenge to UK defences and infrastructure,” Patalano said. He also noted that the Russian naval escort of *Universal* could be interpreted as a sign that the UK’s policy is already putting Moscow under pressure.

The Kremlin has already condemned the UK’s interception policy as “another deeply hostile step directed at Russia” and warned that such aggressive actions “have consequences.”

When approached by BBC Verify for comment on its findings, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) declined to directly answer whether any interceptions or boardings had been carried out since March 25. Instead, the MoD stated it is “disrupting and deterring” shadow fleet vessels, and claimed that more than 700 suspected vessels have been “challenged” since October 2024. The department added that it would not comment on specific operational details “as this could compromise our ability to successfully take action against these ships.” Follow-up questions asking the MoD to clarify what constitutes a “challenge” were not answered with additional detail. The Royal Navy has confirmed it continues to monitor Russian vessels transiting UK maritime territory.

Months after a sharp diplomatic crisis triggered by former President Donald Trump’s controversial threat to take control of Greenland by force, high-level talks between the United States and Denmark are moving forward to expand Washington’s military footprint on the Arctic island, according to multiple sources familiar with the closed-door discussions.

Earlier this year, U.S. Vice President JD Vance visited Pituffik Space Base, the only active U.S. military facility currently operating on Greenland’s territory, a semi-autonomous region under Danish sovereignty. In January, Trump reignited debate over U.S. policy in the Arctic by stating that the U.S. needed to “own” Greenland to block growing influence from Russia and China, adding that the acquisition could happen through the “easy way or the hard way”—language widely interpreted as a threat of forcible seizure.

The White House has confirmed that the current administration is engaged in top-tier talks with Danish and Greenlandic authorities, but has declined to disclose specific details of the negotiations. A senior White House official told the BBC that the administration remains optimistic the discussions are moving toward a mutually acceptable outcome. Denmark’s foreign ministry also acknowledged the ongoing diplomatic process, noting that “there is an ongoing diplomatic track with the United States” and declining to share further details at this stage.

Multiple U.S. officials involved in the talks have proposed a framework that would designate three planned new bases in southern Greenland as formally U.S. sovereign territory, one insider with direct knowledge of the negotiations confirmed. The proposed outposts would be positioned along the GIUK Gap—an critical strategic stretch of the North Atlantic between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom—and their core mission would be conducting enhanced surveillance of maritime activity by Russia and China in the region.

Sources emphasize that no final agreement has been reached, and the total number of new bases could shift before any deal is finalized. One of the proposed sites is already penciled in for Narsarsuaq, the location of a decommissioned U.S. military base that currently hosts a small civilian airport. Security analysts note that all planned new facilities are likely to be built on existing infrastructure, including pre-existing airfields and ports, cutting construction costs significantly compared to breaking ground on entirely new sites.

Contrary to Trump’s earlier public threats, U.S. negotiators have not raised the prospect of seizing full control of Greenland during discussions, a move that both Denmark and NATO have publicly rejected outright. Despite the initial diplomatic uproar, both sides have made consistent progress on negotiations over recent months, with talks being held by a small, low-profile working group of officials based in Washington. The quiet negotiation process has continued largely out of public view even as the administration has focused heavily on the ongoing war in Iran.

Initial broad confirmation of the push for new bases came from U.S. Northern Command chief General Gregory Guillot during congressional testimony in March, but sources with direct access to the talks have shared new details showing a consistent schedule of high-level meetings that have delivered tangible progress in recent months. Leading the sensitive diplomatic effort is Michael Needham, a senior U.S. State Department official tapped to craft a deal that meets Trump’s demands while also respecting Denmark’s non-negotiable red lines on protecting its territorial sovereignty.

“Needham is running point” on all Greenland-related negotiations, a senior diplomat with knowledge of the process confirmed. Behind the scenes, the administration has approached the talks in a “very professional” manner, the source added. Since mid-January, negotiating teams have met at least five times. Needham typically attends with one or two additional officials from the State Department or National Security Council, while the Danish side is led by Jesper Møller Sørensen, Denmark’s ambassador to the U.S., and Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland’s top diplomatic representative in Washington.

Notably, Jeff Landry, Republican Governor of Louisiana and Trump’s appointed special envoy for Greenland, has not participated in any negotiating sessions and remains largely sidelined from the diplomatic process, three separate sources confirmed. A close ally of Landry, speaking on condition of anonymity, noted that Landry was cast as a public advocate for the idea of U.S. expansion, framing the effort as a show of American strength to take control of Greenland as a strategic security asset, but “has never been to any of the actual talks.” Landry’s office did not respond to requests for comment on his absence from negotiations.

The U.S. currently only maintains one active military facility in Greenland, a sharp drawdown from the 17 operational bases the U.S. ran here at the height of the Cold War. Pituffik Space Base, located in remote northwestern Greenland, supports NORAD’s missile monitoring mission but lacks the infrastructure and positioning to conduct large-scale maritime surveillance in the GIUK Gap, the core strategic priority driving the push for new southern bases.

Some current and former U.S. officials, as well as independent Arctic security experts, have criticized the Trump administration’s approach, arguing that Washington could have advanced its strategic goals in Greenland without issuing aggressive threats against a fellow NATO ally. “Why threaten an ally with a military operation or invasion when what you want is something that could be negotiated quite easily?” one former senior U.S. defense official asked.

Other retired defense leaders have backed the expansion effort and the ongoing cooperation between Washington and Copenhagen. Retired General Glen VanHerck, who led U.S. Northern Command and NORAD from 2020 to 2024, told the BBC that “Wherever the US and our allies leave a vacuum, that vacuum is often filled by China and Russia.”

Negotiators are currently working to craft a compromise that falls within the framework of a long-standing bilateral security agreement between the U.S. and Denmark first signed in 1951. That existing pact grants the U.S. broad latitude to expand its military operations in Greenland, requiring only formal Danish approval for any new infrastructure. Arctic security experts note that Denmark has historically supported U.S. military activity on the island and has never rejected a U.S. request to expand its presence.

Representatives of the Greenlandic government in Washington and the U.S. State Department both declined to comment on the record about the ongoing talks. Trump first raised interest in expanded U.S. access to Greenland during his first presidential term, and his renewed public push earlier this year exposed open tensions between the administration and other NATO alliance members amid the initial diplomatic crisis.

After months of political gridlock that stalled action against escalating settler violence in the occupied West Bank, the European Union’s 27 foreign ministers formally approved new targeted sanctions against extremist Israeli settlers and settlement-affiliated organizations on Monday. The breakthrough came after a recent change in Hungary’s government removed the veto that had blocked the measure under former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a longstanding close ally of Israel.

The approval marks a significant shift in the EU’s approach to the escalating crisis in the West Bank, where the United Nations has recorded a dramatic surge in settler-led attacks on Palestinian communities since the outbreak of the Gaza war in October 2023. Settlements constructed on Israeli-occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem land are universally recognized as illegal under international law, and the territories remain the core of Palestinian claims for an independent future state.

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas emphasized the urgency of the action, stating, “It was high time we move from deadlock to delivery… extremisms and violence carry consequences.” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot echoed this sentiment in a social media post, clarifying that the sanctions target the leading Israeli organizations responsible for advancing the “extremist and violent colonisation of the West Bank.”

According to EU diplomatic sources and Israeli media reports, seven individual settlers and settler organizations will be subject to the new measures. The sanctioned list includes Daniella Weiss, a veteran figure widely referred to as the “godmother of the settler movement,” who is already subject to United Kingdom sanctions. Four leading settlement promotion and support organizations are also targeted: Nachala and Regavim, which push for the expansion of Israeli settlements on occupied land, and HaShomer Yosh and Amana, which provide financing and logistical support for unauthorized outposts built without Israeli government approval. Senior leaders of Regavim and HaShomer Yosh, Meir Deutsch and Avichai Suissa respectively, are also named on the sanction list; Suissa was previously sanctioned by the U.S. in 2024 before being removed from the list during the second Trump administration.

The sanctions also expand EU restrictive measures to include additional Hamas representatives, a move that Israeli officials have criticized as an unfair moral equivalence between Israeli civilians and the designated terrorist group.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar rejected the decision in sharp terms, dismissing it as “arbitrary and political.” He asserted that Israel will continue to uphold “the right of Jews to settle in the heart of our homeland,” and added that the EU’s move “is equally outrageous… imposing sanctions on Israeli citizens and entities because of their political views and without any basis.” He also condemned the joint sanctions on both settlers and Hamas representatives, calling the comparison “completely distorted.”

Successive Israeli governments have overseen the expansion of settlements since the 1967 Middle East War, when Israel occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Today, roughly 700,000 Israeli settlers reside across approximately 160 established settlements in the occupied territories. Settlement expansion accelerated sharply after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned to office in late 2022 at the head of a far-right, pro-settler coalition, and the pace of both expansion and settler violence has grown even more rapidly since the start of the Gaza war.

United Nations data underscores the scale of the ongoing violence: in 2025 alone, the UN documented more than 1,800 settler attacks that caused Palestinian casualties or property damage across 280 West Bank communities. Recent high-profile incidents have included an incident where settlers allegedly forced local Palestinians to exhume a grave – which the UN Human Rights Office condemned as “appalling” – the fatal shooting of a Palestinian man during a settler raid on the village of Tayasir, and multiple arson attacks targeting Palestinian homes, civilian vehicles, and agricultural land. One recent example cited earlier this year was an attack south of Nablus, where settlers set fire to a Bedouin tent and two civilian vehicles. Just weeks before the EU’s sanction vote, Israeli activists confirmed that the former Sa-Nur settlement had been reestablished on a hill southwest of Jenin, marking another expansion of settler presence in the northern West Bank.

Before the sanctions can be formally implemented, the EU must complete remaining technical and legal procedural steps. While several EU member states have also pushed for a broader ban on goods produced in Israeli settlements, the bloc has not yet reached a collective consensus to move forward with that additional measure.

As the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum approaches this June, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has reignited debate over Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, launching a high-profile push to rebuild tighter ties just one week after his Labour Party suffered a devastating defeat in local elections.

In a widely anticipated defiant address, Starmer framed closer alignment with the EU as a core priority for his government, promising to lay the groundwork for deeper collaboration ahead of this summer’s EU-UK summit. “This Labour government will be defined by rebuilding our relationship with Europe, by putting Britain at the heart of Europe, so that we are stronger on the economy, stronger on trade, stronger on defence,” he told the audience. Starmer also argued that incremental changes are insufficient to address the UK’s current challenges in growth, energy and security, calling for a bolder approach to EU engagement than what his administration outlined after taking power in 2024.

However, the speech has drawn widespread criticism for its lack of concrete new policies. Jill Rutter, a former British civil servant and senior research fellow at the UK in a Changing Europe think tank, dismissed Starmer’s announcement as “a damp squib”, noting it failed to deliver a single tangible new proposal. Reactions from across the Channel are deeply divided, split along the lines of defence and security versus economic and trade cooperation.

On defence and global security, European leaders view the UK as a reliable and critical ally. With the EU focused on pressing threats including the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, rising tensions with Iran, and shifting transatlantic relations under Donald Trump’s second U.S. administration, Brussels sees consistent UK cooperation as a strategic asset. This stable dynamic is not expected to change regardless of Starmer’s political future: EU officials widely believe UK foreign policy will remain consistent, including continued support for Ukraine and plans to assemble an international maritime force to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, even if Starmer is ousted by internal leadership rivals.

The mood shifts dramatically when it comes to economic ties, where Brussels holds a stance of weary cynicism. While the EU has repeatedly stated it welcomes closer relations if the UK commits to that path, the sector-specific talks Starmer’s government has pursued so far remain extremely limited. The only active negotiations focus on three areas: a food and drink safety agreement (known as SPS), a carbon emissions trading pact, and a youth mobility scheme that Starmer now touts as a major initiative for underprivileged British youth. Even that proposal, however, was originally an EU demand led by Germany that the Labour government initially rejected. Analysts widely agree that none of these limited deals will deliver meaningful, broad-based growth to the UK economy, even if expanded to other small sectors such as electricity market integration.

The policy measures that could actually move the needle economically – joining the EU single market or forming a full customs union to eliminate most trade barriers – remain off the table for now, bound by Starmer’s pre-election “red lines” that rule out accepting free movement of workers, a non-negotiable requirement for full single market access. When pressed by journalists on whether these red lines might be dropped ahead of the next general election scheduled for 2029, Starmer declined to give a direct answer, sparking speculation of a potential policy shift. But the long timeline to the next election has left Brussels frustrated with the government’s vague positioning.

One senior EU diplomat from a traditionally UK-friendly member state summed up the widespread European view: “For the last two years since Labour won power, we have heard the same thing: we want a ‘reset’ with the EU after Brexit. But what is this famous reset? The words from UK ministers sound increasingly enthusiastic but the actual steps they take are baby steps. Probably because they know the closer you get back to us, the more we ask from you in return. Do their voters know that?”

To date, even modest steps toward closer cooperation have required the UK to accept EU terms, including the “pay to play” model for participation in EU programs. Rejoining the Horizon science research program, agreed by the previous Conservative government, costs the UK £2.2 billion annually, though proponents note British researchers have emerged as leading beneficiaries after two years of membership. In the ongoing sectoral talks, Starmer’s government has also had to agree to align with current and future EU regulations on relevant issues – a compromise that has already drawn fire from eurosceptic opponents. Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, which saw strong gains in last week’s local elections, has accused Labour of quietly reversing Brexit through incremental regulatory alignment. This alignment also complicates the UK’s long-held goal of reaching a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States, as closer alignment with EU rules narrows the room for negotiating a separate deal that meets U.S. demands.

Reform’s strong performance in last week’s local elections has not gone unnoticed in Brussels. Farage, who spent more than 20 years as a Member of the European Parliament campaigning for Brexit, is a well-known and controversial figure across the EU. While the EU will continue negotiating with the current Labour government, insiders say the European Commission is considering adding penalty clauses to future agreements, which would require the UK to pay compensation if a future eurosceptic government withdraws from existing cooperation deals.

UK Minister for EU Relations Nick Thomas-Symonds has defended the government’s approach, saying Labour is pursuing a “ruthlessly pragmatic” and “ambitious” strategy that will never accept deals that conflict with UK national interests. But with the public increasingly divided over Brexit a decade on, and a rising eurosceptic opposition gaining traction, Starmer’s push to reset relations with the EU remains mired in vagueness – leaving both British voters and European leaders waiting for concrete action.

BRUSSELS — After years of gridlock and mounting public anger fueled by the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, the 27-member European Union has struck a historic unanimous political deal to impose fresh sanctions on senior Hamas leaders and extremist actors within the Israeli settler movement, top EU diplomatic officials confirmed Monday.

The breakthrough came during a meeting of EU foreign ministers in the Belgian capital, where EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas hailed the agreement as a long-overdue shift from stalemate to action. “Extremism and violence should carry consequences,” Kallas wrote in a social media statement following the vote. “It was high time we move from deadlock to delivery.”

While the bloc ultimately rejected bolder penalties pushed by a cohort of progressive European governments and has not yet published the full text of the new sanctions framework, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot outlined the scope of the agreed measures: sanctions will target top Hamas commanders, as well as leading figures and key organizations tied to the Israeli settler movement operating in the occupied West Bank.

“The European Union is sanctioning today the main Israeli organizations guilty of supporting the extremist and violent colonization of the West Bank, as well as their leaders,” Barrot wrote in his own social media post Monday. “These most serious and intolerable acts must cease without delay.”

Addressing the targeting of Hamas leaders, Barrot added: “It is sanctioning the main leaders of Hamas, responsible for the worst antisemitic massacre in our history since the Shoah during which 51 French people lost their lives, a terrorist movement that must imperatively be disarmed and excluded from any participation in the future of Palestine.”

The push for new sanctions against West Bank settler groups comes amid growing international alarm over a sharp surge in settler violence against Palestinian communities in the occupied territory. Palestinian authorities, human rights organizations and international monitors have repeatedly warned that routine attacks by settlers — including arson, property vandalism, the displacement of agricultural communities, and lethal violence against civilians — are worsening at an alarming rate. Data from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs shows that at least 40 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank since the start of 2026, with a record 11 of those deaths at the hands of Israeli settlers — two more fatalities than were recorded in all of 2025.

Diplomatic analysts widely attribute the sudden breakthrough on sanctions to the recent electoral ouster of former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who stepped down last month after 16 consecutive years in power. A steadfast ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Orbán had single-handedly blocked all previous EU attempts to impose sanctions on Israeli settlers for years, leaving the bloc unable to act despite widespread support among other member states.

Orbán was defeated in April’s general election by opposition leader Péter Magyar, who was sworn in as Hungary’s new prime minister just days before Monday’s vote. Martin Konečný, head of the Brussels-based European Middle East Project, noted that the successful approval of the sanctions package confirms long-held assessments that Orbán was the sole barrier to action. “This validates the notion that Orbán was blocking them single-handedly,” Konečný said.

Many foreign policy observers say the new sanctions could mark a pivotal shift in the EU’s long-standing approach to Israel. For months, a growing bloc of European governments led by Spain, Ireland and the Netherlands has pushed for punitive measures over the Israeli government’s military campaign in Gaza, as well as its expanding settlement activity and rising violence in the West Bank, and escalating cross-border conflicts in Lebanon, Syria and Iran.

Ahead of Monday’s meeting, Luxembourg Foreign Minister Xavier Bettel summed up the growing pressure to act: “You can’t just turn a blind eye.”

Even with the historic agreement, the EU fell short of adopting the more sweeping measures that many activists and progressive governments had called for. Diplomats failed to reach consensus on harsher economic measures, such as a bloc-wide ban on goods produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank or the suspension of a key bilateral trade agreement between the EU and Israel.

Hugh Lovatt, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, criticized the bloc’s limited scope of action. “There’s so much that you can and should be doing, and so to get stuck in this question of adding a few more settlers is missing the big picture,” Lovatt said. “The EU’s narrowed the scope of action now to individuals and to a few entities, and in doing that it’s ignoring the far more systemic issues at play.”

Claudio Francavilla, associate EU director at Human Rights Watch, called the sanctions a tentative step forward but said far more action is required to bring the bloc into compliance with international law. The measures are “a step in the right direction, but so many more needed for the EU to comply with international law,” Francavilla said.

Italy, one of the more prominent EU member states skeptical of harsher measures, has already signaled it is not ready to back a French-Swedish proposal that would cut West Bank settlers off from EU markets. Ahead of Monday’s meeting, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said his government needed additional time to review the plan, withholding its support despite growing public pressure across the continent for tougher action.

Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen noted that individual EU member states retain the right to implement national bans on settlement goods if bloc-wide negotiations stall in Brussels. The next meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Council, scheduled for later this May, will focus specifically on trade policy related to the region.

Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares Bueno pushed for swift action on broader measures in comments to reporters in Brussels Monday. “We have been talking about measures for too long,” he said. “Let’s move on to a vote and stop saying that there is no qualified majority for it. Let’s see how many of us are in agreement and who is not.”