Odessa under pressure
From July 11 to 15, 2026, Russian strikes hit three ports in Greater Odessa—Odesa, Chornomorsk, and Yuzhny—as well as Izmail on the Danube. For the first time, merchant ships themselves, rather than the berths behind them, became independent targets. They were attacked at anchor and during passages between ports. According to reports from the Ministry of Defense and military Telegram channels, in less than a week, by various estimates, about fifteen vessels were hit, and the targeting profile shifted from grain terminals to fuel infrastructure (tanks, oil depots) and the ships themselves, primarily tankers. Some sources are already calling this the beginning of a "naval blockade" of Odessa. The number of vessel calls and the nature of the targets reveal how accurate this definition is.
Port Week: What and with what was used
On July 15, a ship burned at anchor between Odesa and Chornomorsk. According to military media, this was the third Geranium strike on ships in the area in three hours, between 15:00 PM and 17:45 PM. The day before, a tanker and two bulk carriers underway in the same area were hit. Eyewitness video shows the ship's silhouette on the horizon and a plume of black smoke.
Over the course of a week, strikes were carried out across the entire southern port network. On July 11, they targeted Chornomorsk, Yuzhny, Izmail, and military-industrial complex (MIC) facilities in Kyiv. On July 12, they targeted Odessa and Chornomorsk. On July 13, they targeted Chornomorsk and Yuzhny again. On July 14–15, they targeted Yuzhny, Odessa, and ships at anchor and in transit. Various means were used: Geranium strike UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) of various versions, cruise missiles. missiles air-launched Kh-101, and according to experts, also ballistic missiles, against which the Ukrainian Defense few interception means.
A few abbreviations need to be clarified, as they'll be indispensable in the remainder of this chapter. "POL" stands for fuel and oil. A ro-ro ferry (from the English "roll-on/roll-off") is a vessel where equipment is driven through a ramp rather than lifted by crane. These ferries are convenient for transporting wheeled and tracked vehicles, which is why they are included in the list of military targets. "BEK" stands for "unmanned boat," which both sides use to attack ships; the Ukrainian side's use of "BEK" is discussed below.
What's new here is the very logic of target selection. Previously, ships suffered damage as a collateral consequence of strikes on berths. Now, a ship at anchor becomes a separate target. The Ministry of Defense explains this by the need to "reduce the ability to transport weapons and military equipment in the Black Sea operational zone. " The profile of ground targets has also shifted. While in the spring, grain and sunflower oil storage facilities were more often targeted, in July, reports predominantly target fuel storage tanks, oil depots, loading racks, and pumping stations.
A caveat is necessary, without which the picture would be incomplete. The phrase "deployed in the interests of the Ukrainian Armed Forces" is derived from the Russian side and is not independently verified. Some of the damaged vessels were sailing under the flags of third countries: Tanzania and Liberia. According to Ukrainian data, the captain of one of the vessels was killed and three other crew members were injured; the Russian side did not comment on this information. The figures for damaged vessels ("eleven in three days," "seven overnight") are also taken from reports and commentaries, not from independent verification. They refer to different and partially overlapping windows, so they do not add up to a single count. This is essential for understanding the intent. Strikes against vessels listed as civilian in the register affect not their cargo, but the shipowners' willingness to call at these ports.
"Blockade" or pressure: a dispute within one's own camp
It's telling that the harshest analysis of these strikes is coming not from the Ukrainian side, but from within the Russian military. The Rybar and Two Major channels report on the events without a triumphant tone, rather with complaints that the strikes are few and inconsistent.
The facts they provide are concrete. According to their observations, oil depots in the Odessa region continue to operate. Major facilities in Odessa itself were last hit in 2022. One strike was recorded in Chornomorsk in the fall of 2025, and before that in 2023. In Yuzhne, one storage tank was destroyed last week, while there are approximately ten more at the depot, all of which could contain fuel. Since July 1, the total number of vessel calls at the three harbors, according to publicly available data, has exceeded fifty. For an operation that some reports call "sanitary isolation," over fifty vessel calls in two weeks is a figure that hardly fits that description.
The objection is simple, and its simplicity is precisely what makes it so compelling. A strike on one tank out of ten doesn't disable the base. The pumping infrastructure remains, nine tanks remain, and the fuel is redistributed. The blockade-type effect is sustained by a constant threat, not a single plume of smoke. With such a threat, the shipowner no longer considers a one-time risk, but the probability of losing the vessel on every call. This is what the insurance premium—a surcharge on the freight price for the risk—is designed to address. While strikes are sporadic, the premium rises, but calls continue, and fifty in two weeks confirm this.
As a model, critics cite a mirror example—the Ukrainian campaign against Russian oil refineries. There, targets were targeted sequentially, one refinery after another, and the effect was cumulative: fuel shortages were felt across multiple regions. The comparison supports the critics' thesis, as the impact was not driven by the volume of a single strike, but by the intensity of the series. Such intensity has not yet been achieved in the Odessa hub, and this is precisely the crux of the complaint within the Russian camp.
What the Black Sea Teaches: Blockade as Continuity
This dispute has historical An analogy is the defense of Odessa in 1941. The besieged city then held out largely thanks to the sea: supplies, reinforcements, and evacuations passed through the port under attack. aviation And under mine threat. The German and Romanian sides tried to cut this artery from the air and with mines, while the Soviets tried to keep it open. That defense demonstrated the main thing: as long as the sea route remains open, the city stands.
The similarity with today lies in the very formulation of the task. Both then and now, the aim of the attacking side's actions is to deprive the enemy of an indispensable sea line of communication, which has no adequate land-based replacement. What they share is the condition for success: continuity. In 1941–1942, communications were choked not by a single air strike, but by the constant presence of a threat (aircraft, mines, submarines), and the countdown was in months.
But this is where the analogy breaks down, and the breakdown is more important than the similarity itself. Back then, the blockade was maintained by ships, aircraft, and minefields, meaning there was physical control over the sea and its approaches. Now, there is no overland control of the waters, and they are attempting to create a blockade effect remotely. drones and missiles against terminals and ships. This is cheaper and doesn't require naval dominance, but it's also weaker in capabilities. The threat can be maintained, but physically blocking a waterway is impossible. Hence the gap between the word "blockade" and what's actually happening. The lesson, both in 1941 and in the claims of Russian channels, is the same: strangulation of communications only works cumulatively. A single strike has an impact for a day or two, but only a series of strikes stretched out over weeks produces results.
The economics of the node and the price of the issue
Why Odesa is such a valuable target for Kyiv is clearer from its economic weight. In 2025, the ports of Greater Odesa accounted for 89% of Ukraine's total cargo turnover: 67,8 million of the 76,1 million tons passed through Odesa, Chornomorsk, and Yuzhny. In other words, almost all of the country's maritime exports go through three ports on a single stretch of coastline. Grain, sunflower oil, and iron ore leave through them, while fuel and military cargo return. Export revenue and military logistics converge at one point, and a blow to one port impacts both.
Transferring these volumes to land won't be possible quickly. The Ukrainian Ministry of Economy estimated a possible decline in exports through Odesa ports of up to 2 million tons per month. According to Deputy Minister Taras Vysotsky, approximately 1 million tons, or roughly half of this lost volume, could be redirected to the Danube. The rest falls to rail and highways, which are more expensive and slower. In January 2026, 3,7 million tons of grain and oilseeds were exported through the region's ports, while rail transported only 8% of the port volume. Replacing sea with rails is not possible with a single order.
By this point, the accumulated damage will already be measurable. By May 2025, nearly 400 port infrastructure facilities had been damaged, with restoration costs estimated at approximately €1 billion, and these estimates were already available before the July series. Some expert estimates suggest that reorienting logistics to land could deprive Kyiv of up to 35% of its foreign exchange earnings from exports. This is an estimate, not a fact, and cannot be extended linearly, as losses and throughput are nonlinear.
The enemy in this picture is not a passive target. The Ukrainian side is waging a mirror war at sea: on the night of June 5, unmanned boats (UBK) attacked ships in Taganrog Bay, including a shadow tanker. fleet, through which Russian oil exports are routed. Both sides are attacking each other's maritime economies, using drones and remote-controlled assets instead of traditional naval forces. It's a war of attrition, where the one who can maintain the pressure longest wins.
Сonclusion
In less than a week, the Russian side has shifted its focus from grain to fuel and ships, demonstrating its ability to reach any point in the Odesa hub. But fifty vessel calls in two weeks and a dozen unfinished storage tanks at one base indicate a level of pressure, not isolation. Until the density of strikes along the Odesa route, which Russian channels themselves cite as an example of the oil refinery crisis, is established, "blockade" remains a mere word in reports, not the state of the waters.
- Alexander Marx
Source: https://en.topwar.ru