European-owned vessels are now exporting nearly 40% of all Russian oil. This not only blunts the impact of sanctions on Russia but introduces new trade patterns that require greater risk management for marine service providers, including insurers and charterers. Windward analysis of June tanker activity shows that 37% of Russian-origin crude and refined products were...
Not all sanctions are equal. There’s no better contemporaneous example than EU-sanctioned, Russia-trading Aframax tanker Torex (IMO 9257814), which sailed through the English Channel on Thursday (July 3), heading to northern European waters to load at Russia’s Baltic ports. The 22-year-old ‘dark fleet’ ship has learned to play the game of maritime regulatory arbitrage with...
Q2 2025 saw maritime disruptions intensify amid ongoing geopolitical tensions. Vessel sanctions remained notably high, marking the second-highest quarter since 2022, with expanded targeting of sectors such as flag registries and financial services.
GPS jamming created widespread operational headaches, affecting over 13,000 vessels globally — particularly during the Iran conflict, which disrupted AIS signals and forced significant cargo rerouting. This turbulence notably impacted crude oil exports and contributed to mounting congestion at strategic ports like Singapore and Busan.
This report provides a detailed analysis of these critical trends, offering insights and actionable recommendations to help stakeholders better understand, anticipate, and respond to emerging maritime risks.
Vessel & Company Sanctions
Though slightly moderated, this trend observed in Q1 2025 persisted into Q2, reaching another record high in the number of sanctioned vessels since 2022 — encompassing both newly designated vessels and those already sanctioned by one regulator that have now been designated by additional regulators.
In Q2 2025, the pace of new designations and alignment designations of maritime companies noticeably slowed, returning to typical levels after peaking in the previous quarter.
While the overall number of sanctioned companies declined in Q2 2025, sanctions expanded into additional maritime sectors, including flag registries, financial services, and port operators.
60% of newly sanctioned companies were concentrated in just four countries:
UAE
Hong Kong
Marshall Islands
Panama
GPS Jamming
Over 13,000 vessels globally were affected by GPS jamming incidents in Q2 2025.
In Q2 2025, the average “jump” distance of vessels experiencing AIS jamming remained consistent with Q1 2025, at approximately 6,300 km.
Windward’s dedicated GPS jamming team and analytical models identified three emerging jamming hotspots in Q2 2025:
New areas! The Arabian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea. From zero affected vessels in Q1, the numbers surged to over 4,300 and 1,000 vessels respectively in Q2.
Q2 2025 saw a sharp increase in jamming activity in the Baltic Sea, with over 2,000 vessels affected – a 500% surge compared to Q1.
Stretching from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Guinea, a jamming hub that first emerged in Q1 2025 continued to expand in Q2. Over 800 vessels were affected in the region — a 568% increase from the previous quarter.
Jamming patterns in the Baltic Sea during Q2 2025
Maritime Trends from the Iran Conflict
GPS Jamming
The Iran–Israel conflict triggered the emergence of a new and highly disruptive GPS jamming hub in the Arabian Gulf. Although the conflict was brief, its impact on maritime safety and security in the region was significant and far-reaching.
Between June 13–24, more than 12,000 GPS jamming incidents were recorded, impacting over 3,000 vessels worldwide.
This period saw a 153% spike in the daily number of jamming-affected vessels compared to the Q2 2025 monthly average.
GPS Jamming in the Arabian Gulf during Q2 2025
AIS jamming in Q2 2025 triggered false signals near several sensitive terminals, including Asaluyeh, Bandar Abbas, and Dubai — raising operational and security concerns in these high-traffic areas.
On June 22, GPS jamming activity peaked, with over 1,700 vessels affected in a single day.
Unlike jamming disruptions in low-risk regions, the extensive interference near a high-risk regime like Iran had added consequences. It led to false port call signals in Iranian waters, complicating vessel screening processes and undermining due diligence efforts for stakeholders.
97% of jamming incidents in the Arabian Gulf “threw” vessels onto land, leading to a surge in false port calls in Iran and creating added challenges for compliance and due diligence.
Rapid identification and removal of these false events was critical during the conflict, helping maintain operational resiliency and continuity across affected regions.
Divergence of Maritime Traffic
During the conflict period (June 13–24), reported port calls in Pakistan rose by 21% compared to the days preceding the conflict — likely reflecting vessel rerouting and shifting regional activity patterns.
Crude Oil Exports (In Collaboration with Vortexa)
June 2025 recorded an 8% increase over the monthly average for the rest of 2025.
A 8.6% increase MoM when compared to May 2025.
The increase in June exports was largely driven by the week of June 9–15, just before the onset of the Iran conflict. This pre-conflict window likely prompted a surge in loadings, as exporters moved to front-load shipments amid rising regional tensions.
Northeast Asia (NEA) stands out as the primary destination of crude oil exports during that week, with a total of ~9 million BPD – accounting for over 54% of the total exports for the week.
During the week of the Iran conflict (June 16–22), crude oil export volumes fell by roughly 24%, reflecting immediate disruptions to regional shipping activity.
Strategic Port Insights for Smarter Maritime Logistics
In Q2 2025, Singapore port saw a 65% rise in the monthly average of ‘TSP Changed’ exceptions and a 35% increase in ‘TSP Rollover’ exceptions compared to Q1, highlighting growing volatility in transshipment schedules.
Red Sea diversions prompted by ongoing Houthi attacks are driving vessel congestion and extended queues at alternative ports, straining regional logistics and increasing turnaround times.
According to Russell Group, ongoing congestion at Singapore, Port Klang, and Tanjung Pelepas has put an estimated $131 billion in trade at risk.
In Q2 2025, Busan port saw a 54% rise in the monthly average of ‘POL Late Departure’ exceptions and a dramatic 556% surge in ‘POL Rollover’ exceptions compared to Q1.
Busan experienced vessel bunching in early 2025, with average wait times reaching 1.5 days. This disruption cascaded into Q2, as berthing and handling schedules fell out of sync, compounding delays and operational inefficiencies.
Carrier network reshuffles and a wave of blank sailings across Q1–Q2 disrupted port calls and eroded schedule reliability — primarily driven by Red Sea-related volatility and shifting trade routes.
Security risks in the Red Sea triggered widespread rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope, placing additional strain on global schedules and overloading transshipment hubs such as Busan.
Delays in the redevelopment of Busan’s North Port constrained inland cargo flow and yard capacity, exacerbating congestion during Q2’s vessel surges.
New False Flag Registries
The use of fraudulent flags has surged as Western regulators step up enforcement and open registries increasingly deregister vessels tied to sanctioned trades — pushing bad actors to seek alternative, deceptive methods to maintain access to global waters.
Q2 2025 saw a sharp and staggering rise in the number of vessels registered under newly emerging false flag registries, marking a significant escalation compared to Q1.
Vessel registrations under false flags in the Netherlands Caribbean — covering Curaçao, St. Maarten, and Saint Barthélemy — rose by 98%
Guyana saw a 105% increase in false flag vessel registrations
Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) recorded a 260% surge in false flag vessel registrations
Q2 2025 also saw the emergence of entirely new flag registries — previously non-existent or inactive until now:
Benin
Malawi
Aruba
Maritime Critical Infrastructure Protection
In Q2 2025, drifting activities over strategic underwater cables and pipelines increased by 10% compared to Q1, signaling a continued upward trend in potentially high-risk maritime behavior.
The monthly average of drifting activities in Q2 2025 was 49% higher than the average recorded over the previous nine months.
The majority of drifting activities in Q2 2025 were carried out by vessels sailing under the flags of Panama, Liberia, and the Marshall Islands.
Dark & Gray Fleets
In Q2 2025, Saudi Arabia emerged as a new hotspot for Gray Fleet activity. Port calls by Gray Fleet vessels rose by 152% compared to Q1.
The Comoros flag continued its ascent in Q2 2025, emerging as one of the top three flags used by the Dark Fleet.
In Q2 2025, the number of Dark Fleet vessels operating under the Comoros flag surged by 103%.
Conversely, the Panama flag saw a decline in use among Gray Fleet vessels, with a 16% drop in Q2 2025 compared to the previous quarter.
This decline may reflect growing regulatory scrutiny of the Panama registry by global authorities, prompting Gray Fleet operators to seek less visible alternatives.
Risk Status & Cleared Risk
Cleared Risk
Risky port calls in the DPRK region surged by 234% in Q2 2025 compared to Q1, signaling a sharp rise in high-risk activity despite international restrictions.
In Q2 2025, 93% of vessels involved in sanctions-related dark activities were linked to either Iran or Russia, underscoring their dominant role in driving deceptive shipping practices.
Q2 2025: A Stress Test for Maritime Resilience
Q2 2025 revealed just how rapidly maritime risk landscapes can shift. From surging vessel sanctions and false flag activity to the disruptive effects of GPS jamming and port congestion – traditional monitoring methods are no longer sufficient.
As deceptive practices become more sophisticated and geopolitical shocks more frequent, organizations must adopt proactive, AI-driven maritime intelligence.
Those who rely on static watchlists or siloed data risk falling behind. The path forward is clear: only with real-time visibility, behavioral analytics, and dynamic risk models can stakeholders protect operations, meet compliance obligations, and respond decisively to global disruptions.
