I’m coming to you today from Panama, where I’ve been digging into a story that’s far bigger than most people realize. It involves a shadowy network of ships—1,423 of them at last count—that roam the world’s oceans moving sanctioned oil for regimes like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Some call it the dark fleet, others the ghost fleet, but whatever the name, it’s become a lifeline for the world’s worst dictators.

Out of those 1,423 vessels, roughly 920 are sanctioned themselves. These aren’t just ships doing business in a gray area—they are part of a global ecosystem of deception, fraud, and corruption that props up authoritarian governments and undermines the international rules that keep maritime trade safe. They spoof GPS signals, turn off their transponders, swap oil with “cleaner” tankers in the dead of night, operate under shell-company ownership, and sail uninsured—floating environmental disasters just waiting to happen.

And for years, not much was done about it. But that may be changing.

Just days ago, the United States seized a massive VLCC tanker—the Skipper—carrying 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude bound for Cuba. It’s a move that seems small on its own, but it hints at something larger: Washington may finally be realizing that targeting the dark fleet isn’t just desirable—it’s strategically powerful.

That raises a fascinating question: What would happen if the U.S. and its allies cracked down hard on these ghost ships—everywhere, all at once? Could it reshape global power? Could it even topple Maduro?

Let’s dig into that.

A Sanctions Loophole Big Enough to Sail a Tanker Through

These ghost ships function by exploiting cracks in the global maritime system. They manipulate AIS beacons, swap oil mid-ocean, hide ownership behind layers of shell companies, fly false flags, and operate without legitimate insurance. The UN’s maritime regulator has warned that these rusted, poorly maintained hulks are ticking time bombs—and we’ve already seen “Ukrainian sanctions” in action when Ukrainian sea drones blew up several shadow-fleet tankers in the Black Sea.

Imagine what happens if one of these decrepit tankers explodes in a global choke point like the Strait of Hormuz. You’d see a shock to oil markets overnight.

And yet, that’s the system that keeps Venezuela, Iran, and Russia afloat.

The U.S. Begins to Apply Pressure

The seizure of the Skipper wasn’t random. It’s part of a broader pressure campaign—one that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has openly supported. He said plainly that going after these vessels is a direct way to choke off the revenue Maduro depends on to stay in power.

Pompeo also noted something key: Maduro’s regime probably has “weeks, not months” of financial runway without this illicit revenue stream. And Cuba—already experiencing rolling blackouts—relies on Venezuela for about a quarter of its total energy supply. This single tanker seizure hurts Havana even more than Caracas.

But perhaps the most important variable is geography. Satellite data reveals dozens of sanctioned tankers parked just off Venezuela’s northern coast. In theory, if the U.S. waits for them to exit Venezuela’s 200-mile EEZ, it could legally seize many of them—especially the stateless ones.

Imagine the U.S. grabbing one tanker per day.

The ripple effects would be enormous.

I went to Ukraine to see if Ukraine is crumbling under the pressure from Russia or if they are holding their own. The people on the frontline suffer from drones attacking civilians and missiles striking every day, and the people want an end to the war that won't end with them under the rule of Russia. Because if that happens, the Ukrainians will be wiped out completely. 

We’re all watching the same headlines, scrolling the same feeds, and trying to make sense of the same chaos. And yet, for all the information at our fingertips, there are still some very basic questions we aren't answering honestly — like what Vladimir Putin actually wants, why this war in Ukraine keeps grinding on, and what it really means for the United States and our allies.

If you missed the LIVE, you can watch it HERE

Do We Still Keep Our Promises?

Whenever I go live, I like to ask people where they’re watching from. It’s not just a gimmick; it tells me something important. There are folks in Poland, Germany, Israel, Armenia, and all over the United States who have skin in the game with what we’re about to talk about. They’re not watching this as an abstract discussion. For some of them, this is about whether the ground under their feet will still belong to their country five years from now.

So I asked a simple question: Should the United States keep the commitments it has already made to its allies?

I’m not talking about getting involved in every brushfire conflict on the planet. I’m talking specifically about the promises we have already put our name on — treaties we signed, obligations we accepted, and expectations we created that other nations have built their security around.

The biggest of those, of course, is NATO — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — created after World War II for one core purpose: to keep a check on Russia. That wasn’t paranoia. That was historical memory. Russia, whether under the czars, the Soviets, or Putin, has an almost compulsive habit of invading its neighbors. In just the last few decades, they’ve gone into Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea, and now full-on into Ukraine. They’ve made no secret of the fact that they believe they have a right to dominate not only their immediate borderlands, but the wider European sphere as well.

The problem is that while Russia has been very clear about its ambitions, the West has not been nearly as clear about its resolve.

The War You Don’t See: Russia’s Cognitive Offensive

If you only look at maps and front-line reports, you might conclude that Russia is stumbling. Their advances are slow and costly, their equipment is getting older, and they’re losing a lot of men. But you miss half the story if you stop there, because the real battlefield — the one Putin is betting on — is not just in trenches and ruined towns. It’s in the minds of voters in the United States and Europe.

Russian intelligence and state-backed actors have poured millions of dollars into what’s now being called cognitive warfare. They’ve set up SIM farms, bot farms, and propaganda networks across multiple continents. These aren’t just a few trolls on a laptop. We’re talking about industrial-scale operations — huge racks of phones and servers churning out fake profiles by the hundreds of thousands, posing as Texans, Brits, Indians, Germans, and everything else you can imagine.

Their purpose is simple and very specific:
to quietly steer public opinion away from supporting Ukraine, to paint NATO as the real villain, and to soften the West’s will to resist Russian aggression. They don’t need most people to become full-on pro-Russian. They just need enough people to become skeptical, weary, and divided. They know that democracies often defeat themselves from the inside long before an enemy ever crosses the border.

Why Putin Keeps Showing Up to “Peace Talks” He Doesn’t Mean

You may have noticed something about every “peace process” floated over the last two years. Russia walks in, sits down at the table, plays the reasonable partner for a few days or weeks, and then undercuts the deal or simply ignores it.

There’s a reason for that.

Putin’s strategy is not to end the war quickly. His strategy is to drag it out as long as possible while shaping the political terrain in the West. As long as he can keep the guns firing, he believes he can:

• Grind down Ukraine’s manpower and infrastructure

• Burn through Western political patience

• Deepen divisions between Europe and the United States

• Wait for elections or leadership changes to give him a more favorable climate