A SHIP’s identity has always been more complicated than the flag on its stern.

Ownership structures span jurisdictions, crews are multinational, cargoes change hands repeatedly and beneficial ownership can disappear behind layers of corporate registration. Yet in today’s conflict zones, perceptions of nationality and affiliation matter as much as legal reality.

That is why tankers heading for Russia’s Black Sea port of Novorossiysk have begun broadcasting messages such as “CHEVRON-DST.CPC TERM” and “CPC Kazakh oil dest EU” through their Automatic Identification System destination fields. The practice reflects a calculation that highlighting links to Western oil majors and Kazakhstan’s exports might reduce the risk of becoming collateral damage in Ukraine’s expanding drone campaign.

The tactic is hardly new. Ship operators have long-used AIS broadcasts to communicate with potential attackers. The message “Armed Guards on Board” became commonplace in piracy hotspots. More recently, vessels transiting the Red Sea and Strait of Hormuz have highlighted Muslim, Chinese or Indian crews, depending on which affiliation appeared least likely to attract unwanted attention at a particular moment.

Risk, after all, is relative. Seafarers understood that long before politicians did.

The Houthis provided a masterclass in how fluid and subjective maritime identities can become during conflict. Their targeting methodology often appeared haphazard, relying on perceived affiliations, historic port calls and public databases of varying accuracy. Yet precision was never the point. The disruption stemmed from uncertainty. Shipowners could not be sure which links would make them a target, so many simply stayed away.

The lesson was that in asymmetric warfare, accuracy is often overrated. Unpredictability creates its own deterrent effect.

The recent attacks on tankers serving the Caspian Pipeline Consortium terminal underline that reality. AIS signalling may communicate a vessel’s commercial relevance, but it offers no guarantee of protection.

What it does reveal is a deeper shift in maritime risk. Freedom of navigation is increasingly being divided along lines of perceived geopolitical affiliation. Where a ship can trade, and at what risk, is becoming less a function of cargo and destination than of whose side it is perceived to be on.

Shipping is no longer viewed solely as commercial infrastructure. It is increasingly treated as strategic infrastructure. Ownership, control and corporate affiliation have become matters of political and military scrutiny, not merely financial due diligence.

Painting a geopolitical label on to an AIS screen may be a pragmatic attempt at self-preservation. But it is also a reminder that, in today's shipping market, perception can matter as much as reality. A name may not protect a vessel, but it increasingly determines how others choose to see it.

Richard Meade
Editor-in-chief, Lloyd’s List

Click here to view the latest Lloyd’s List Daily Briefing