GEOPOLITICA
The Black Sea, the World's Most Dangerous Shipping Route: What the FT Figures Show and What It Means for Romania
1. What the figures say and what they do not say
The Financial Times, cited by several Romanian publications, states that this year more sailors have died in the Black Sea than in any other maritime area, surpassing the number of victims in the Persian Gulf, which has so far attracted greater international attention.
The same account mentions more than 570 ships struck and more than 40 deaths this year, as well as an insurance premium reaching approximately 15% of the vessel's value.
The figures come from a synthesis of an FT article reprinted by CursDeGuvernare.ro, Antena 3 CNN, Economedia and G4Media, on 26 October 2026. The available sources contain no official statistical series that would allow a direct and transparent comparison of the number of victims and ships struck on each route. Consequently, the claim that the Black Sea is the "most dangerous" must be read as a comparative conclusion drawn from a single journalistic analysis, not as a standardized indicator.
The exact scope of the figures (what "ships struck" means, whether it includes incidents with drones launched from air or sea, and whether the death toll includes cases of illness or accidents unrelated to the conflict) remains unclear in the reprinted texts. If the number of victims is dominated by incidents directly linked to attacks, the conclusion about security risk is solid.
If some of the figures stem from other causes, the conclusion remains valid as an indicator of risk, but not as proof of a single cause.
2. The mechanism: from attacks on ships to the cost of transport
The causal chain suggested by the sources has three links. The first is physical security: drone and missile attacks on commercial vessels increase the probability of damage and crew casualties. The accounts attribute some of these attacks to Russia, in the context of the war in Ukraine, but the attribution is not independently verified in the available sources and must be treated as the claim of the source, not as an established fact.
When the risk of losing a ship or of liability for its crew rises, insurers demand higher premiums. Cited sources say the premium has reached approximately 15% of the ship's value, a level that, if confirmed, directly changes the economic calculation of every port call. Companies unable to pay this premium are tempted either to avoid the area, to accept more risk, or to pass the cost on to customers. The third link is transport cost and the final price.
For Romania, which depends on Black Sea ports for grain and other products, higher insurance costs are transmitted down the chain to farmers, exporters and ultimately to food prices. The mechanism is plausible and falls within standard economic analyses of maritime transport risk, but the intensity of the transmission depends on contract structures, the market share of carriers and the logistical alternatives available. The effect on prices in Romania cannot be quantified on the basis of the current sources. The counter-hypothesis deserves equal weight.
It is possible that the high number of victims and ships struck reflects intense media coverage and a change in reporting methodology rather than a real increase in risk relative to other areas. The Persian Gulf, for example, has attracted greater international attention, which may suggest that some incidents there were reported less or differently. The sources consulted contain no methodological comparison between the two areas that rules out this possibility.
Consequently, the conclusion that the Black Sea is "more dangerous" should be treated as a hypothesis well supported by the sources, but not as definitive proof.
3. The actors: who has reason to move and who stays silent
A text on Black Sea maritime security inevitably involves political and diplomatic actors. According to the sources, Kaja Kallas, the European Union's foreign policy chief, criticised Russian attacks on ships in the Black Sea and announced that she had discussed the incidents with Romanian Foreign Minister Dan Neculaescu. Her role in this context is to bring the subject onto the European Union's political agenda.
The accounts do not specify what concrete measures were proposed in that discussion, and this lack of detail limits what can be concluded about the effectiveness of any diplomatic pressure. Dan Neculaescu, Romania's Foreign Minister, appears in the sources as Kaja Kallas's interlocutor. The texts do not describe an official position of the Romanian government on measures to protect ships, nor any decision on escorts or on compensating shipowners.
The absence of this information is significant, because for Romania the stakes are concrete: what instruments the state has to protect the routes leading to its ports. At the technical level, the International Maritime Organization appears in the sources as the relevant institution for security standards and incident reporting. Its exact role in this case is not detailed in the reprinted texts. Consequently, any claim about what this organisation should do remains inference, not documented fact.
The Persian Gulf appears in the FT's argument more as a geographic benchmark than as a part of the conflict described.
4. Scenarios and what comes next
The analysis identifies three plausible scenarios, based on the sources and the logic of maritime risk. The dominant scenario, with an estimated probability of between 40% and 50%, is the continuation of attacks on commercial vessels with risk and insurance premiums remaining at high levels. The signal to watch is the monthly number of ships struck and the trend in insurance premiums for vessels entering Romanian ports.
A second scenario, with an estimated probability of between 25% and 35%, is partial stabilisation through insurance and escorts. According to the internal model used for this analysis, such an outcome would reduce risk over the medium term but would not eliminate it. The constraint is that naval escorting requires military resources that may be limited. The signal to watch is the announcement of concrete escort or reinsurance measures by the riparian states.
A third scenario, with an estimated probability of between 20% and 30%, is a reduction in traffic and the relocation of routes. If shipowners avoid the area, Romanian ports would lose calls, and the Port Administration would face budgetary pressure. The constraint is that logistical alternatives are limited and costly. The signal to watch is a decline in the number of port calls at Romanian ports over the following quarters.
The scheduled calendar offers a few reference points: the European Central Bank and the Fed hold their monetary policy meetings at the end of October, and the National Bank of Romania on 12 November. These events are not directly linked to maritime risk, but they may influence the cost of financing for shipowners and Romanian exporters, and can therefore amplify the economic effects of the situation in the Black Sea.
Limits of the analysis
The analysis rests almost exclusively on journalistic reports of a single Financial Times article, reprinted by several Romanian publications, and not on official statistical series. The figures for victims, ships struck and insurance premiums could not be independently verified and must be treated as the source's estimates. The attribution of attacks to Russia is not documented in the available sources and remains a fragile point in the argument.
We cannot establish from the sources whether the difference between the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf reflects a real risk or a difference in reporting. We have no data on the volume of maritime traffic, which would be needed to calculate risk per vessel or per port call, nor on the share of Romanian ports in that traffic. The estimate of the impact on food prices in Romania is likewise an inference without quantification.
The conclusion should be revised if official data emerge, from an institution such as the International Maritime Organization or from Romanian authorities, that confirm or refute the FT's figures. A significant change in insurance premiums or a government decision on ship escorts would also alter the scenarios presented.
