Seventy Miles Off Byala
At about 3am on 6 October, aerial and sea drones struck two Turkish-owned cargo ships some 70 nautical miles off the Bulgarian coast. The Togo-flagged Alfa Watan sank on the spot. Its ten crew are unaccounted for, and the search has been called off. The day before, a grain carrier sank in Romania’s waters, killing two sailors.
Then came the more revealing moment. Bulgaria’s prime minister, Rumen Radev, said his country had no grounds to invoke NATO’s Articles 4 or 5, because the attack happened in waters that, although inside Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone, count as “neutral.” A NATO member had just watched a ship sink in its own economic zone and concluded that the alliance had no role. That gap, between where Europe’s economic interests end and where its protection stops, is now where the Black Sea’s shipping war is being fought.
From Odesa to Byala in Three Years
After Russia quit the UN-brokered grain deal in July 2023, Ukraine opened its own export corridor, hugging the coasts of Romania and Bulgaria. Its naval drones pushed Russia’s Black Sea Fleet east, and the corridor worked. Since late 2025 both sides have widened the target list. Ukrainian drones have hit sanctioned tankers bound for Novorossiysk, and Russian drones and missiles have hit ships in and near Ukrainian ports. Ukraine’s infrastructure ministry counted 22 attacks on ships at sea in July 2026 alone, against 14 in the whole of 2025. Turkey’s chamber of shipping puts the total at 226 vessels attacked since 2022.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The insurance market moved first. War-risk premiums, the extra cover a shipowner buys for each voyage into a danger zone, doubled from about 1% of a ship’s value to 2% in two weeks this summer. On 16 September the Joint War Committee, the London panel that maps high-risk zones for insurers, widened its Black Sea listed area to cover the whole sea except the territorial waters of the non-belligerent coastal states. Three weeks later, the attacks followed the map west.
Three Chokepoints, One Missing Doctrine
Most coverage treats the Black Sea as a sideshow of the Ukraine war. It is better read as the third front of a single trend. In 2026 merchant ships became legitimate targets in all three of the seas that matter most to Europe’s trade. Tankers are being hit near Hormuz. The Houthis took most of Yemen’s Red Sea coast in September. And now three ships have been struck in two days in the economic zones of two NATO members. War-risk rates tell the story: Hormuz runs at 1–5% of hull value and the Red Sea at 0.5–2%. The Black Sea, at about 2%, is now priced like a Middle Eastern war zone.
Europe’s response to the first two fronts was naval. The EU’s Operation Aspides, extended to February 2027, escorts ships around Bab al-Mandab and monitors Hormuz, 4,000 kilometres from Brussels. In its own sea, Europe has nothing comparable. The only standing multinational effort, a mine-hunting group run by Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, deals with drifting mines and, since July, undersea cables and pipelines. It has no mandate to protect ships from drones. The rest of NATO cannot easily fill the gap. Under the 1936 Montreux Convention, warships from outside the Black Sea face strict limits on tonnage and time in the sea. Turkey has kept the straits closed to belligerents’ warships since 2022, and in 2024 it even refused passage to British minehunters bound for Ukraine.
The result is a legal and military vacuum, and Radev described it precisely. An exclusive economic zone gives a state rights over fish, gas and seabed, not sovereignty. An attack 70 miles out is not an attack on Bulgarian territory, so NATO’s collective-defence machinery stays quiet. NATO’s top commander, General Alexus Grynkewich, could promise only that attribution would be made public “once we have confidence” in it. That is a statement about evidence, not protection.
Where governments have left a vacuum, the insurance market has filled it. The Joint War Committee’s September map drew the line that matters: the 12-mile territorial waters of Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey are outside the listed area, and everything beyond them is in. That line now works as a de facto rule of navigation. A shipowner who keeps inside territorial waters avoids the war-risk surcharge; one who cuts across open water pays it. Underwriters have, in effect, drawn Europe’s Black Sea safe corridor. No government has done so.
The rules the market writes are commercial, not strategic, and they have consequences. First, they push traffic into a narrow coastal strip, which concentrates targets close to NATO shores. Second, they sort the fleet by appetite for risk. Owners of valuable, well-insured ships stay away. Older ships under flags of convenience, such as the Togo-flagged Alfa Watan and the Palau-flagged Able, take the business. A ship hit in August is still drifting without crew off the Bulgarian coast. Third, every premium increase acts as what Ukraine’s foreign minister called a “hidden tax” on its grain exports. Moscow can levy that tax without hitting a single NATO asset.
The strongest objection is that this is not Europe’s fight to escort. Risk consultancy Ambrey judges that ships with no Ukraine-linked trade are unlikely to be deliberately targeted. On this view, NATO convoys would put allied warships between Russian drones and Ukrainian cargo, which is escalation by another name. The objection is serious, but it answers a question no one is asking. The choice is not between convoys and nothing. Ambrey itself warns that misidentification, collateral damage and unexploded drones now threaten all traffic in the western Black Sea. A doctrine could start well short of escorts. It could set a published attribution standard and persistent surveillance of the economic zones. It could also include a coastal corridor guaranteed by Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, building on the protection gaps MD flagged in May. Doing nothing is also a choice. It leaves the definition of safe navigation to a committee in London whose job is to price risk, not deter it.
How the Next Few Months Could Go
Base case: the insurers’ corridor (roughly 55%). Strikes on Ukraine-linked ships continue at a handful a month, mostly in open water. Premiums settle around 1.5–2.5%. Traffic moves inside Romanian and Bulgarian territorial waters and toward Constanța and the Danube. NATO steps up surveillance flights and publishes attribution for the 6 October strikes, but sends no escorts. The key assumption is that attacks stay outside the 12-mile line. The western Black Sea becomes a two-tier sea: a coastal lane priced as safe, and an open sea priced as a war zone.
Downside: the line is crossed (roughly 25%). A drone hits a ship inside Romanian or Bulgarian territorial waters, or strikes near Constanța, perhaps through misidentification. The Joint War Committee then extends its listed area to the coastline, and the insurers’ corridor disappears overnight. Bucharest, whose defence strategy already treats the Black Sea as its main risk, calls for Article 4 consultations. Grain and freight prices jump, and Turkey faces pressure to reinterpret Montreux, a step Ankara has resisted for four years. Exporters and charterers should already be pricing this tail risk.
Upside: Ankara writes the rules (roughly 20%). Turkish owners and Turkish sailors are bearing much of the cost, and Turkey has brokered a Black Sea shipping arrangement before, in the 2022 grain deal. Ankara could convene Russia and Ukraine on a narrow deconfliction regime for commercial shipping, backed by a coastal-state monitoring mission with Romania and Bulgaria. It would be imperfect and reversible. But it would be the first time since 2023 that governments, not underwriters, set the terms of Black Sea navigation.
Rules Written in London
The sinking of the Alfa Watan was not a new kind of attack. It was an old kind of attack in a new place, and Europe was not ready. The EU protects shipping off Yemen but has no doctrine for its own sea. Montreux keeps allied navies out, and the economic zones of NATO members are, in Sofia’s own words, “neutral.” Into that gap has stepped a London committee whose map now decides which routes are safe and which ships can afford to sail.
Watch the European Council on 15–16 October. If the conclusions say nothing about shipping security in the Black Sea, the next rule of navigation in Europe’s own waters will again be set by the Joint War Committee’s next circular. Once insurers start writing a sea’s rules, governments find them very hard to take back.
