Shipping’s answer to geopolitics: go around

Shipping’s answer to geopolitics: go around
September 28, 2026 https://splash247.com/shippings-answer-to-geopolitics-go-around/

Wars and chokepoint disruption are reshaping trade lanes, but the industry’s instinct remains the same: find another route.Sunil Kapoor reports.

In recent months, I have repeatedly been asked the same question:

“How is your ship being affected by what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz?”

The headlines suggest that every vessel connected with Middle Eastern trade is trapped, under threat or about to stop operating.

The reality aboard our vessel has been different.

We could have earned more trading in the region. We chose not to. It was not a risk we wished to take. The safety of the crew and the vessel was more important than negotiating a higher rate.

The ship did not stop trading. Its employment shifted towards the United States, Europe and Latin America, carrying the same grain, fertilizers and other bulk commodities.

The routes changed. The cargoes did not.

Sometimes the most important commercial decision is knowing which money not to earn.

The damage is real

Changing courses should not be confused with pretending that nothing has happened.

Since attacks in the Red Sea began in late 2023, more than 100 commercial vessels have been targeted. Ships have been sunk or seized, while seafarers have been killed, injured or held captive.

The escalation around Hormuz has added to another layer of danger. During one confrontation in September 2026, Iran claimed to have targeted ten ships near the Strait. One seafarer was reported killed and another missing. A tanker was also struck by a drone.

Vessel-tracking data reported on 15 September indicated only four commodity-vessel transits that day, against a pre-conflict average of approximately 125.

Every attack makes owners reconsider voyages; insurers reprice risk and charterers search for alternative tonnage. One damaged vessel can alter hundreds of decisions.

Why attack a merchant ship?

A friend recently asked me a simple question:

“Why are cargo ships and tankers being bombed? They are not a threat to anyone.”

A merchant ship does not decide foreign policy. It follows employment orders and carries goods between ports, normally without defensive weapons.

If suspected of violating sanctions, a ship can be intercepted, inspected or detained. Bombing it places the crew, cargo and marine environment at risk.

Yet ships are attacked precisely because they are vulnerable, visible and economically important.

A burning tanker produces powerful pictures: black smoke, red flames and oil spreading across the water. The physical target may be one vessel, but the real target is the confidence of the entire market.

A ship may be owned in one country, registered in another, managed by a third and crewed by several nationalities. A remote commercial link can be enough to make it a target — even when its seafarers have no stake in the dispute at all.

The cruel irony is that those placed in danger usually have the least influence over the conflict: the crew.

Grain ships on the front line

The Russia–Ukraine conflict has brought commercial shipping equally close to the battlefield. Hormuz makes headlines. The Black Sea, oddly, does not — even though seafarers are dying there too.

Ukrainian ports around Odesa remain vital for grain and other agricultural exports. During July 2026 alone, Ukrainian authorities reported that Russian attacks had hit several dozen vessels. Several dozen ships, in one month, and most of the world never heard about it.

One of the most serious incidents involved the Golden Leo, a Guinea-Bissau-flagged ship carrying corn near Odesa. Three cruise missiles struck it, starting a fire that killed ten people. Ten seafarers, dead for carrying corn — and it barely made the news cycle outside shipping circles.

Other foreign-flagged vessels were damaged near Ukrainian ports. Some owners suspended calls. Ukraine estimated it lost roughly a third of its Black Sea grain-export capacity.

Yet ships returned when ports reopened, and other routes absorbed part of the cargo. The world moved on. The seafarers who didn’t survived were forgotten faster than the ships.

Globalisation is being rerouted

The same pattern can be seen around Suez. Ships avoiding the Red Sea turned south and rounded the Cape of Good Hope. By May 2025, tonnage through the Suez Canal remained approximately 70% below its 2023 level.

Longer voyages require more fuel, time and tonnage. UNCTAD estimated that Red Sea and Panama Canal disruption had increased overall vessel demand by approximately 3% by mid-2024, and container-ship demand by about 12%.

Conflict is not good for shipping, but markets rarely respond in a straight line. A blocked shortcut does not eliminate the cargo; it requires more ships, fuel, time and money.

Long-term investment tells the same story. At the beginning of 2026, Greek shipowners had 725 vessels on order—about 70 million dwt and an estimated $60 billion. These are 20-to-25-year bets that world trade will continue, even as routes, cargo origins and fuels change.

The resilience of shipping should never minimize the loss of ships, lives or livelihoods. But it explains why dramatic events do not always produce paralysis being predicted.

Political analysts draw new lines on maps. Shipping works out how to sail around them.

The headlines predict paralysis. Shipping changes course—and continues its voyage.