Russian Incursions upon Romanian Territory

The Russian Federation’s recurrent attacks upon and around the Ukrainian Danubian port city of Izmail have introduced an unwelcome tension into the security of south-eastern Europe. The strikes, mostly by unmanned aerial vehicles launched from the direction of occupied Crimea or from positions inside Russia itself, have fallen perilously close to Romanian territory. Some have violated Romanian airspace; others have crashed upon Romanian soil. Each incident has raised a fresh question as to how far Moscow is prepared to test the collective security guarantees of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, of which Romania is a member. Moreover these attacks highlight the immense strategic importance of the lower Danube and the maritime approaches that run through Bessarabia, without which European commercial shipping and Ukraine’s fragile wartime economy would be substantially imperilled. Hence the Russian attacks in that region.

Izmail is located upon the Chilia branch of the Danube Delta, the most dynamic channel of the river and the one that possesses the greatest navigational value. Historically the Danube has been Europe’s second-longest river and her principal internal waterway, linking the industrial heartlands of southern Germany and Austria with the Black Sea. In peacetime the Danubian trade arteries carry grain, steel, agricultural produce, fuel, and containers between central Europe and global markets. In wartime, they have become indispensable to Ukraine as she seeks to circumvent Russia’s de facto blockade of the Black Sea. Since the suspension and subsequent collapse of the Black Sea Grain Initiative in 2023, the Danube corridor has become the essential outlet for Ukrainian agricultural exports, upon which large parts of the Middle East and North Africa rely. Any disruption to this corridor therefore carries humanitarian as well as economic implications far beyond the immediate region.

Russian strikes around Izmail seek to degrade this artery and undermine Ukraine’s capacity to export. Yet they carry an additional, calculated risk: the proximity of the frontier with Romania. Romania’s southern littoral, including the Danube Delta and the environs of the village of Plauru, lies scarcely a few hundred metres from Ukrainian territory. It was therefore almost inevitable that drones aimed at storage facilities, grain elevators, and port infrastructure in Ukraine would stray into Romanian airspace. Although Bucharest has typically taken a restrained approach, often describing debris falls as isolated accidents rather than intentional violations, the pattern has become too frequent to dismiss as inadvertent. Each such incursion tests not only Romania’s patience but also the credibility of the North Atlantic Alliance’s mutual defence commitments.

The reason for these tensions is the vital geography of the Chilia branch itself. This arm of the Danube forms the actual international boundary between Ukraine and Romania. Izmail, one of Ukraine’s principal Danubian ports, sits directly opposite Romanian soil. The waterway is wide and deep enough to accommodate ocean-going vessels once they have passed up from the Black Sea. Consequently Izmail and the neighbouring Ukrainian ports of Reni and Kiliia have become strategic lifelines. Barges, bulk carriers and coastal freighters load Ukrainian grain, sunflower oil, and metals; they proceed down to the Sulina Channel or out through the Black Sea, linking with maritime traffic bound for the Mediterranean and beyond. Romania hosts the mouth of one of Europe’s few internationally regulated maritime waterways, the Danube’s Sulina Channel, administered under long-standing rules dating to the nineteenth century and modernised for contemporary navigation.

Russia’s targeting of Izmail is therefore not merely an assault upon Ukrainian infrastructure; it is a challenge to the freedom of navigation that underpins European trade. The Danube River Commission, established originally in the aftermath of the Crimean War to guarantee maritime access for all riparian states, was intended to insulate this waterway from unilateral coercion. Moscow’s conduct undermines that principle. By launching strikes that cause damage near or upon Romanian soil, the Kremlin signals that it may be willing to disregard the neutral status of the Danube’s international regime. It also exploits an implicit assumption that NATO members will avoid escalation, particularly when the intrusions are ambiguous and plausibly deniable.

For Romania the stakes are exceptionally high. She sits at the interface between European Union territory and an active war zone. Her ports at Constanţa and along the Danube corridor have become indispensable for rerouting Ukrainian exports and humanitarian supplies. If Russia’s incursions were to intimidate shipping companies or insurers, the entire logistical chain would falter. Romania’s security forces have had to position air-defence systems at close proximity to the frontier, lest a stray drone strike a Romanian village or industrial site. The risk of miscalculation therefore grows with every attack.

Romania’s approach has been a mixture of caution and firmness. Bucharest has repeatedly lodged diplomatic protests, increased surveillance, and strengthened frontier air defences. NATO has reinforced its presence in the region, deploying additional reconnaissance assets and integrating Romanian, American, British, and French air-defence systems. Nevertheless the Alliance has been wary of framing the incursions as intentional acts of aggression, preferring to treat them as spill-over incidents arising from Russia’s campaign against Ukrainian infrastructure. This cautious posture reflects a desire to prevent the Kremlin from provoking a crisis of escalation whilst preserving deterrence through steady reinforcement.

The broader European consequences of these incidents are significant. If Russia were to render Danubian navigation unsafe, the economic impact would be felt across the continent. European Union member states depend upon the Danube’s uninterrupted flow to maintain connectivity from Bavaria to the Black Sea. The river binds together a series of landlocked economies, whose prosperity relies upon maritime access through this narrow corridor. In Ukraine’s case the Danube has become the only reliable maritime outlet for her grain. For Romania, it is the hinge of her commercial and strategic position. For the European Union more generally, it is an artery that must remain inviolate if continental trade is not to be strangled by foreign coercion.

The Kremlin’s calculus appears to rest upon the belief that limited violations of Romanian airspace will not trigger an Article 5 response. So far that judgement has proved correct, although perhaps only because NATO has been determined to avoid the very escalation Russia may be attempting to bait. Yet the situation contains an inherent danger. An errant missile or drone that kills Romanian civilians, damages critical infrastructure, or strikes a NATO vessel in the Danube Delta could force a more robust reaction. Such an outcome would not necessarily be sought by Russia, but the fog of war and the limitations of unmanned systems create latent risks.

Russia’s attacks around Izmail illuminate a deeper truth about the interconnected nature of European security and maritime navigation. The Danube, once seen primarily as a commercial artery, has become a front-line supply route for a country fighting for her survival. Romania’s territory, lying adjacent to this essential corridor, is necessarily drawn into the shadow of the conflict. As long as Russia prosecutes a strategy aimed at strangling Ukraine’s exports and dislocating global grain markets, Romania will remain exposed to incursions and provocations. The preservation of the Danube’s freedom of navigation therefore forms part of a broader European commitment to resist coercion, uphold international law, and prevent the war from spilling over into NATO territory.