It's looking like a pretty hazardous route right now, and it says something that the shipping companies are looking to avoid it. Longer routes cost more in fuel, missed delivery timelines, and fewer trips per ship per year, all of which hits the bottom line pretty hard. For that to be worth it, they must assess the risk pretty highly.
> In this context, it’s crucial to understand that the US Navy’s obligations primarily extend to protecting US-flagged cargo ships. This fleet, albeit inclusive of vessels owned by European entities such as Maersk and Stena, constitutes less than 100 ships. This number is minuscule compared to the global merchant fleet, which comprises approximately 50,000 ships the US Navy is not legally obligated to protect. While European shipowners have the option to register ships (even foreign-built ones) under the American flag to ensure US Naval protection, all continue to favor the tax savings and legal benefits offered by flags of convenience such as Panama, Liberia, and the Marshall Islands. However, it’s important to note that these jurisdictions lack naval forces capable of safeguarding their registered ships, presenting a significant security gap in maritime operations.
Good old capitalism doing an "Hey! Countries! Help us!" "How about paying taxes?" "No taxes. Just help."
(The article has other interesting aspects, worth a read for background on all this imho)
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/royal-navy-shot-down-drone-red-se...
