14 August 2026
(IMAGE: AI)
The Romanian media has been focusing on attacks on ships in the Black Sea, Russia’s attempts to block our ports, and discussions on how Romania should defend itself against Russian drones. Since mid-July 2026, the country’s leading publications have mentioned the Odesa region almost daily.
Unfortunately, however, this intense focus has not helped some Romanian journalists maintain a critical stance toward Russian propaganda sources. Some authors actively quote Kremlin sources but fail to verify them properly. As a result, civilian ships—attacks on which Odessa residents can witness firsthand—are portrayed in these reports as being “linked to the Ukrainian military.” The Russians claim that the ships are allegedly transporting weapons rather than grain. This is then reprinted by journalists from outlets such as Agerpres and Stiripesurse. At the same time, some of their reports may contain text based entirely on Russian sources—without background information or quotes from reliable sources.
To analyze how the Romanian media covers our region, we reviewed publications from four outlets that wrote about us the most this summer:
A search using the keyword “Odessa” yielded 119 articles.
If you read some of the articles published by Agerpres and Stiripesurse, you’ll find that the Russians are attacking “ports, ships, and port infrastructure linked to the Ukrainian military.” The publications simply quote the Russian Ministry of Defense.
For example, regarding the attack on Pivdennyi in early August, it is reported that “the vessel was unloading military cargo.” However, the publication Bessarabia Inform, citing the Association of Ukrainian Seaports and the State Border Guard Service’s Maritime Guard, reports that a Shahed drone struck a civilian tugboat, providing a close-up photo of the tugboat. Romanian media outlets, meanwhile, illustrate their coverage with a map of the region and a photo of a cargo steamship at sea without any reference to the specific location.
<picture>
<span><span><span>Reports by Agerpres</span></span></span><span><span><span> and Stiripesurse on Russian attacks on Ukrainian vessels</span></span></span>
The reports conclude with the following summary: over the course of the week, Russia attacked 31 vessels which, according to the authors, were being used “in the interests of the Ukrainian army.” The journalists made no attempt to verify this information.
The July 29 articles state directly in the headline: “Russia announced an attack on two ships carrying weapons to Ukraine.” Ukrainian sources report that a ship flying the Liberian flag was hit on July 28 (the ship had neither a crew nor cargo on board). Reports from Romanian media outlets describe an attack on a fuel depot, two other ships in the port of Pivdennyi, and a ship northwest of Zmiinyi Island. The background section states that the Russian Ministry of Defense “did not provide evidence that all the ships were used to transport military equipment to Ukraine.” But this raises the question: why is the transport of weapons presented as a fact in the headline? There are also no references to Ukrainian sources reporting on the striking of civilian vessels in the ports of Greater Odesa… At the same time, Stiripesurse illustrates its article with a photograph of the burning Privoz.
<picture>
<i><span><span><span>Reports by Agerpres</span></span></span><span><span><span> and Stiripesurse on ships that “were transporting weapons”</span></span></span></i>
“Moscow revealed what it destroyed during the latest bombings” near Romania—reads the headline of the Stiripesurse article. Presumably, “military targets” were hit by “high-precision” strikes? That’s exactly right! Both media outlets, citing the Russian Ministry of Defense, report on attacks on the ports of Odesa and Chornomorsk. It turns out that the port infrastructure “was used for unloading and storing military cargo.” And the “destroyed” ships “served the Ukrainian army.”
Let’s do the work of the Romanian journalists and verify the statements from the Russian Ministry of Defense. Suspilne Odesa reports that on July 11, Kernel’s terminals in Chornomorsk were damaged, resulting in the loss of approximately 45,000 metric tons of wheat and 9,000 metric tons of sunflower oil. However, the reports in these Romanian publications cite only official Russian sources. They did not even mention—as in the previous case—that there is no evidence that military targets were struck.
In addition to the shelling taking place in the ports of Greater Odesa and the Black Sea, Agerpres, citing the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, reports that “the ports of Odesa are the main transit route for Latin American drugs to Europe via Romania, Poland, and Moldova.”
The source of the text is the Russian propaganda outlet RIA Novosti, which quotes the Foreign Intelligence Service. The article, without any evidence or verification, makes claims about Ukrainian security forces and the “regime,” which allegedly facilitate drug trafficking, as well as the claim that Latin American cartels are interested in accessing the Ukrainian “black market for weapons.” In the background, there is a report—without a clear reference to the source—about Ukrainian security forces dismantling an international drug trafficking network that was operating in the port of Odesa. It is unclear when this took place or what kind of network it was, but, by all accounts, this detail is intended to reinforce the narratives spread by Russian intelligence. The article concludes with the information that “in 2018, Argentine police seized 400 kilograms of cocaine from the Russian embassy in Buenos Aires.” Presumably, this information was intended to counter Russia’s accusations against Ukraine, but unfortunately, that is not the case. In this instance, the publication has become a platform for spreading Kremlin narratives about Zelenskyy’s “regime” and alleged shady schemes to supply weapons from Ukraine to terrorists and criminals around the world. And, unfortunately, this is not the only instance in which Agerpres has helped Russian intelligence spread various forms of nonsense. For example, in 2024, the publication, citing the SVR, reported that “France and the United Kingdom are planning to transfer nuclear weapons to Ukraine.”
Regarding these two publications, it is important to note that they do not exclusively disseminate reports from official Russian sources. For example, Agerpres quotes Romanian Foreign Minister Oana Țoiu, who expressed solidarity with Ukraine in the face of Russian attacks. Stiripesurse also reported on the minister’s meeting with her Ukrainian counterpart, noting hopes that Ukraine would assist Romania with electricity. Agerpres reported that Ukraine lacks the weapons needed to intercept Russian ballistic missiles. The media also cited Ukrainian sources, such as Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sibigu, who spoke about Russia’s bombing of civilian ships and accused the aggressor country of “holding global food security hostage.”
At the same time, Stiripesurse journalists wrote that Russia, “unable to safely reestablish its naval presence in the Black Sea, … is now targeting civilian networks that ensure the functioning of the [grain] corridor: port terminals, commercial vessels, cargo infrastructure, shipping companies, and insurance companies.” The journalists mention Putin, whom “the Poles have silenced” (the Russian president had claimed that Poland would not object to the annexation of Western Ukraine), and also emphasize that Romania supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The publication also quotes Navy spokesperson Dmytro Pletenchuk, who stated that there is a significant difference between Russian and Ukrainian naval attacks, as Russia attacks vessels operating legally, while Ukraine targets cargo ships that violate maritime law.
Digi24 also published several articles based on Russian sources. However, there are fewer of them than in Agerpres and Stiripesurse. The attacks on July 11–12 are reported with reference to a statement from the Russian Ministry of Defense, according to which the targets were port infrastructure “used for unloading and storing military cargo.” During one of those attacks, Kernel’s terminals were damaged, as we’ve already mentioned. However, the “highlight” of Digi24’s piece is that they illustrate the story with a post from a social media account belonging to a certain Natalia. An extremely reliable source, what can I say…
<picture>
A social media post as a “reliable” source of information
Another Digi24 report concerns Ukrainian drones that sank a Rosatom vessel. The news is presented solely from Russia’s perspective, where Ukraine’s actions were labeled “piracy and robbery at sea.” Ukraine, however, also commented on this news. In particular, President Zelenskyy noted that the vessel was subject to sanctions. Ukrainian media also point out that Rosatom is actively involved in the war against Ukraine. Citing Agerpres, the publication Stiripesurse also reported this same news without any comments from Ukraine.
For the most part, when reporting on the situation in the Black Sea-Azov Basin, Digi24 writes about a “sharp escalation of naval attacks by both sides in the war in Ukraine.” At times, Russia’s actions are presented as a response to Ukraine’s attacks. For example, in a report on the attack on the Golden Leo, the article states that the ship was struck by three Russian missiles and mentions the sailors who were killed; it quotes Ukrainian sources who condemn the attack, citing violations of international humanitarian law. However, the background section notes that Ukraine has “intensified attacks” on ships in the Sea of Azov—“a maritime area that serves as a vital transport route for Russian agricultural products sold abroad, as well as for supplying the annexed Crimea.” Without knowing the context, it appears that both sides are engaging in tit-for-tat actions, preventing each other from transporting grain by sea. But that’s not the case! Ukrainian drone forces have reported sinking tankers as well as ships carrying military cargo. A similar narrative is used in the article about the aforementioned Rosatom vessel, noting “numerous attacks on civilian cargo ships in the Black Sea” by both Russia and Ukraine.
Other articles directly state that Ukraine is continuing an “unprecedented campaign of attacks on Russian oil tankers,” while Russia is bombing Ukrainian ports to prevent our country from exporting grain. Another article about the Golden Leo provides more detailed background: attacks in the Black Sea have been ongoing since 2022; it mentions the grain deal and notes that Moscow and Kyiv have “targeted key sources of revenue.” Ukraine is targeting oil, while Russia is targeting Ukraine’s deep-water ports.
Regarding other topics, the article also mentions the attack on Kadorr on August 1: “Surveillance cameras captured the moment of the strike. Preliminary analysis shows that the attack was deliberate: the operator intentionally directed the drone at the building,” the publication writes. It mentions dolphins dying in the Black Sea, citing Ukrainian ecologist Ivan Rusev. It also reports that Ukrainians are shooting down drones using a Yak-52 propeller-driven aircraft and are using 76-year-old cannons to intercept cruise missiles.
The publication also features exclusive stories. For example, it includes a comment from Zelenskyy’s adviser Mykhailo Podolyak, who said that due to the constant attacks on Odesa, joint efforts by both Romania and Moldova are needed to repel the Russian threat. Retired General Virgil Beleceanu explains how Romania can repel drone incursions through the “Danube Shield” project. The journalists also interviewed Dan Dungacu, first vice president of the Romanian opposition party (the “Alliance for the Union of Romanians”), who expresses skepticism about aid to Ukraine. The politician believes that the longer Ukraine fights, the stronger Russia becomes and the closer it gets to Romania’s borders. Therefore, he argues, if Ukraine does not agree to Russia’s terms, Romania will be under threat. Judging by the questions posed to the politician, the publication’s journalists do not share this position.
Adevarul also reported extensively on Russian attacks on ships near Odesa, but it was quite clear from its reports that these were civilian vessels. In its report on the attack on the MV AGN Ragnar, which was struck by the Russians, the publication mentions the third mate’s SOS message in the headline and then quotes it in the text: “I am the third mate on the AGN Ragnar. We were attacked by a drone and then hit by a missile. We had to abandon the ship!” The article describes the rescue mission carried out by Ukrainian and Romanian specialists. Unfortunately, two Indian sailors were never found.
Another article reports on the arrival at the port of Constanța of the Inase, a vessel damaged in Odesa. Photos of the damage are included with the text. A similar report was published by Digi24.
<picture>
<i><span><span><span>Adevarul’s coverage </span></span></span><span><span><span>of the fate of ships damaged by Russia</span></span></span></i>
In its coverage of the July 25 attack on Odesa, the publication highlights in its headline that a civilian vessel loaded with corn was bombed. The article about the attack on the Golden Leo is titled “Terror in the Black Sea: 10 Dead After a Russian Missile Strikes a Turkish Civilian Vessel Loaded with Grain.” The text cites a statement from the Russian Ministry of Defense claiming that the targets were ships carrying military cargo, but notes that the Russian side has not provided any evidence to support this claim.
In addition to reports of shelling in the Black Sea and attacks on our region, the publication, drawing on input from an expert, explains why Russia’s demands are unacceptable to Ukraine. It also covers the consequences of Russian shelling for Romania and Moldova. There are two more interesting articles on Ukraine’s naval rearmament and the construction of a European-gauge railway line to Odesa and Lviv. “Ukraine’s anti-ship arsenal has been constantly evolving throughout the conflict,” the publication writes, discussing our domestic systems as well as the military’s mastery of foreign weaponry. Regarding the railroad, the report notes that Ukraine has already built 23 kilometers of European-standard track between Chop and Uzhhorod. Next up are Odesa and Lviv. “The new infrastructure will also play an important role in Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction, facilitating the transport of goods throughout the country,” the journalists note.
The coverage of the Odesa region in the Romanian media can generally be explained by the nature of international journalism. The authors are not on the ground; they reprint reports from other agencies, do not speak Ukrainian, and are rushing to meet deadlines.
For example, some of Agerpres’s articles, which cited exclusively Russian sources, were published with references to Reuters and EFE—a Spanish news agency. As for Stiripesurse, they cited Agerpres.
However, even when it comes to rewriting, the need to verify information remains. Especially since the Russian attacks are taking place very close by—in the very same sea that is just as critically important to the Romanian economy as it is to the Ukrainian one.
At first glance, there aren’t that many media reports that cite only unverified Russian official sources. However, in several publications, verified information appears alongside propaganda and dubious claims. As a result, readers may form an impression that plays into the Kremlin’s hands: everyone is hiding something, “it’s not all that clear-cut,” and therefore it’s unclear what was actually being unloaded onto the ships and why Russia attacked them.
However, the best way to produce high-quality coverage of the war is to put yourself in the shoes of those who were attacked. Imagine, for example, attacks on ships in the port of your hometown. Would it be important to verify information provided by those who carried out the attack? Will a broader context be needed so that readers understand when these attacks began and how long they have been going on? Is it necessary to understand that the victims’ retaliatory strikes are a desperate attempt to survive and save their country?
Наталія Стеблина