What happens when supply chains go dark

“Global trade relies on supply chains with predictable routing, stable pricing and continuous visibility. But conflict, such as the war in Iran, are significantly disrupting transport routes in unexpected ways. By telling the story of one container of frozen food missing on route from Ukraine to UAE, Nadiya Albishchenko describes what happens when businesses are unable to track their shipments. On 26 February 2026 a container of frozen food departed Odessa, in Ukraine, bound for the United Arab Emirates. Shortly after departure, on 2 March 2026, a $4,000 war risk surcharge was imposed in response to escalating tensions affecting Gulf shipping routes due to recent tensions in Middle East . Under normal conditions, shipments from Odessa follow a relatively stable maritime route through the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal and onward to ports such as Jebel Ali in the UAE, with transit times typically around 30-35 days. Following the escalation of the Russia–Ukraine war, alternative routing has often involved initial diversion to ports such as Constanța in Romania before continuing along similar corridors, extending transit times to approximately 45-50 days. In this case, however, the expected routing pattern did not hold. What followed was a period of limited visibility and delayed communication. After several weeks, the shipment was confirmed to have been rerouted via Jeddah, in Saudi Arabia, and subsequently redirected to India where it was expected to arrive on 25 April. After that it will need to be returned to the UAE. The breakdown of visibility in global trade For decades, global supply chains were built on three core assumptions: predictable routing, stable pricing and continuous visibility. These assumptions enabled businesses to manage inventory, forecast delivery timelines and maintain financial control across complex international operations. Today, these foundations are weakening. The inability to locate a shipment in transit is not simply a logistical inconvenience. It represents a loss of operational visibility, which directly limits a company’s ability to respond to disruptions. Research by McKinsey shows that many companies lack end-to-end visibility across their supply chains, which significantly reduces their ability to anticipate and respond to disruptions. Without accurate information, businesses are forced into reactive decision-making, often under conditions of uncertainty. This shift toward reactive decision-making under uncertainty has been widely observed during recent global disruptions. In this case, information did eventually emerge – but only after critical routing decisions had already been made. This reflects a deeper issue: not just the loss of visibility, but the loss of actionable visibility within a timeframe that allows intervention. The issue is no longer whether disruptions occur, but whether systems are capable of maintaining control when they do. Contract instability and shifting risk Another critical issue is the erosion of contractual stability. In this case, additional costs were imposed after the shipment had already departed, fundamentally altering the economic structure of the transaction mid-route. Recent industry analysis highlights how geopolitical disruption and mid-transit changes are increasingly affecting contractual reliability across global supply chains . Such practices introduce asymmetry into trade relationships. Traders are often required to absorb unexpected costs to preserve supply continuity, particularly when dealing with essential goods such as food. This shifts financial risk away from logistics providers and onto market participants who are less equipped to manage it. Over time, this dynamic can distort market behaviour. Businesses may begin to price in uncertainty, increasing costs for consumers. This is reflected in rising logistics costs and supply chain volatility . Alternatively, they may reduce exposure to certain trade routes altogether, limiting market access and reducing supply diversity. Dynamic routing and operational uncertainty Routing is also becoming more fluid. Recent disruptions across major maritime corridors have demonstrated how quickly routing can shift in response to geopolitical and security risks. Instead of fixed and transparent paths, shipments are subject to ongoing adjustments based on security considerations, congestion and geopolitical conditions. In practice, routing decisions may occur outside the control of cargo owners, limiting their ability to intervene even as commercial and operational risks escalate. While such flexibility can be necessary, it introduces significant operational complexity. Transit times become less predictable, co-ordination between supply chain actors becomes more difficult and the risk of disruption increases. Industry analysis shows that congestion, rerouting and geopolitical instability have significantly increased transit time variability and operational complexity in global supply chains. For time-sensitive goods, including perishable food, these uncertainties can have immediate economic consequences. Dynamic routing also complicates compliance and documentation processes, as shipments may pass through jurisdictions that were not originally anticipated. This adds another layer of administrative and regulatory risk. A system not designed for disruption These developments highlight a fundamental limitation within current trade and logistics systems. Existing frameworks were designed for relatively stable operating environments. International organisations have recognised that existing trade frameworks are not fully adapted to sustained disruption and volatility. They assume that routes are known in advance, pricing structures are fixed at the point of contract and that shipments can be tracked consistently from origin to destination. Under conditions of sustained geopolitical disruption, these assumptions no longer hold. Instead, trade systems must operate in environments characterised by volatility, incomplete information and rapid change. This creates a growing disconnect between how trade systems are designed and how they operate in practice. As disruptions become more frequent, this gap is likely to widen unless structural adjustments are made. The need for adaptive trade leadership At the leadership level, these conditions require a shift in how decisions are made. Traditional models based on optimisation and predictability are insufficient in environments where information is incomplete and conditions are constantly evolving. This perspective is explored in my recent work on decision-making in global trade under conditions of disruption and limited visibility. What emerges is a need for adaptive trade leadership – a structured approach to decision-making that prioritises continuity, flexibility and responsiveness under conditions of volatility. This aligns with what I describe as an Adaptive Trade Leadership Model, where decision-making is shaped not by full information, but by the ability to act under constraint, absorb pressure and maintain operational flow despite disruptions. Such an approach does not eliminate uncertainty. But it can enable organisations to function within it more effectively by shifting the focus from attempting to control every variable to managing outcomes under constrained conditions. Policy implications From a policy perspective, these developments raise important questions about the adequacy of current trade frameworks. Institutions such as the World Trade Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have highlighted the need for more resilient and adaptable supply chains in response to global disruptions. The absence of enforceable standards governing mid-transit pricing changes and rerouting creates structural uncertainty for market participants operating across high-risk corridors. Policy responses have not yet fully addressed these operational realities. There is a need for enhanced transparency standards to ensure that changes in routing and pricing are communicated in real time. Without such transparency, market participants cannot make informed decisions. Contractual frameworks also require revision to distribute risk more equitably among stakeholders. Mechanisms for handling mid-transit cost changes and routing adjustments should be clearly defined to prevent disproportionate burdens on specific parts of the supply chain. Finally, resilience must become a central principle in trade system design. This includes investing in digital infrastructure to improve tracking capabilities, as well as developing regulatory approaches that account for dynamic and unpredictable operating environments. The current environment represents a structural transition in global trade. Efficiency is no longer the dominant organising principle. Instead, control, flexibility and risk management are becoming central. The loss of visibility in supply chains is one of the clearest indicators of this shift. When a shipment cannot be located, it reveals deeper limitations in how global trade systems operate under pressure. The issue is no longer whether disruptions occur, but whether systems are capable of maintaining control when they do. Increasingly, they are not. Where is the container now? Having departed on 26 February, the transit time has already exceeded 60 days. The container was rerouted, reached India, and is now being redirected back towards the UAE, with expected arrival in Khorfakkan before final delivery by road on April 30 th . The full financial impact is not yet clear. But measurable costs have already emerged, including the $4,000 war risk surcharge imposed after departure, alongside additional expenses from rerouting, extended transit time and handling. More critically, the disruption created periods where decisions had to be made without reliable information. This disruption also has direct operational consequences. Extended and unpredictable transit times affect cash flow, as capital remains tied up in goods in transit for longer than planned. And delays create gaps in inventory availability, disrupting stock consistency and increasing the risk of lost sales or overstocking in subsequent cycles. And this case is not an exception. It reflects how global trade increasingly operates under pressure. This article gives the views of the author, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics. You are agreeing with our comment policy when you leave a comment. Image credit: Alex Stemmer provided by Shutterstock. The post What happens when supply chains go dark first appeared on LSE Business Review .

Summary generated from the RSS feed of LSE Business Review. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview.