This is a good opportunity to assess what parts of your own online activity could be impacted by an attacker in the middle (assisted by a BGP leak or otherwise) and, if you're a service provider, how you can protect your customers.

At first pass you probably use HTTPS/TLS for the web, and you know that you shouldn't click through invalid certificate warnings. So the web, tentatively, looks pretty safe.

Email jumps out as vulnerable to eavesdropping, as we largely use opportunistic encryption when transferring messages between mail servers and an on-network-path attacker can use STARTTLS stripping or similar techniques. Most mail servers happily send using cleartext or without validating the TLS certificate. Check that you and your counter-parties are using DNSSEC+DANE, or MTA-STS to ensure that authenticated encryption is always used. Adoption is still quite low, but it's a great time to get started. Watch out for transactional email, like password reset messages, which virtually never validate encryption in transit (https://alexsci.com/blog/is-email-confidential-in-transit-ye... ; instead use multi-factor encryption).

TLS certificates themselves are at risk, unfortunately. An attacker who controls the network in-and-out of your DNS servers can issue domain-verified certificates for your domain; even removing protections like CAA records. DNSSEC is the classic solution here, although using a geographically distributed DNS provider should also work (see multi-perspective validation). Certificate transparency log monitoring should detect any attacker-issued certificates (a review of certificates issued for .ve domains would be interesting).

Ideally, we should build an internet where we don't need to trust the network layer. A BGP route leak would be a performance/availability concern only. We're not there yet, but now is a great time to take the next step in that direction.

Is email confidential in transit yet?

Measuring vulnerable SMTP configurations and defenses

Robert Alexander's Tech Blog
Attackers hijacking domains to get certificates issued are generally hijacking registrar accounts, which DNSSEC doesn't help with, which is probably one of the many reasons DNSSEC is so rarely deployed.
We know, you've told us many times. But that's not the context of the thread.
I'm not fixated on any particular argument, but the preceding comment offers network security advice as if it were best common practice, and it is not in fact that. That's all! Not a big thing.
I would be interested in your take; if you had to distrust the network, how would you protect HTTP, SMTP, DNS, and TLS certs? I suspect your answer isn't DNSSEC, but I'd be interested to hear what you would use instead. The European answer seems to be DNSSEC, considering adoption rates there. (edit: should be "includes" not "be", it's one of the tools they use).
DNSSEC adoption on major European properties is also quite low! Try a bunch of domains out (`host -t ds <domain>`). There are more in Europe, of course, but not very many, at least not major ones. My hypothesis, I think strongly supported: the more mature your security team, the more internal pushback against DNSSEC.

Sure, I'll do some homework for you. I just took the latest Tranco top million list (7N42X) and scanned the top thousand .cz domains. 61% of the top 100 .cz domains have DS records as do 50.6% of the top thousand .cz domains. That matches what others have been reporting and doesn't seem "quite low" to me.

If you're interested in talking about something other than DNSSEC, I would be interested in your thoughts here.

Oh, if the Tranco list is interesting to you, you don't ever have to do any homework again; I continuously do it for you:

https://dnssecmenot.fly.dev/

A funny note here: I track changes, and in the last 150 days, there has been one (1) (someone turned DNSSEC off.)

dnssec-me-not: tracking DNSSEC adoption in top domains