Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Ukrainian farmer visits his crop storage that was destroyed by Russian military strike near a frontline outside Orikhiv.
No grain from Ukraine
Poland, Slovakia and Hungary have once again announced their own unilateral restrictions on Ukrainian grain imports, after the European Commission chose not to extend a broader import ban to five countries that border Ukraine. The ban had been imposed in May due to “distortions in supply” and complaints that Ukraine was not exercising effective export controls.
The three countries claim that a glut of Ukrainian imports continues to depress local prices and has pushed some farmers to the brink of bankruptcy. With tightly contested national elections upcoming in both Poland and Slovakia in a few weeks, neither government wants to antagonize its powerful farmers’ lobbies.
In Poland, the new ban not only covers four grains but also meals made from corn, wheat and canola. Hungary imposed a ban on imports of twenty-four Ukrainian agricultural products, including grains, vegetables, several meat products and honey.
The ban only affects imports to the Polish, Slovak and Hungarian markets. The three countries will still permit Ukrainian grain to transit their territory en route to third countries. Those so-called “Solidarity Lanes” moved some 60% of Ukraine’s grain exports over the past year, including 4 million tonnes of grain. The remaining 40% transited through the Black Sea, but that channel disappeared when Russia withdrew from the UN-brokered Black Sea Grain Deal in July. Subsequent attempts to revive it have so far proved unsuccessful.
In response to the new ban, the European Commission issued a statement asking all nations to “work in the spirit of compromise and engage constructively.”Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan in Sochi, Russia, on Sept. 4, 2023.
No pain, no grain
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s weekend meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has failed to revive the Black Sea grain deal. The UN-brokered agreement, which guaranteed safe passage for Ukrainian grain shipments to markets in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, had been on hold since July. Russia refused to extend the deal, citing a failure to honor a parallel agreement to remove obstacles to its food and fertilizer exports.
On Monday, Putin reiterated this demand. "We will be ready to consider the possibility of reviving the grain deal … we will do this as soon as all the agreements on lifting restrictions on the export of Russian agricultural products are fully implemented.” Moscow is also demanding that the Russian Agricultural Bank be reconnected to the SWIFT international payments system, from which it was cut off as part of EU sanctions for its invasion. The UN had offered to reinstate this relationship in July to keep the grain deal alive.
Erdogan offered his own prescription for reviving the deal: “Ukraine needs to especially soften its approaches in order for it to be possible for joint steps to be taken with Russia" and export more grain to Africa rather than Europe. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba “took note” of Erdogan’s position, but added, "We should not continue to be hostages to Russian blackmail, where Russia creates problems and then invites everyone to solve them.”
To deflect criticism that Russia is starving developing nations of much-needed food, Russia is set to supply up to one million tons of grain to Turkey at reduced prices for processing at Turkish plants and shipping to countries “most in need.” Putin is also brokering a deal to send free grain to six African countries: Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, Eritrea, and Central African Republic.
But Russia’s moves aren’t all bread and roses: They will also conveniently purchase political capital for Russia’s war in Ukraine and expand its influence over the African continent, an arena where Russia has been increasingly active in recent years.
A Turkish cargo shop loaded with Ukrainian agricultural products leaves the Port of Odessa.
The limits of Russia’s grain weapon
Russia’s suspension of the UN-backed Black Sea Grain Initiative creates uncertainty for Ukraine’s economy and for global food prices, though there are several reasons why the effect of this break will likely be more limited than worst-case scenarios suggest.
On Monday, the Kremlin said the deal was suspended, not canceled, which would allow Russia to return to the agreement – as it did last November after a previous halt. In the coming weeks, Russia will continue to haggle with the UN and Turkey, brokers of the original deal. In addition, Moscow’s concern for its image in developing countries leaves it no more likely to attack ships carrying grain to foreign ports than during last fall’s pause in the agreement.
Most importantly, Ukraine and Europe have made changes in recent months to prepare for another grain deal breakdown. Large volumes of Ukraine’s wheat and other products can now be rerouted for export overland into the EU without tariffs and then shipped on to other regions. Finally, the export of wheat and other grains will continue from Russia, easing pressures on global food prices.
All that said, this deal has still been a big deal. First struck last July, the Black Sea Grain Initiative has enabled more than 1,000 ships to transport 32.8 million tons of grain and other food products from Ukrainian ports to 45 countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa, according to the UN. Halting it, even temporarily, will raise hunger risks in poorer countries and add financial pressure on Ukraine, which now faces higher shipping and insurance costs, as well as risks of harassment from Russian ships in the Black Sea.
Ukraine Port of Odessa
Is the Ukraine grain deal over?
Fears are growing that Russia could refuse to extend its participation in the Black Sea Grain Initiative after it expires on Monday. The deal has allowed grain to flow from Ukraine’s port of Odessa since last July, alleviating the global food crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Russia has two demands to extend the deal. Reopen the pipeline of ammonia (a key ingredient in fertilizer) from Russia to the port, and let the Russian Agriculture Bank reconnect to the global payments network, SWIFT.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely that either of these specific demands will be met by the deadline. Guaranteed ammonia shipments to the port was a stipulation for Russia signing onto the deal. But the ammonia pipeline was badly damaged in an explosion that both Moscow and Kyiv blame the other for, so neither is taking responsibility to repair it. Meanwhile, it would be up to the EU to grant the Russian entity access to SWIFT, a decision that there is far from consensus on among EU nations.
What would happen if it is not renewed? In short, grain would get more expensive, adding to food price inflation and exacerbating the worsening problem of global hunger.
But there is still reason for optimism. The deal has been extended three times so far, and Russia threatened to leave two of those times. Moreover, Putin knows that if the deal falls apart, higher grain prices will hurt some of Moscow’s closest friends across the global south. China, for example, is the world’s largest importer of wheat, and has called for extension of the grain deal.
Biden attends NATO Summit
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hey, everybody. Ian Bremmer here, and a happy Monday to you. A Quick Take to kick off your week.
And this week the big news is coming from NATO, the summit that will start within a day in Vilnius. Heads of state from all the key NATO countries, including of course President Biden. And the big topic will be Ukraine. Not the only one big question about Sweden, whether or not they're joining NATO or not. Erdogan can always decide to change his mind and cut a deal at the last minute. But the big news is what's going to happen with Ukraine, with continued military support for Ukraine that we still see expanding pretty much every week. And all, both in terms of the amount and also the types of armaments, and I'll get into that in a moment. And also as to where we stand on NATO membership and a pathway to that for Ukraine itself. Erdogan interestingly very strongly supporting Ukraine to get into NATO, also providing directly some Asov battalion leaders to the Ukrainians that, you know, he had told the Russians he wasn't going to do. This is a couple of indicators and there are many that the grain deal between the Ukrainians, the West and the Russians is not going to get extended in another week's time. Erdogan was critical to that deal. That relationship with Russia is getting more brittle by the day. At the same time, Ukraine is not about to get an immediate pathway into NATO, and Biden made that clear with my friend Fareed Zakaria. Over the weekend, Biden's perspective is, "Hey, we're fighting a war in Ukraine by proxy. We're giving all of the equipment, all the weapons, but we don't want the Americans directly fighting on the ground."
Don't want, a no fly zone with, you know, American fighter pilots defending Ukraine directly. That would both risk a direct war with the Russians, essentially, World War III is what we're talking about. And it's also just unacceptable. The Americans and other NATO allies don't want their own troops directly in harm's way. They're happy to fight a proxy war. They're not happy to fight directly. And that is not a unified position, by the way, the Polish government, the Balts, the Fins now a part of NATO increasingly willing to say, "Yes, we should be giving Ukraine membership now. And that doesn't mean we have to deploy Article 5, everybody knows we're not going to be fighting directly, but they need that security umbrella going forward. It's the only way that we can guarantee that the Russians won't invade again."
And by the way, Macron, who in the early days, the French president, of the war thought that was entirely too provocative, has flipped his view. And now in terms of NATO is aligned with the Poles and the Balts, which is very interesting, while the Americans, I think, are still closer to the German position. Be that as it may, there's an enormous amount of support that the West is providing to Ukraine militarily, the US is leading it. And I think what we are moving towards are multilateral guarantees. In other words that NATO collectively would be prepared to provide commitments to Ukraine, that going forward, they will continue to ensure that Ukrainian troops are trained, are equipped. Intelligence is provided. In other words that there are treaty obligations to Ukraine to help them defend themselves very effectively. That prevents the Russians from believing they get another bite of that apple, that they can wait NATO out, and that eventually Russia will be able to accomplish militarily what they've not been able to accomplish in the first 500 plus days of this war.
The other big thing that's being debated are the cluster munitions that are now going to be provided by the United States. They are not a signatory, of the ban of cluster munitions. And these things are banned because they are so brutally dangerous to civilians. A lot of those bomb pieces that are then on the ground and can sit around for a long time until, you know, civilian inadvertently months, years later walks, trips over it, it acts like a landmine, a kid curious picks it up, maims or kills the kid. I mean, anyone that has seen these cluster munitions in operation, and I know a lot of people that have been involved in NGOs that have tried to help clean them up in places in war zones they've been used, understands just how brutally dehumanizing these weapons are.
So, no, you absolutely don't want them in the fight. Having said that, the Russians aren't signatories. The Ukrainians aren't signatories, and the Russians have been using these weapons all the way through the war. So it's not with the fact that the Kremlin has come out and they said, how dare the Americans provide cluster munitions is just yet another point of massive hypocrisy of the war crimes that the Russians have committed. Now, I understand why Biden is doing this. The Americans are very very low on ammunition all in and want to give the Ukrainians everything they can to help ensure that the counteroffensive is successful. So far, the last couple months, very little land, Ukrainian land has been retaken by the Ukrainians, even as they have initiated this counteroffensive. Part of that reason, not all of it, part of that reason is because they lack ammunition. Part of it is they don't have any air defenses that are effective, any air cover in the region. And so as the Ukrainians take more land, they'll have a hard time defending those soldiers that'll be exposed. But be that as it may, you know, there is a question that the Ukrainians are not in the same position as NATO, you know, the Biden administration is saying, "we're going to defend Ukrainians as long as it takes that the Ukrainians are in charge of these negotiations." It makes one think that the Ukrainians are basically an American core national interest. The reality is that NATO is a core American national interest. The United States is a core national interest and long-term fighting and long-term security, long-term American ability to ensure that its values are promoted globally does mean that you don't want to be dragging yourself down to the same brutal fighting that the Russians are doing.
This has gotten the Americans in trouble in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Gotten Americans in trouble in Guantanamo, in Abu Ghraib. And so if I were Biden, would I approve these weapon systems for the Ukrainians? It would be very hard after many months of, you know, sort of thinking about it, maybe I would, but maybe that's why I'm not Biden. I mean, look, I'm never going to be elected president, but also is, I never would be interested in serving in a position like that, in part because the Americans do not have the same level of moral authority on the global stage that say, Canada does or Germany does, or Japan does. And you know, let's keep in mind, Japan and Germany, we're talking about countries that were involved in fighting World War II and actually being the initiators of World War II with massive brutality, but also systems that recognized that what they did was fundamentally inhumane and brutal and needed to be never repeated. And therefore the institutions had to grow and learn and become more morally accountable to their own people and globally. And I fear that the United States does not have that level of lesson taking from so many of its mistakes over the past several generations, you know, from Vietnam and from some of the others that I've just mentioned. And in that regard, even as it makes it harder for the Ukrainians to take additional territory in the counteroffensive, I would be a "no", on these cluster munitions. But I think it's a good place to debate and I'm more than happy to have that debate publicly over the coming weeks and months.
That's it for me. I hope everyone's doing well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
A cargo ship waits to pass the Bosphorus strait near Istanbul, Turkey.
Hard Numbers: Grain deal extension, Italy’s “apocalyptic” floods, global warming threshold, books bans in Florida, Everest record
60: Russia has agreed to extend the grain deal that allows Ukrainian food shipments to travel safely in the Black Sea by 60 days. Still, Kyiv says that Moscow has been holding up joint inspection of ships, leaving Ukrainian vessels stocked with grain stranded for weeks on end.
66: Scientists say there is a 66% chance that temperatures will exceed the 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming threshold by 2027 if current trends continue and will have calamitous consequences. Passing that point would mean the world is 1.5 degrees warmer than during the second half of the 1800s before fossil fuel use really ramped up.
9: At least nine people died and more than 10,000 were forced to evacuate after unusually heavy rain pummeled northern Italy on Wednesday. Scientists say increasing incidents of floods and landslides in the northern region of Emilia-Romagna have been exacerbated by climate change. Similar “apocalyptic” floods hit Serbia, Bosnia, and Slovenia this week.
10: Penguin Random House, along with parents and free speech advocates, filed a lawsuit Wednesday against a Florida school district for removing or restricting access to 10 books from the curriculum that pertain to race and LGBTQ issues. Book bans have become the latest frontier of the deepening culture wars that will only get more intense in the lead-up to the 2024 election.
27: A Nepali sherpa has scaled Mount Everest for the 27th time, beating … himself, having previously set the record for climbs on the mountain. Kami Rita Sherpa first hiked Everest in 1994 and has done so in most of the years since.