Fun fact: only 2.5% of the grain went to the poor countries in need. And none of the non-Russian parts of the deal were honored, so not really a surprise it was dropped after Erdogan won the election.
It doesn’t really matter where exactly they sell the grain. If there is less grain on the global market, the price will rise, which is very critical for poor countries
Russia already stated that they’re going to continue supplying food to Global South https://sputnikglobe.com/20230717/russia-to-continue-food-supplies-to-global-south-despite-black-sea-grain-deal-suspension-1111949743.html
If the US would start dialogue with China it might actually stand a chance of taking on Russia and winning without destabilizing the region. Direct US intervention in the region would be akin to Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan: it would serve to destabilize the region.
The US will never consider this because it prefers a weak Russia to a strong China.
Do you really think that China is really so stupid that they would trust US at this point?
It doesnt matter what russia says or does in this regard. What is important is if Turkey sticks with it and provides protection for those ships or not.
They won’t.
Ah, yes, Turkey, the dependable ally which still hasn’t agreed to Sweden’s accession to NATO!
You should check the news.
All I’ve seen are words from Turkey. First the words were “we won’t accept Sweden”. Then the words were “we will accept Sweden”. Still Turkey has not officially accepted Sweden and Sweden is not yet a member. Erdogan says a lot. His actions is what I count.
Lol
Why is Russia allowed to hold the world hostage? Who right do they have to starve people in other countries?
Every nation should kick Russians out, block their accounts, and sanction Russia.
Every nation should kick Russians out, block their accounts,
The Russian people are not making these decisions. Moreover, those who have left Russia are probably among the least likely to support Russia anyway.
What good comes from attacking the people of a country because you disagree with the leadership of the country? This is the same disgusting rhetoric used in the USA after 9/11 where there were widespread calls to kick out ALL Muslims and people from the middle east.
Something around 80 percent of russians actually support Russian imperialistic goals. You can’t exactly pity them at this point. The protests were almost non existant in Russia.
Even if Putin drops down tommorow, it’s likely that the whole Russia expansion desire remains. Shit even Navalny doesn’t want to drop occupied Georgia.
Those polls you got your source from are actually polls done by state-run polling facilities. of course poeple are going to say what the state wants to hear. here’s a video on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uQCNjIHeqU
Btw, by saying that “80% of Russians support this war”, you’re spreading Russian state propaganda.
And of course protests in Russia died down, people get jailed for like 10-15 years in prison if they protest, so by fear of getting jailed, protestors stop. it isn’t pretty but it’s how the system works.
These stats are more or less what is reported in my country. Can’t fact check everything, since it’s more or less the first time it got some shade. Most pro-russian populus here also support Putin and find Ukrainians as nazis, so this didn’t seem far fetched.
Seeing different level of protests in Russia (against the war) and in Belarus (against Lukashenko) does show that participation was/is quite little. Even before the war, there were larger protests after Navalny.
There were a few Russians I can deeply respect and can call good russians, but they are the minority sadly. For example Ruslan Zizin.
People are sanctioned, people are unhappy, people protest their government that allowed it to happen. It’s how you put pressure on the leadership of a country. How else would you solve this? You can’t force Russia’s hand in this, but you can make the situation for their people uncomfortable.
The alternative would be to say “Russia pls open the grain corridor again” and I think you can imagine their response.
There’s an abundance of contemporary evidence that shows this doesn’t work but it’s basically a foreign policy meme at this point. We tried this in Iraq and it just ended up killing a bunch of children and had no effect on Saddam’s hold on power.
People are sanctioned, people are unhappy, people protest their government that allowed it to happen. It’s how you put pressure on the leadership of a country.
This doesn’t follow. First of all, no change happens internally in the USA despite its own citizens complaining of material conditions; so to say that people being unhappy and protesting necessarily leads to change is false. Second, every other sentence people say about Russia is calling it “authoritarian”, “dictatorship”, etc: you can’t simultaneously pretend its an authoritarian dictatorship and also that the people protesting have any say in its trajectory.
You can’t force Russia’s hand in this, but you can make the situation for their people uncomfortable.
Which is just wrong. You’re making the everyday civilian uncomfortable. You aren’t doing anything against those who actually make decisions. Instead you’re punishing someone for their nationality, or where they were born or choose to live. It’s punishment for something they didn’t do and it’s not constructive.
The alternative would be to say “Russia pls open the grain corridor again” and I think you can imagine their response.
Sure, I understand that you’re saying Russia isn’t going to just cooperate with requests. But it’s also not going to be any more likely to cooperate because you’ve made the lives of their citizens, or people of Russian ethnicity living on foreign soil, any harder.
In the end this just punishes innocent people and does nothing to achieve the stated goal.
Because the only way to force change in a country, is to push it’s people to make that change. It mught not be pretty, but it’s reality.
And what power do Russian expatriots have to effect change in their home country exactly? Huge numbers left precisely because they disagree with the politics, which poses a huge demographic problem for Russia. Forcing them to go back would be counterproductive, not to mention plain xenophobic.
You can’t simultaneously call Russia an authoritarian dictatorship and say that its people have the power to change the country’s trajectory.
Because the only way to force change in a country, is to push it’s people to make that change.
The correct way to say this is: “the only way to force change in a country, is to push the people who can make change to make that change”.
Intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime.
Don’t worry, kicking subhuman Russians has already became a pass time activity in most post-soviet countries.
Also Turkey should easily uphold the grain deal, since Russian ships are even afraid to leave the ports
How come people here are taking AP News at face value? It starts with “LONDON (AP) — Russia on Monday…”
You know you’re not getting the straight story here, don’t you?
I believe this is because the EU didn’t fulfill their part of the deal to allow for Russian fertilizer exports. And most of the Ukrainian grain was being exported to developed countries, which wasn’t the intent of the deal. This reporting doesn’t reflect all of the facts on why the deal failed. It’s not the Russians being evil.
Although thats quite some mental gymnastics there, mate. Hurr durr, we don’t like what EU is doing by no longer buying from us, so we will force egypt to starve.
Grow up
Not true:
Also most wheat goes to China. 2/3 goes to developing countries.
Wrong. half of its grain went to pig feed in Spain. 15% went to countries at risk of famine.
Why are you using AP News as a source?
Showing the data that way does not help at all and it seems fraudulent, most of the grain was going to go to China, which, yeah, is a “developing country” which basically means it’s not the West, but they don’t have much trouble feeding their people or high poverty levels. If you remove China from that list it’s just white people territory mostly. Look at a real graph which was indicated above.
Bullshit. The Russians are waging war against a smaller country that was begging to avoid war. And do you remember the Russians were lying all along while they massed troops on the border? They called it a training exercise. The reason anybody is in this situation at all is Russia. The EU doesn’t owe Russia a damn thing.
Just weeks ago, the Russians destroyed a dam, killing thousands of people and causing an ecological catastrophe. For the past year, they have been teasing a disaster at Zaporizhzhia.
You are mistaken, friend. Russia is evil.
Russia destroyed a damn under their control, and want to damage a nuclear plant they control? Does that make sense?
Anyway, the EU doesn’t owe Russia anything because of their invasion, agreed. But the grain export agreement had conditions that the EU admits they failed to fulfill, for example SWIFT access. Please read up on the details if you’re going to debate geopolitics, it’s never as clear as what the news reports.
If we haven’t already, all foreign assets of Putin and all Russian leadership and oligarchs need to be seized immediately. Unless the pain is felt by those with power nothing will change.
There are also a number of Western companies still operating in Russia. That needs to change.
I do believe that this was a terrible move by the kremlin, but there are some rules that must be followed even between enemies. If we all do petty thing, whats the difference between us and them.
I think a better argument is that Russia is holding a few more cards here than we do. If we want to get petty, they have explosives planted in a nuclear reactor that they could just blow up.
If we want to go in and kick their asses, we risk global war.
There’s a lot of reasons that this is bad, but there are a lot of really smart people working on these problems.
“What’s the difference between us and them” not only is an emotional appeal, it dehumanizes them, which weirdly makes your argument the same as theirs.
The answer to the paradox of tolerance is usually “the one fighting for peaceful coexistence is in the right”.
I mean, every action a police officer takes in any country parallels to some of the worst crimes imaginable. An armed person saying “You are not allowed to leave” is a felony in my country punishable by up to life imprisonment. While people argue about problems with police behavior or severity of criminal penalties, it is generally agreed upon that an arrest of a suspected violent offender is always less severe than civilian kidnapping.
And perhaps outside of the police, for every person I’ve met who is so anti-cop they consider arresting even a serial-killer unacceptable, I have found common ground of some severe behavior they feel is only rightly done by the party trying to find a peaceful coexistance.
Now I agree that there must be some method of repercussions for weaponizing food, however this is an unideal world. Holding assets’ hostage will only lead to a migration from western assets to maybe Chinese ones, and as a south-east Asian, I can guarantee you that’s the last thing the world needs tight now. Similarly, brash actions using the hegemony of the dollar will only lead to increased scepticism over it and the rise of yuan.
I don’t really disagree with what you’re saying, but I have a point we should agree on. Your previous discussion point spoke to ethics or morality, to “rules” even between enemies. Your current rebuttal is instead one of pragmatism.
I agree it may not be pragmatic to respond fully to Russia as would be entirely just. The Nuremburg trials were entirely just (at least in my view), but nobody doubts there are hundreds of rulers that get handshakes instead of a death conviction based entirely on the unreasonable cost, paid by innocents, of doing the right thing.
The rules at this point suggest Putin should have been stripped of all power and prosecuted by Ukraine. Military conquest is simply unacceptable on the world stage, and that does (or should) apply to all governments at this point. But rules are often only followed when possible and best for everyone
Yes so I brought up the idea of rules to be followed because in my opinion pragmatism is the only enforcer of said rules. When we talk about using the dollor as the world’s reserve currency pretty much everyone knew USA could freeze assets unilaterally but trusted them not to. Similarly I feel that there are certain untold rules built on trust that simply should not be broken.
As for idea that military conquest itself is a crime and must lead to Putin’s prosecution. I do not agree with this arbitrary enforcement of this law only because this time around there is a lot of internet awareness over the war. There have been several instances in modern history where a large, supposedly imperial power has invaded a smaller country without the permission of the UN over self interest. I’ll try not to call whataboutism but justice half served is no justice at all.
If we all do petty thing, whats the difference between us and them.
(Not) invading / annexing your neighbor, to name one.
US currently occupies a larger percentage of Syria than Russia is occupying of Ukraine.
Whattaboutisms don’t vindicate Russia.
Whattaboutism don’t vindicate the US.
Also, the US is still occupying Puerto Rico, Hawai’i, Virgin Islands, France has the Guyana in South America, you only care when white people get fucked, you sleazy piece of racist.
Okay che, remind me where I said the atrocities committed by the USA were totally cool? I’m just against wars of aggression and conquest. Take that as you will.
Calling whataboutism is a logical fallacy used to justify having a different set of standards for oneself and ones adversaries. It’s not a serious argument. The west has positioned itself as having some sort of a high ground while doing the same and worse that it accuses Russia of doing. This isn’t about vindicating anything, it’s about having a consistent set of morals.
Russian economy is basically independent of the west at this point, there’s no economic leverage left that the west can exercise.
It’s a really good thing that I’m not President. I have NO patience for this shit. Stopping Ukraine’s food shipments is simply unacceptable. I would have sent the Navy into the Black Sea by now, and possibly started a war with Turkey if they tried to stop the ships.
The world does not need people like me in charge.
Fuck man I wish our world leaders would actually take action on stuff like this. Direct war with Russia appears to be becoming more and more an inevitable conclusion. They are going to cross a line sooner or later that will necessitate it. The only question is how long will we allow them to fuck over Ukraine/Their neighbors/The world before we do so. I’m anti wars of imperialism but despite what edgy tankies might believe the only imperialism at play in Ukraine is Russian imperialism. And I am absolutely in favor of war to end genocide and Russia is committing genocide.
After the Grain Deal was struck, Western Europe became the top importer of Ukrainian grain, and a negligible amount of it ended up feeding the “Millions of hungry people around the world”. The bulk of the African, Asian, and Global South countries, rely on Russian grain and not the Ukrainian. This does not affect global food security. Perhaps correct the title to not spread misinformation?
Russia could just stop waging wars of conquest and then they wouldn’t have to worry about the world not wanting to buy their grain.
Seems simple enough to me.
Its not that simple, that’s why you’re wrong. Russia isn’t having any problems selling it’s grain, and in fact they’re setting up additional trade routes into China to solidify their food insecurity there.
Given that Russia is obviously not going to stop the war, I’m not sure what constructive point you’re trying to make here. Russia is also very clearly not worried about being able to export its commodities given that their exports are growing while their economy is projected to grow by the IMF. All the trade that Russia was doing with the west has now been replaced by trade with other countries. Meanwhile, pretty much all of the world outside the west has a positive view of Russia according to the recent reports produced by the EU and the US:
