The Black Sea Grain deal - now what?
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" - Einstein
"The decision on the Black Sea initiative is final, there are no more negotiations" - Russian mission to the UN
After the NATO Summit, Ukraine carried out the final "coup de grace" on the UN Grain Deal. Whether, this aspect, along with targeting of the bridge was discussed in Vilnus is a moot point at this stage, but the synergy and cooperation between the U.S. , NATO and Ukraine is well-known.
By blowing up a part of the Kerch Bridge, the Ukrainians made it clear that they had no longer a keen interest in prolonging the deal. The question: what happens now? The glove are off, what kind of deal did Ukraine get after talking to their European partners?
Since a considerable chunk of Ukrainian grain went to feed European livestock, no one with an ounce of rationality will want to fight Russia for the privilege of getting cheap grain. The reaction from EU and Western elites is predictable:
EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell said Russia's decision to not extend the Black Sea grain deal was unjustified and added that Moscow was using food as a weapon in the conflict with Ukraine (Reuters)
The whining is strong at the moment, but it is a cover story to hid their deceit and stack of lies. All they had to do to maintain the deal is allow Russia to export its fertilisers, with just the one bank, Rosselkhozbank, the Russian agricultural bank connected to the SWIFT, a Western financial system, but the duplicitous elites couldn't even bring themselves to allow this to happen. What does that say?
They didn't give Russia any leeway and now wonder why the Grain Deal failed. That's the public facade, behind the scenes, it seems to me that they wanted the whole thing to fail, because they know they fully control the narrative in western MSM outlets. In essence, the US and NATO combined have weaponised the financial systems to pursue their interests, because it is the "rules-based order", again and again, just like they do to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria.
The figures
The EU 'garden' got its large share of the grain, in fact a 13,636,108 metric tons of it, (38%) compared to the total shipments for Less Developed Countries (LDC): 1,896,077
EU: 13,636,108
LDC: 1,896,077
China: 7,963,950
The overall total of Ukrainian crops exported via the UN Grain Deal was: 32,9M metric tons. I'll let you, the reader, do the number crunching, but it is telling. Yet:
UN chief says millions will pay the price for the collapse of the grain deal - AFP
Reminder from the very same UN:
■ 47% of Ukraine's grain has gone to "high-income countries" including Spain and Italy. (A lot of the grain went for livestock feed).
■ 26% to "upper-middle income countries" such as Turkey and China
■ 27% to "low and lower-middle income countries" such as Egypt and Sudan
Right on cue: synchronised whinnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiinnnng, (ought to be a new sport category).
Whining and lies
Screenshot of Black Sea Grain Deal figure 1
Screenshot of Black Sea Grain Deal figure 2
Note: Noticeably, a couple of Western MSM outlets, (AP is a lead culprit, AlJazeera did the same trick) in obsfucating the figures, by citing the figures according to economic development category and not the World Bank income group, thus substantially twisting the narrative. In reality, the key figure that needs citing is that of the WFP exports or even the "low-income" category, when referring to a global food crisis affecting the world's poorest countries. I didn't find those figures in a number of Western MSM articles. To be fair, the Al Jazeera did reference the WFP shipment, it is after the 13th paragraph that the figures get mentioned and then later the issue of costly maritime insurance preventing ships from going to Ukraine.
More than half of that grain went to developing countries, including those getting relief from the World Food Programme (WFP), according to the Joint Coordination Centre in Istanbul. Paragraph two Al Jazeera
Last point on the figures. Compare: Developing countries (including Georgia, India, Iran Oman, UAE and China) V the WFP figure:
18,8M metric tons V 725K metric tons.
Still there was a complete inability on the part of the UN to actually want to help out with the global food insecurity crisis, by trying to be seen to want to increase the shipments for WFP recipients. Where there is a will, there is a way, unless you are the UN General Secretary apparently.
Yet, Russia has consistently stated this for months and gets totally ignored by the likes of the UN:
Kremlin Press Secretary: Russia ready to supply grain to poor countries free of charge.
The European angle
Several Eastern European countries unilaterally banned the domestic sales of Ukrainian grain imports and other agricultural products, due to anger and protests by their own agricultural sector, over the dumping of grain, adversarly affecting their own agricultural livelihoods. This then turned into a partial EU ban in May, initially prolonged in June, (Euronews article June).
The cost of production of Ukrainian agricultural products is much lower than in the EU, largely due to the lack of regulations. Only days ago, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland and Slovakia have again jointly requested the European Commission to extend the ban on the import of agricultural products from Ukraine in September.
The ending of the UN Grain Deal will likely to have a boomrang effect on the EU. Its value was purely commercial, with their own big business interests placed above everything else. The only time you'll hear about how low income countries are affected is in the media, in short-lived statements, because the reality is far different, as the EU garden doesn't really value the 'jungle'. The proof is in the total lack of actual policy moves to keep grain shipments continuing and this has been happening for months on end.
China
Almost quarter of the Ukrainian grain went to China. So you can see why China had an interest in the Grain Deal and just maybe had a hand in persuading Russia to extend it back in spring.
Even in the last dying days of the Grain Deal's exisitence, China's envoy to the UN expressed his hope that a package solution can be found to resume Black Sea grain deal by accommodating the concerns of all parties.
Then the attack on the Kerch Bridge knocked that out of contention. Conveniently timed?
Naval Blockade
Ah yes, the often cited blockade of Ukrainian ports by the Russian Navy, (search online and check out the results), while at the same time, mocking the very same Black Sea Fleet for having its ships alongside piers in Crimea and Novorossiysk, more often than not, (if you find this difficult to take in, just take a quick browse of the lengthy catalogue of open source satellite imagery of the ports on social media).
This is the first instance of a ruthless naval blockade, done by ships in their home ports or miles just off the Crimea coast. Amazing, to think that the Black Sea Fleet would put themselves in range of anti ship missiles, just to patrol the sea-lanes off Odessa, only to potentially meet the same fate as the 'Moskva' in April 2022. Another stunning work of fiction that millions worldwide believe in its entirety.
The blockade consists of a statement about war risk:
It will be insurance companies, not the Russian navy that will enforce the virtual blockade, like what happened at the start of the SMO in Spring 2022. An important reason for the development and set up of the UN Grain Deal. (Example of war cover, Reuters Jan 2023). Ship operators won't go if it is too costly to insure or where types of insurance cover are non-existant, this is the case, (article) for areas of the North West part of the Black Sea.
This significant 'administrative' aspect is hushed up and it gets reframed as Russia reimposing a naval blockade, while its major combat ships are mostly tied up in port. Another prime example of crafting and shaping a narrative in order to maintain certain illusions.
The so called blockade consists of the reinstatement of the ‘temporarily dangerous area’ regime in the north-western Black Sea by the Russian authorities. What is meant by "dangerous area" and how this is implemented isn't even mentioned in the West.
Then there is this which would dissuade any civilian or military mariner from venturing to up the Ukrainian coast. The risk isn't limited to the north of the Black Sea.
NAVAREA III - 0122/22
Published - 2022-03-22T00:00:00
BLACK SEA
1.- POSSIBLE DRIFTING MINES IN THE NORTHWEST, WEST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS OF THE BLACK SEA,
CAUTION IS ADVISED.
2.- CANCEL NAVAREA III 0121/22 AND THIS PARAGRAPH.
-------------------------------------------------
NATO navies
Turkey regulates military activity through the Bosporus via the Montreux Convention. Since February 2022, neither non-Black Sea NATO naval ships nor the Russian Navy have been able to transit the Bosporus.
Despite the talk and comments online that the Turkish Navy will be able to escort the grain carrying ships, Turkey simply cannot guarantee safe passage as it can not control the waters. Big mouths online brag about how the Turkish Navy can shoot at the Russian Navy, or the need to send in NATO, showcasing the typical Western crass ignorance, sheer arrogance and cringeworthy amounts of hubris, without comprending any aspect of the situation in a meaningful manner. Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey are Black Sea states and NATO members.
One scenario would be ships transiting through the territorial waters of Romania, but this depends on if the Ukrainian grain terminal and infrastructure remains functional. Certainly, road and rail transport will have to take up the slack, to deliver grain cargoes to border cities in Romania, where it can be transhipped onto ships (inland waterway and maritime). Ukraine has access to riverine ports on the northernmost branch of the Danube delta to ship out grain cargoes. This is what was happening prior to the agreement on the UN Grain Deal. It does however complicate logistics at a time when military needs take priority.
The Russian military have launched strikes against the Black Sea port infrastructure of Ukraine in Odessa, Nikolaev, Ochakov and Ilyichevsk. It needs noting that Russia considered that parts of the ports were used for the preparation and launch of maritime drones, including the ones that hit the Kerch Bridge.
Russia has “withdrawn” its guarantees for the safety of navigation in the north west part of the Black Sea and is also withdrawing from the Joint Coordination Center in Istanbul.
Update 19/07
Turkish officials are reported to have recently notified the Ukrainian Government that they will not provide naval escorts for commercial ships that are attempting to export grain from Ukrainian Black Sea ports due to the risks associated with potential escalation with Russia.
Odessa port
You could say that Odessa got pummelled by Russian military missiles and UAVs.
Now to the question: what next?