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.”
Ian Explains: Why is Russia trying to starve the world?
Why is Russia trying to starve the world?
Nearly a year-and-a-half into its invasion of Ukraine—after the massacre of civilians in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha, after the indiscriminate shelling of Europe’s largest nuclear plant in Zaporizhzhia, and after the torture of countless Ukrainian POWs—Moscow’s latest move may be its cruelest so far.
In July, Russia pulled out of a landmark wartime deal, brokered by Turkey and the United Nations, that had allowed for 33 million tons of food to flow from Ukraine to countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. And soon after announcing their withdrawal from the Black Sea Grain Initiative, Russian forces engaged in strikes against the port of Odessa, destroying substantial grain stocks while also inadvertently damaging the Chinese consulate there (oops).
So why is it in Moscow’s interest to spike global food prices? What does it have to gain from exacerbating hunger in the Global South? Many of the African nations likely to be hardest hit, like Ethiopia, have taken pains to remain neutral in the Ukraine war.
Maybe Putin is losing patience.
For more on the Russia Ukraine war, watch the upcoming episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television and at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld.
Russia undermines everything the UN stands for, says Linda Thomas-Greenfield
Should Russia be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council?
That’s the question Ian Bremmer asked US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield on GZERO World ahead of the United States taking over the Security Council presidency for the month of August.
The UN Security Council is tasked with maintaining peace and stability around the globe. But how realistic is that mandate when one of its permanent members started a war in the middle of Europe with an unprovoked attack on its neighbor?
“Russia is not living up to what is required of a permanent member,” Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield said in an interview from the floor of the council chamber, “What they are doing undermines everything the UN stands for.”
Despite the contentious relationship, Thomas-Greenfield is the most senior official in the United States with regular, direct contact with a high-level diplomat from the Russian Federation. Thomas-Greenfield uses the relationship to continue to raise the issue of Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, American citizens unlawfully detained in Russia. She also continues to call out Russia for pulling out of the Black Sea grain deal and jeopardizing the world’s food supply.
“The Russian action is evidence to the world that Russia does not care about humankind,” Thomas-Greenfield says, “Their withdrawing from the grain deal, and then attacking agricultural infrastructure in Ukraine sends a chilling message to the world.”
Watch the full interview: Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, Sudan & the power of diplomacy
Watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld and on US public television. Check local listings.
- UN official: Security Council Is “dysfunctional” - but UN is not ›
- Ian Explains: Why Russia has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council ›
- Hard Numbers: Russia to helm Security Council, Sonko seized, Stubborn EU inflation, Australia vs. climate change ›
- Russian UN veto cuts aid deliveries to northwest Syria ›
- Podcast: UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, human rights, & the Security Council presidency ›
- The state of multilateralism: Shaky, fragile & stretched to capacity - GZERO Media ›
Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, Sudan & the power of diplomacy
Can diplomacy solve the world’s most urgent crises?
GZERO World travels to UN headquarters in New York for a special conversation with US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield ahead of the United States taking over the presidency of the Security Council for the month of August.
The United States has a lot of priorities for the session, including food security, human rights, and Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. But with Russia a permanent, veto-wielding member of one of the world’s most powerful diplomatic bodies, how much can really get done?
“What Russia is doing undermines everything that the UN stands for,” Thomas-Greenfield told Bremmer in an interview with Ian Bremmer from the floor of the Security Council chamber. “They are undermining the work of this council by carrying out this unprovoked war on Ukraine.”
Thomas-Greenfield spoke with Bremmer about the contentious relationship with Russia, worries about the world’s food supply after the collapse of the Black Sea grain deal, and the urgency of addressing the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Sudan.
Can the countries of the world put aside their differences and competing interests to effectively deal with the most pressing international security challenges? And what else does the US hope to accomplish during its Council presidency in August?
Watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- As Sudan war worsens, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield says UN must help ›
- Russia kills Ukraine grain deal ›
- Russia's exit from Black Sea grain deal will drive up food prices ›
- Ian Explains: Why Russia has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council ›
- Podcast: UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, human rights, & the Security Council presidency ›
- Episode 8: Global food (in)security ›
- Is the global food crisis here to stay? ›
- Can the US be a global leader on human rights? - GZERO Media ›
Russia's exit from Black Sea grain deal will drive up food prices
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics.
What are the consequences of Russia exiting the Black Sea grain deal?
Severe, no question about that. It is obvious that Russia intends to completely stop all Ukraine grain exports over the Black Sea anyhow, as far as they can. It's not only exiting the agreement, it's also sustained attacks against the grain export terminals in Ukraine, and also those very close to the border with Romania. Upward pressure on global food prices, no question about that, that's going to be the consequences, and Russia is responsible.
How is the Ukrainian counteroffensive going?
Well, it's a hard slog. These areas have been extensively fortified and mined by the Russians, and we should also be aware of the fact that the Ukrainian army and the Russian army today is a different army. There's a lot of mobilized people, they have training for just some months. So I think it is going to take some time. So give it a month, or somewhat more than that, and we can make a more accurate assessment of how far they can achieve.
- Hungry countries vs. Russia ›
- Russia kills Ukraine grain deal ›
- Is Ukraine picking up the pace? ›
- Ukraine’s counteroffensive: Prospects for success, unity, and peace ›
- Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, Sudan & the power of diplomacy - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: Why is Russia trying to starve the world? - GZERO Media ›
The Graphic Truth: Where can Ukraine grain go now?
Ukraine is known as the “breadbasket of Europe” thanks to the massive amounts of grain it grows and exports. But Ukrainian farmers have struggled to ship their crops since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and that just got a lot harder with Russia pulling out of the Black Sea grain initiative last week. Before Russia backed out, around 49% of Ukraine’s grain was shipped via the ports in Odesa protected under the deal.
Peter Ceretti, head of Eurasia Group’s geostrategy division, says the situation could worsen “if farmers decide to plant or harvest less of their land due to limited export options.” He is also concerned that factors like the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, landmines, and Russia intensifying its attacks on Ukrainian agribusiness could further hurt exports.
Without its Black Sea ports, Ukrainian farmers have to ship their crops by rail or truck to neighboring EU countries, upping shipping costs. We look at how the war is encroaching on Ukraine’s biggest grain regions, how exports have declined since the war, and how much farther grain now must travel before it can be shipped to the rest of the world.
Russia's war: no end in sight
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hey everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a happy Monday to you. A Quick Take to kick off your week. Wanted to talk latest on the Russia War.
Seen both sides, significant new attacks. From the Ukrainians, a drone successfully hitting an office tower in Moscow. From Russia, a drone attacking a grain storage and infrastructure facility right on Ukraine's Romanian border. The Ukrainians wanting to show Russia that they can continue to hit deep inside the country, even right at the capital. The Russians wanting to show that they can and will cripple Ukrainian agricultural capabilities now that they have stepped out, the Russians have stepped out of the Black Sea grain deal. Both of these things showing that 500 plus days in the war is not over. It's continuing to cause grave damage to both populations and both also showing that there's very little substantial progress either towards victory of one side, defeat of the other or towards a ceasefire and a breakthrough in negotiations.
Given that state of play, and given that we just had a Vilnius summit, NATO summit that showed that the countries are together and they're providing strong levels of ongoing support for the Ukrainians, that's not going to fall apart anytime soon. But meanwhile, the Russians are defending themselves capably in the front lines against Ukrainian counter offensive, which is not going as well as certainly the Ukrainians or NATO had hoped a couple of months ago before it started. I wanted to look at policy because what US and NATO policy towards the Russia, Ukraine fight is and isn't is sometimes misstated.
NATO and the United States, first and foremost are trying to help defend Ukraine and help them get their land back, certainly the territory that has been taken since February 24th. They have done a pretty good job of that. Certainly the Ukrainians are far more capable in terms of their defenses going forward, and much of the territory that was initially taken by the Russians has now been regained by Ukraine. Certainly not all of it, and again, not very much over the last couple of months, but the Russians do not control most of the territory that they have illegally annexed over a few months ago. And of course, all of the territory they initially took in the north and towards Kyiv and the Northeast, that the Ukrainians have removed them from completely back to the original borders. Secondly, the US and NATO are trying to make sure that Russia doesn't want to do it again, that they understand that this was a mistake, whether or not they admit it as such and that such an attack going forward would be even more so.
In other words, they don't want the Russians to think that they can wait out and have a second bite of this apple. Now so far they seem pretty successful there as well. That's why you continue to have efforts to talk about long-term Ukrainian security guarantees, including eventually a pathway into NATO. But short of that, and before that, commitments that the G-7 will all continue to provide cyber defenses and equipment and training and intelligence for the Ukrainians, all of which is intended to bolster that policy. And then finally want lessons for other countries, notably China, to them, that if you were thinking of invading Taiwan, if you were thinking of attacking territory that really matters to the West, think again, there will be serious consequences. You'll be punished for that. It'll hurt you militarily, it'll hurt you economically. And I think that on that policy as well, there has been so far a fair amount of success.
Now, what the policy is not. It is not a policy to remove Putin from office. It is not a policy of regime change. It is also not a policy to destroy Russia. Russia is a federation. There are different autonomous republics and regions with different nationalities. This is not an intention to do to the Russians what happened to the Soviet Union in the late eighties, culminating in the collapse in 1991. Also very importantly and not discussed very often, it's not an effort to cut off global markets from Russia. I hear a lot, look at, and I put out those numbers myself. Look at how much oil the Indians are buying from Russia. Look at how much the Chinese are now buying from Russia. The American policy, the NATO policy is that India and China should buy that oil at a discount from the Russians. The alternative would be that the markets would be crippled.
The alternatives would be a massive spike in disruptions in supply chain, a major recession that Biden doesn't want and that frankly nobody in NATO wants. So even though you won't see NATO leaders saying, we're so happy the Indians are buying all of this oil, the reality is they are. It's cheaper. The Russians are getting less for it than they would in a properly functioning global market had they not invaded Ukraine. And then the Indians are actually doing more refined product, value add for them that is being exported to Europe so the Europeans can continue to have their economy run. Are the Europeans still essentially consuming a lot of Russian oil? Sure they are. Are the Europeans ending up getting a whole bunch of food from Russia? Yeah, and so is Africa, and so are other countries around the world.
And it's very annoying that the food and fertilizer deal has been unilaterally broken by the Russians, and now the Ukrainians will not be able to profit from their food and fertilizer industry, and it's going to hurt a lot of African nations in particular, but Russia will still be able to export a lot of that food. And again, given the importance of those commodities to global markets, that's not going to change anytime soon. The reason I mention this is because at some point the war will be over, at some point there will be a ceasefire, hopefully, as the Ukrainians can take as much of their land back as was stolen from them as possible, and hopefully with very strong and defined and ongoing support from the EU, from the United States, from the G-7, from NATO, that will allow Ukraine to reconstruct, allow them to join the EU, allow them eventually even to join NATO, and hopefully there will also be strong lessons that are maintained by the Russians, by the Chinese, by others around the world that the G7 is cohesive, will respond to breaking of the rule of law, at least in those cases where countries are strategically important to NATO and the G-7.
I'd like to say to all countries around the world, that would certainly be the proper international law response. It would also be the proper human response. I don't think that we are there, but nonetheless, the basic intentions of these policies are so far looking to be pretty strong. The question of course is what do you do beyond that? Because the consequences of Putin invading is that he has screwed up his own country. The consequences of Putin invading is that Prigozhin, who was this very loyal guy that was providing all sorts of paramilitary services for dictatorships across the Middle East and Africa, suddenly had to redeploy to Ukraine because the defense ministry and the regular forces did so badly, his forces got eaten up, and now he's become enemy number one for the Russians, and yet is still walking around in Belarus. That destabilizes Russia. It's not American policy, but it is a knock on consequence of the failure of the invasion and the consequences of the invasion.
What that means is that dealing with the Russians long term is something the Americans are going to have to think a lot more about. You can get the war in Ukraine eventually over and still have a massive problem with a nuclear-armed Putin whose country is much more destabilized, and yet the US has no interest in having a Russia massively destabilized. In that regard, America shares interest with almost everyone in the world, certainly the Chinese, the Indians, the entire Global South. Nobody wants nuclear war. Nobody wants a rogue state like Russia to become destabilized and more risk acceptant. That would undo so many of the proper lessons that hopefully are finally being learned by a lot of countries on the basis of the late, but nonetheless, strong response to the Russian invasion.
So something to spend more time thinking about, especially as we talk about, for example, Putin as a war criminal, which certainly is true, and on the other hand, he'll never be tried for it. And the ability to deal with a war criminal makes it a lot harder long term for Europe, for the United States to have a stable relationship with a post-Ukraine war Russia. How do you square that circle? And if you don't, what kind of a world are you living in? What kind of greater risks are you imputedly willing to tolerate? Something we're going to talk about a lot more.
Anyway, that's it for me on a Monday. Hope everyone's doing well and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Where is China's foreign minister?
What are the consequences from Russia's exit from the Black Sea grain deal? Where is Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang? "Oppenheimer" is out. Will you be watching? Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
What are the consequences from Russia's exit from the Black Sea grain deal?
Well, a lot of antagonism from the Global South because prices are now going up. That's why the Russians hadn't wanted to leave. Look, I mean, there is an ammonia pipeline that was sabotaged that the Russians wanted to use traversing Ukraine, that hasn't gotten fixed. They also wanna be able to get back into SWIFT for the agricultural banks, and neither of those things happen. So they have pulled out of the deal. They are also now attacking Odessa, stepped up way, including grain capacity and blowing up a whole bunch of food. And this is, these are all war crimes. And now you've got a whole bunch of sub-Saharan countries in particular that are gonna be angry with Russia as a consequence, one of the places they've done comparatively well since the beginning of the war.
Where is Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang?
I have no idea, and especially because, I mean, I know him pretty well. When he was ambassador to Washington, I used to see him all the time and he is very close to the Chinese president. So the fact that it's been about four weeks now and he has not been heard from, initially, the Chinese government said it was a medical issue. They stopped saying that after the first couple of times. And the only thing we've heard is some scandals about, you know, maybe a relationship with some journalist. I have no idea, but clearly given who he is and his backing, it's going to be a fairly big deal. And some long knives from opponents have to be seriously out for him to be away as long as he has. Hopefully we'll hear about that soon because you need an effective foreign minister.
"Oppenheimer" is out. Will you be watching?
Well, I'm not watching "Barbie." I wasn't sure if I was going to, but then I saw my buddy Fred Kaplan, who wrote "Wizards of Armageddon" and is like probably one of the preeminent historians on the atomic bomb, he saw an early version of the film, all three hours of it, and said it was not only historically accurate, but also fantastic. And that makes me want to go see it, because let's face it, I mean, this is the guy, the father of the Manhattan Project, made the atomic bomb happen. He is a very, very controversial figure, and it's an issue we need to be talking a lot more about because we are facing much greater dangers from nuclear proliferation and from nuclear war today than at any point since 1962. So I'm glad it's coming out and hopefully it raises some awareness.
- Putin’s moment of truth has come ›
- The geopolitics of "Barbie" ›
- Hungry countries vs. Russia ›
- Russia kills Ukraine grain deal ›
- Hard Numbers: Britain seeks bricklayers, Pentagon loses secrets to a typo, Cameroon separatists attack, where has Qin Gang gone? ›
- Can China broker another Mideast rapprochement? ›
- China replaces foreign minister Qin Gang - GZERO Media ›
- Canada-India relations strained by murder allegation - GZERO Media ›