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 }}
Podcast: UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, human rights, & the Security Council presidency
Listen: On August 1, the United States will take over the presidency of the United Nations security council.
The GZERO World Podcast heads to the Security Council chamber at the UN headquarters in New York City for a special conversation with US UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield.
The US has a few major agenda items they hope to tackle during the month of August, including global food security, human rights issues, and calling out Russia for its ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Thomas-Greenfield also hopes to use the session to address issues getting less attention in the media, like the Sudan war and security situation in Haiti.
But how effective can the Security Council be at dealing with the world’s most urgent crises when two US geopolitical adversaries, Russia and China, are permanent, veto-wielding members? Should Russia be removed from the council? And how difficult is it for the US to champion human rights around the world when the political environment at home is so divisive?
Ian Bremmer sits down with Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield in a wide ranging conversation about diplomacy, security, and the future of the United Nations.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published- 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 ›
- As Sudan war worsens, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield says UN must help ›
- UN official: Security Council Is “dysfunctional” - but UN is not ›
- Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, Sudan & the power of diplomacy - GZERO Media ›
- Russia undermines everything the UN stands for, says Linda Thomas-Greenfield - GZERO Media ›
- 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 flags of Ukraine and Russia surrounded by ears of grain and label with crossed-out inscription "Deal."
Hungry countries vs. Russia
Ukrainian and Western leaders aren’t the only ones criticizing Russia’s decision to suspend its participation in the Black Sea Grain Initiative, a deal brokered by the UN and Turkey that allows Ukraine to ship grain across the Black Sea to the rest of the world. On Tuesday, a senior official in Kenya’s foreign ministry tweeted that Russia’s decision to exit the Black Sea Grain Initiative is a “stab on the back” (sic) with rising global food prices, one that “disproportionately impacts countries in the Horn of Africa already impacted by drought."
That’s not a good sign for a Russian government that’s worked hard in recent months to persuade developing countries that the Kremlin cares more about their well-being than Americans and Europeans do. Russia has insisted that Ukraine’s grain has gone mainly to rich countries, but Ukraine has provided Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen with 625,000 tons of emergency food supplies over the past year as part of the Black Sea agreement, according to the UN.
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said Russia’s Vladimir Putin wants to return to the deal, as Russia did after a brief suspension last November. More criticism from poorer countries might speed up that reversal.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.
A vendor arranges onions for sale at a market in Lagos, Nigeria.
Why food prices remain high
Thanks to the war in Ukraine and the pandemic before it, food inflation remains sky-high throughout much of the world. With the Black Sea grain deal set to expire on March 18, we take a look at global food security in 2023 with Eurasia Group expert Peter Ceretti.
Is the food security crisis over?
Unfortunately, not yet. International prices have moderated for staple grains — like wheat, and corn — since early- to mid-2022, but they’ve stabilized at a high level.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, food prices had already been disrupted by COVID-19. The war led to a blockade of Ukraine’s ports, higher energy and shipping costs, and Western sanctions and self-sanctioning targeting Russia, all of which caused prices for wheat, corn, and other grains to spike.
As the world learned, Ukraine and Russia are major exporters of wheat, maize, barley, and sunflower seeds and oils, and prior to the war, Ukraine used to ship most of its food exports through the Black Sea. Russia and Belarus are also major fertilizer exporters, especially to the MENA region and sub-Saharan Africa.
Over time, Ukrainian producers adjusted, shipping more of their crops westward over land and by river. Then, in July 2022, Russia and Ukraine reached a deal brokered by Turkey and the UN to reopen some of Ukraine’s ports for food shipments, helping to restore Black Sea shipments to Turkey, Europe, the Levant, and North Africa, among other destinations.
This helped to relieve concerns over shortages. Coupled with the Federal Reserve’s tightening cycle, and eventually a moderation in oil and gas prices, the improved outlook brought food prices down.
“Down” is a relative term though. Using the FAO’s Food Price Index as a benchmark, food prices are about 8% lower now than they were a year ago, but they’re also about 11% higher than they were in early 2021 and around 30% higher than in early 2020.
So availability is now less of a concern, but basic foodstuffs are still very expensive.
Why are food prices still so high?
Good old supply and demand are a part of the story. The USDA forecasts that global production will fall for rice and corn this year and that consumption will outstrip production for wheat, rice, and corn. There should be enough to go around in the aggregate, but this will mean that global stocks will fall compared to last year’s levels. A tight market keeps a floor on prices.
Inputs are another factor. Oil and gas prices are still relatively high, driving up prices for fuel used for farm equipment as well as for transportation and refrigeration. Natural gas is also used as a feedstock for nitrogenous fertilizers, and even though prices have come down in recent months, this year’s harvests could be affected by under-application in 2022.
Weather is a third consideration. We’ve had an exceptionally long “triple-dip” La Niña, which can lead to extreme weather events that are also becoming more frequent due to climate change. La Niña is expected to recede, but there’s a good chance that El Niño conditions will set in by late 2023, which could bring more disruptive weather.
What consumers pay for food does not correspond one-to-one to international price developments, either. Many food products are consumed in the country where they are produced. Most countries subsidize agriculture and enact some degree of protective trade policies. In wealthy countries, a large share of food spending goes to marketing and distribution, and only a small share of food prices — around 15% in the US — are determined by the actual cost of food. Finally, other factors like exchange rates and regional discrepancies in food costs can also distort the relationship between domestic and international food prices.
In practice, this means that the pass-through from changes in international prices to domestic food costs is partial and occurs with variable lags. There’s even some recent evidence to suggest that more of price rises on international markets is passed through to consumers than price falls. So even though international food prices are falling year on year, about 90% of countries are seeing consumer price inflation on food of 5% or more. In January, the median food inflation rate was about 14%.
What is the outlook for staple foods for the rest of 2023?
At present, the outlook is mixed. Barring any major, unexpected developments, I think prices are likely to continue to fall on a year-on-year basis through mid-2023, though there are some important uncertainties. Weather and the possible onset of El Niño later in the year is one factor.
Oil and gas prices are another consideration. My colleagues think that it’s likely oil and gas prices will rise again in the second half of 2023, as China’s economy gains steam, Europe recovers, and supply-side conditions remain tight — especially given Europe’s energy decoupling from Russia. This would help to drive food and fertilizer prices upward again.
What about the Black Sea Grain Initiative?
The continuation of the grain deal is a major wildcard. Our view is that the deal will be renewed. Russia has structural incentives not to let it lapse, as it nearly did last November. Among other things, Moscow is seeking to maintain ties with developing countries, which have been hit hardest by higher food costs and are disinterested both in the war and in Western sanctions. China, for instance, has purchased over 20% of the grains and oilseeds shipped through the grain deal and has sought to interject itself into diplomatic efforts to end the war. Turkey and Iran are also major beneficiaries of the deal.
On the other hand, killing the deal would bring the Kremlin closer to crippling the Ukrainian economy. About 11% of Ukrainian GDP came from agriculture prior to the war, and Putin aims to do long-term damage to Ukraine’s economic structure.
Are there any other factors to watch?
Rice is another watchpoint. Rice prices have been decoupled from other staple grains throughout the conflict, and they fell for much of last year. But international prices are now rising by around 17% year on year, and given the number of countries in Asia that depend on rice as a staple, this should be a point of concern. Most East, South, and Southeast Asian countries have support programs in place to shield the population from major rice price movements, and much of the rice that is consumed in the region is produced domestically. But a knee-jerk restriction on exports from a major rice exporting country, like India, has the potential to spike prices internationally.
India's G-20 agenda overshadowed by Ukraine war
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics from Delhi, India.
What was the outcome of the foreign ministers meeting of the G-20 countries here the other day?
Well, the Indians are trying to get the G-20 to focus on food security, energy security, to be the voice of the Global South in a complicated global situation. But of course, the meeting was dominated by the controversy over Russia's war with Ukraine. And while the Indonesian chairmanship last year managed to get the agreement on the text on that particular issue, this time the Russians, followed by the Chinese, are distinctly not. And the end result was there was no agreement. The Indians, anyhow, issued a communique noting that the Russians and the Chinese did not object and tried to focus the meeting as much as they could on issues that they considered important, rightly so, for the Global South in terms of the effect of the conflict.
Is the Brexit story over?
No, no, the Brexit story ain't over. But hopefully there is a solution to the issue of trade with Northern Ireland. And Prime Minister Sunak is saying that Northern Ireland has a unique position having access or could have access both to the British market, you know, rest of the United Kingdom and of course through the integrated European EU market. It doesn't really mention that that is something that the United Kingdom as a whole could have had had it not done the rather stupid move of Brexit some years ago.
picture of Planet Earth.
Ukraine’s war and the non-Western world
A new poll provides more evidence that Western and non-Western countries just don’t agree on how best to respond to the war in Ukraine.
Most Americans and Europeans say their governments should help Ukraine repel Russian invaders. Many say Russia’s threat extends beyond Ukraine. People and leaders in non-Western countries mainly want the war to end as quickly as possible, even if Ukraine must surrender some of its land to Russia to bring peace.
That’s not necessarily the message you might take from a recent vote on this subject in the UN General Assembly. On Feb. 24, the invasion’s one-year anniversary, 141 countries voted to condemn the invasion and to demand that Russia “immediately, completely and unconditionally” withdraw from Ukraine. Thirty-two countries abstained. Just six – Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Eritrea, Nicaragua, and Mali – voted with Russia against the motion.
But it’s one thing to denounce the invasion. It’s another to arm Ukraine and sanction Russia.
Among the 32 countries that abstained – a group led by China, India, South Africa, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and others – and even in states like Brazil and Turkey that voted with the majority, there is deep resistance to the Western approach to the war. The reasons vary by region and country, but their argument with the West can be grouped into three broad categories.
First, the US and Europe, they say, are prolonging this costly war at a time when world leaders must turn their attention and focus their nation’s resources on other urgent global threats.
As India’s President Narendra Modi said this week in his role as chair of this year’s G20 summit: “After years of progress, we are at risk today of moving back on the sustainable development goals. Many developing countries are struggling with unsustainable debts while trying to ensure food and energy security. They are also most affected by global warming caused by richer countries. This is why India's G20 presidency has tried to give a voice to the Global South.”
It’s noteworthy that Modi delivered these comments in English.
In other words, the longer the war in Ukraine continues, the longer world leaders will be distracted from other challenges and the fewer resources they’ll have left to meet them.
Second, what gives Europeans and Americans the right, some ask, to decide which wars are legitimate and who is guilty of imperialist behavior? The US says Russia launched an invasion under false pretenses, but memories of Americans hunting Iraq for weapons of mass destruction bolster charges of hypocrisy. Many Latin Americans remember that Cold War-era Western crusades against Russian Communism included support for brutal dictatorship in their countries. Many in Africa and the Middle East who live in states whose borders were drawn by Europeans reject European appeals to defend Ukraine against imperialism.
Third, many developing countries value the chance to buy Russian energy and food exports at bargain prices. Western refusal to buy Russian products has given many poorer states the chance to fuel their recovery in this way, and their governments are well aware that any bid to remove these products completely from markets would cut deeply into global supplies, driving world food and fuel prices to dangerous new highs. Many of these countries need post-COVID economic lifelines and continuing to do business with Russia, especially on newly favorable terms, can help.
Americans and Europeans can make counterarguments in all these areas, but leaders and poll respondents in non-Western countries continue to warn that Western governments can’t expect others to share the sacrifices they claim are needed to resolve Western problems.
Should Western governments worry? The US and Europe will continue to supply Ukraine and sanction Russia with or without help from others. But if Western leaders want to effectively isolate Russia, both economically and diplomatically, reluctance and resistance from non-Western countries will limit how much they can hope to accomplish and how quickly.From left to right, the presidents of Russia (Vladimir Putin), Iranian (Ebrahim Raisi), and Turkey (Recep Tayyip Erdogan) hold talks in Tehran.
What We're Watching: Tehran trilateral, EU food jitters, Sri Lankan presidential vote
Putin, Raisi & Erdogan in Tehran: friends with differences
Leaving the former Soviet region for the first time since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Tehran on Tuesday with his Iranian and Turkish counterparts. The conflict in Syria, where Russia and Iran are on the opposite side of Turkey, was the main item on the agenda, but little of substance was announced beyond a pledge to rid the country of terrorist groups and to meet again later this year. Importantly, Turkey’s recent threat to invade northern Syria to destroy Kurdish militant groups based there still hangs in the air — a point underscored by Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s call for Russia and Iran to be more “supportive” of Turkey’s security concerns. Still, both Moscow and Tehran have warned him against an invasion. Putin and Erdogan also failed to close the remaining gaps on a UN-backed plan to restart Ukraine’s seaborne grain exports. Lastly, while Putin and the Iranians traded shots at NATO and the West, there was no public mention of the current, fast-fading efforts to revive the long-stalled 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
EU fillets financial sanctions over food concerns
The European Union is planning on Wednesday to relax sanctions against several major Russian banks in a move to address high global food prices. Although there are no Western restrictions on Russian food or agricultural goods specifically, many global traders have avoided taking Russian cargo because the Russian banks that finance those exports are sanctioned. The news comes as Ukraine and Russia are nearing a UN-brokered deal to reopen Ukraine’s Black Sea shipping lanes for grain exports. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, the two countries were leading exporters of grain and cooking oils, and Russia was a top fertilizer exporter. The war and sanctions interrupted much of those shipments, driving up global food prices and jeopardizing the livelihoods and food security of hundreds of millions of people globally. Although global food prices have eased since hitting historic highs in May, they are still 23% higher than they were a year ago, according to the UN. For complete coverage of the global food crisis, check out our Hunger Pains project.
Sri Lankan MPs pick unpopular president
Following last week's dramatic resignation of disgraced former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Sri Lankan's parliament on Wednesday endorsed his unpopular chosen successor amid mass social unrest sparked by a months-long economic collapse and political crisis. Ranil Wickremesinghe, the former prime minister appointed acting president after Rajapaksa's departure, was confirmed in the top job by a majority of MPs over the little-known opposition hopeful Dullas Alahapperuma. On the one hand, Wickremesinghe has the experience to lead the country through tough times and crucial negotiations for an IMF bailout after serving — checks notes — sixstints as PM. On the other, most protesters want him out because he's considered a Rajapaksa loyalist (they even torching his private residence at the height of the popular uprising). The opposition now says they’re willing to give Wickremesinghe a chance, but the political turmoil will likely continue.
This comes to you from the Signal newsletter team of GZERO Media, a subsidiary of Eurasia Group that offers balanced, nonpartisan reporting, and analysis of foreign affairs. Subscribe to Signal today.