Breakdown of countries receiving grain exports by percentage received:
- 🇪🇸- 1.80 (or 19% of total weight)
- 🇹🇷– 1.29 (14%)
- 🇮🇹– 0.86 (9%)
- 🇨🇳- 0.84 (9%)
- 🇳🇱-0.55 (6%)
- 🇪🇬–0.42 (5%)
- 🇧🇩-0.27 (3%)
- 🇹🇩–0.25 (3%)
- 🇮🇱-0.24 (3%)
- 🇩🇪–0.22 (2%)
- Other countries - 2.59 (28%)
Countries with serious starvation rates,where more than 10% of the population suffers from malnutrition, got only 1.18 million tons (13%) of cereals, including 25% of wheat. In particular, 11 ships with 0.36 million tons of grain (4%) went to the poorest countries in Africa.
NATO countries and their allies - 6.15 million (66% of 9.3million). Poor countries/ countries with serious starvation rates - 1.18 (13%).
Sure, however this also clearly shows that the narrative that the grain deal was meant to help countries that are truly in need is false. Only a tiny percentage of these exports actually went to countries with serious food shortages.
The grain deal was meant to help all importing countries. Of course nearby countries that are primarily accessed by ship will be the first beneficiaries. The trade that was feeding the worst hit countries wasn’t built in a day, and this deal has only been in place for about two and a half months. On top of that, Russia’s war kept farmers from planting, destroyed plants, and destroyed grain that was ready to ship. There is simply less to ship. Fortunately even though it is not going directly to the worst impacted countries, shipments of Ukraine’s grain will help the global market by just getting more supply out there.
The grain deal is clearly helping rich develop countries while doing practically nothing for the poor countries. On top of that, the grain deal had two parts to it. First part was securing a corridor from Ukraine, and second was lifting sanctions that made shipping grain from Russia to poor countries difficult. This part of the deal was never implemented. Meanwhile, a large part of what kept farmers from planting was western sanctions on things like gas and fertilizer exports.
According to the UN, it has brought down grain prices. I can’t speak to the rest of the deal.
Could you cite the specific UN document here, not saying UN hasn’t said this, but details are kind of important here.
They have a few PR’s, including:
The thing that is out of place is that they seem to be pointing to a steady drop in food prices since the beginning of the invasion (March), as opposed to since the beginning of the Black Sea agreement. My first guess is that the prices are based on futures, so investors are responding to anticipation as opposed to immediately supply constraints.
It’s likely that the deal helped investor confidence, but as you note prices were stabilizing before the deal already.
I don’t remember the west complaining that Russia wasn’t allowing countries going to war against them to access grains. It was the starving African countries. Well what about them? You know damn well Europe isn’t going to feed them. They’ve been committing their own genocide in Afghanistan since the end of their war. Starving Africans is European policy as usual.
I’m sorry, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
You’re unwillingness to understand is your own fault.
You’re original comment is disingenuous. Europe is taking what it can for itself. They used the crisis in Africa to advantage themselves. They have no intention of alleviating the crisis. They’ll blame Russia for it while doing their best to maintain it.
If you don’t know what is happening in Afghanistan then that is your own willful ignorance. As it is European policy in Africa is to starve them. They have no intention of sharing the grain with them. There is nothing difficult to understand here.
I’m having trouble parsing what you’re trying to express, that’s all.
That’s not how commodities markets work at all, at least if there aren’t trade barriers. Europe is able to pay higher prices and is closer to Ukraine, so it gets more of the grain. Countries that are less able to pay get less of the commodities. There’s no single mind trying to steal the grain; it’s more of an organized chaos.
Advantage themselves how? A crisis in Africa means more immigration pressure on Europe, which causes inner political turmoil. They’re certainly not going to Russia.
Honestly, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Afghanistan has any number of messed up things happening in it from any number of sources. Please be more specific.
When Europe is involved nobody is to blame. The system runs itself. Acting as if people are responsible for the governments of people by people is made into a ridiculous notion. When Europe has no-one else to blame then Europe must be a victim of it’s own systems.
If your argument is as it is here, that the rich will take what they want while the poor die and the powerful will do as they will, then be consistent.
Let Europe always speak in those terms rather than using human suffering as a political pawn only to seek their own advantage.
Europe and America have been starving Afgahnistan ever since the end of the war. They stole their money and sanctioned them in a deliberate policy to starve Afgahnistan. It is nothing short of genocide. This is a globally acknowledged fact. The attempt to brush off an ongoing genocide is honestly beyond me.
But what can you do? The system runs itself. How could we possibly attribute human intentions to a government of people, by people. You should at least be consistent when you talk about the countries you dislike. Stop mentioning leaders by name as if their intentions have any impact on their governments. Be consistent.
Yeah. Which is why it’s so critical to be getting as much food onto the market, so that there everyone is taken care of.
This isn’t a matter of political advantage. Russia blockaded Ukraine’s grain shipments. Everyone could tell that combined with preexisting conditions it was a disaster in the making. Europe had to go out of their way to put this deal together.
There is so much wrong in this statement. The money at issue formed the reserves of the Afghan central bank. The US is reticent to release it because they’re afraid it will just go into Taliban pockets, not go to the Afghan people. It has actively been involved in talks as to how to release the money without it being funneled to the Taliban’s soldiers. The US has no interest in starving the people of Afghanistan. Flinging such false allegations of genocide around cheapens very real acts of genocide that are ongoing.
I mention individual leaders when I think their individual actions, motives, and opinions are relevant. Otherwise, I think it’s more informative to think of countries and governments as primarily composed of individual actors that should be analyzed in aggregate.
There’s nothing wrong with the statement beyond your unwillingness to accept reality.
Are you denying the food crisis in Afghaniatan? The US and Europe lost the war. Afghanistan is a sovereign nation. What right does the west have to starve the people or deny their government access to their funds?
The West is starving Afganistan but I guess it isn’t a genocide because they’re only doing it punitivively for Afghanistan having won the war.