The sentence comes from Annalena Baerbock, she formulated it a few weeks ago, but it has not lost its validity so far: "Russia is not only waging its brutal war with tanks, rockets and bombs," she said in mid-May during a meeting of foreign ministers at the United Nations in New York. "Russia is waging this war with another terrible and quieter weapon: hunger and deprivation."
It was drastic words from the Federal Foreign Minister who accused Russia of a "grain war" set in motion by the blockade of Ukrainian ports, the destruction of grain silos, roads, railways and farmers' fields, with a "global food crisis" as a result.
Now, after weeks of negotiations that seemed hopeless for a long time, Russia is apparently giving up that weapon: Ukraine and Russia signed an agreement on grain exports this Friday. The agreement had been negotiated over several weeks, mediated by Turkey and the United Nations (read more here).
No further questions, except: Does the Kremlin really want to end the "grain war" - and if so, why now?
Phone call to Gerhard Mangott. The political scientist at the University of Innsbruck sees the emerging agreement as an encouraging sign, albeit with resilient skepticism. But one by one.
On Thursday, the European Union put together a package of sanctions for the seventh time, including a ban on the import of Russian gold. In this, the EU is taking a step towards Russia, at least in the dispute over blocked wheat deliveries: the export of grain and fertilizers from Russia will be made easier, and the maintenance of civil passenger aircraft will be made possible again.
"The EU has made concessions to Russia with its seventh package of sanctions," political scientist Mangott told Stern on Friday morning, who sees the "concessions" as a key factor behind the Kremlin's alleged rethinking. "The EU has made advance payments, which apparently prompts Russia to give in as well." Russia's President Vladimir Putin has again emphasized that such concessions are necessary in order to think about defusing the situation.
However, the Russian reputation was certainly a factor, according to Mangott. "It's not easy for the Kremlin to argue that the undersupply in Africa in particular has nothing to do with the Russian blockade." The Russian narrative that the food crisis is a consequence of Western sanctions or mined ports in Ukraine is catching on in some African countries. But not everywhere. "In this respect, Russia may also want to prevent a further loss of reputation," said the expert.
Between 20 and 25 million tons of grain are currently blocked in Ukraine. The Russian war of aggression and its aftermath drove up prices. In this regard, the agreement could provide some relaxation, although many questions are still open. The implementation of the agreement - and thus the export of food from Ukraine - could take weeks. In addition, Moscow could torpedo the agreements for pretended reasons or even allow them to fail completely, as is evidently already the case with gas supplies to Europe.
Political scientist Mangott also warns: It remains to be seen whether grain exports will run smoothly or whether there will be delays by Russia. "I don't think Russia is ready to implement exports one-to-one," he says. Russia will probably find objections "why this and that won't work" in order to keep the grain shortage as a means of leverage. According to the expert, one thing should not be forgotten: "Even if last year's harvest can be shipped, Russia is still sticking to its behavior of stealing grain from the occupied territories in Ukraine and deliberately burning cultivated areas." The result: "In the coming year there should still be quantity problems, even if free transport were guaranteed."
Not least against this background, the step cannot be understood as de-escalation. "That would go too far," said Mangott. "The agreement is a positive step in a war that knows no positive steps." It was not expected that there could be any kind of breakthrough at all. "In this respect, this is an encouraging sign - even if it says nothing about the duration of the war or the positions of the warring parties. That would be an overly optimistic interpretation of what happened."
