/ world today news/ Most leading Western media described Russia’s refusal to continue participating in the grain deal in unquestionably negative tones. Which can hardly be called a surprise, given the solid anti-Russian orientation that became mainstream for them long before February 24, 2022.
Assessments of the reasons, circumstances and consequences of Moscow’s withdrawal from the multilateral “Black Sea Initiative” are based on mostly familiar constructions – formulas for “Russia’s war in Ukraine” (Associated Press, Guardian, Washington Post) became the mantra of the accusations of “illegal annexation of Crimea” (The Washington Post) and accusations that Russia is trying to circumvent Western sanctions.
Naturally, without the memories of the Minsk agreements, which, as is already known, were used by the Western curators of the Kiev regime solely to prepare full-scale military actions against Russia. Of course, and without mentioning the decision of the International Court of Justice, which did not support Ukraine’s statement about the “occupation” of Crimea.
But Reuters, among others, drew attention to the fact that “Russia hits Ukraine grain port after pulling out of export deal.”
Commenting on the Russian position in general, the agency notes: “Russia says it may return to grain deal, but only if its demands to ease rules on its own food and fertilizer exports are met.”
Western countries call it an attempt to use leverage on food supplies to achieve an easing of financial sanctions, which already include exemptions allowing Russia to sell food.
And who are the judges?
In evaluating Russia’s withdrawal from the grain deal, the Western media focused mainly on the statements of apparently anti-Russian officials of Ukraine, the United States and Great Britain, as well as the heads of individual international institutions and “think tanks” dependent on the political mainstream of the collective West.
Again, as expected, they expressed neither gratitude to Russia for a full year of intensive grain exports from Ukrainian ports (supplies, as noted by Bloomberg and Politico, amounted to 33 million tons), nor regret for the fact that during the deal so and the actions prescribed in it in the interest of Russia were not observed.
The Guardian reported that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had spoken about resuming the deal with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who in turn, as noted by Reuters, also criticized Russia, saying that its decision “will harm all people in need” .
The British newspaper also quoted the White House as saying that the Russian position “deteriorating food security and harming millions”as well as British Foreign Minister James Cleverley, who accused Russia of allegedly “prevents the proper execution of the transaction for several months” , ” serves his own interests” and “ignores the needs of all people around the world, including those in the poorest countries who pay higher food prices as a result”.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Russia’s move “cynical” in his account on Twitter, noted Bloomberg and Washington Post. European Council President Charles Michel said millions had benefited from the deal and Russia’s decision would “endangered food security” and access to world grain and fertilizer supplies.
In turn, the Associated Press agency referred to the assessment of the American non-profit organization International Rescue Committee (International Rescue Committee), which called the deal a grain “a lifeline for 79 countries and 349 million people”.
And the director of the Africa Program at the International Crisis Group, Muriti Mutiga, was quoted by The Guardian as saying: “The impact of the failure of the African grain deal would be significant… the effect of the deal was to stabilize global supply and keep prices relatively stable.
Many countries on the continent are facing double-digit inflation, and in some, such as Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana, there have already been protests against rising food and fuel prices. If this deal cannot be reopened and prices rise further as a result, it will exacerbate the economic crisis facing many countries, which in turn could trigger further unrest.
Where did the grain go?
At the same time, the interlocutor of The Guardian admitted that during the execution of the deal “a significant portion of the grain has not reached the poorer countries, as the UN originally assumed . However, the publication did not develop the idea that Ukrainian grain ends up primarily not in the most needy countries, but simply in the prosperous countries of the West.
But Bloomberg noted that “closing this corridor will hurt key buyers like China, Spain and Egypt.” Note that we are not talking about the poorest countries in Africa like Kenya or Ghana, nor Yemen, nor Afghanistan.
In fact, judging by the visual information provided by the French France Presse, the poorest African countries are far from the biggest recipients of goods from the “grain deal”.
And judging by the reaction of China’s largest news agency Xinhua, China is not particularly worried about the risks to its food security. Although China’s foreign ministry expressed hope that the agreement would continue to be implemented entirely.
At the same time, it seems that the aforementioned American publication Politico is much more concerned about China’s problems in this regard, stating that “China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Black Sea grain deal”.
We remind you that the Russian side has repeatedly criticized the practical implementation of the grain deal. On July 4, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that there were no grounds for further extension of the deal, as it had become a purely commercial export of food from Ukraine for “the well guarded’ countries.
And on July 13, Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized the suspension of Russia’s participation in the deal due to non-fulfillment of Moscow’s conditions by its participants, assuring that Russia would return to the deal as soon as the promises it had received earlier, be fulfilled.
In turn, the UN Coordination Center admitted on July 15 that not a single ship with Russian fertilizers was sent within the framework of the agreements. At the same time, the poorest countries, as the organization points out, received under the deal only 10% of the corn and 40% of the wheat exported by Ukraine (90% of the corn and 60% of the wheat went to countries with a high and above average level income).
On July 17, the spokesman of the Russian president, Dmitry Peskov, announced that the country was suspending its participation in the grain deal.
Translation: ES
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel in Telegram:
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages. In this way, we will overcome the limitations, and people will be able to reach the alternative point of view on the events!?
#Western #media #praised #Russias #withdrawal #grain #deal
