Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, asserts that Ukraine is prepared to resume grain exports amidst Russia’s naval blockade of the Black Sea. This bold move challenges Russia’s aggression and sends a clear message to the world: Ukraine doesn’t need Russia. In an exclusive interview with TIME, Kuleba elaborates on Ukraine’s determination to continue grain shipments despite the potential risks involved.
Amidst the standoff in the Black Sea, Kuleba’s declaration exposes Kyiv’s willingness to call Moscow’s bluff. Despite the threat of a Russian attack on civilian cargo ships, Ukraine remains undeterred. It is not merely a symbolic gesture; Ukraine is prepared to take the risk to export grain, emphasizing the critical importance of global markets for Ukraine. With grain prices surging worldwide, the international community, including Turkey and the United Nations, also faces significant implications as they brokered the grain deal last year.
Following their withdrawal from the grain deal, the Kremlin issued warnings about the perceived risks faced by cargo ships leaving Ukrainian ports. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, stated that these risks should be considered if shipments were to resume without a formal agreement involving Russia. Furthermore, Russia’s defense ministry declared that any ships heading to Ukrainian ports would be treated as potential carriers of military cargo. This aggressive stance represents Russia’s determination to assert dominance in the ongoing conflict.
Kuleba acknowledges the potential dangers faced by commercial vessels carrying thousands of tons of grain amidst the escalating tensions. He questions whether world leaders are willing to accept the risks that Ukraine is ready to shoulder. However, he adds that Ukraine is committed to minimizing these risks by engaging in discussions with the international community and concerned stakeholders.
When Russia previously withdrew from the Black Sea grain deal, Ukraine, with support from Turkey and the U.N., continued shipments. This maneuver prompted Russia to back down and rejoin the agreement swiftly. However, Kuleba believes that the same brinkmanship may not yield the desired outcome this time. The Russian position appears less likely to change easily, raising concerns about the future of the grain deal.
Kuleba suggests that Russia has little incentive to return to the grain deal. By disrupting Ukrainian exports, Russia can contribute to a spike in global grain prices, particularly affecting regions, such as Africa and Asia, reliant on Ukrainian grain supplies. This benefits Russia, enabling them to sell their own grain at inflated prices while causing significant economic damage to Ukraine. Kuleba states that the termination of the grain deal allows Russia to kill two birds with one stone, furthering its economic interests.
In response to Russia’s missile attacks on Ukrainian port cities, Odessa and Mykolaiv, the Russian defense ministry claims that it is a retaliatory strike for an explosion that damaged Russia’s bridge to Crimea. Ukrainian officials consider the bridge a legitimate target since it is used to supply military forces engaged in the invasion of Ukraine. The situation escalates as both sides justify their actions.
Market Capital Research 