Bruised by the Crimea bridge bombing, Russia is attacking food supplies

Editorial: The last food shipments for the foreseeable future have left the Black Sea ports

The damage to the bridge along with the loss of Russian lives was plainly too much for Vladimir Putin to bear (Investigative Committee of Russia)

Humiliated once again by a Ukrainian attack on the Kerch Bridge, which links Russia proper to occupied Crimea, it was inevitable that the Kremlin would retaliate with the nearest weapon that came to hand – food.

Although the Black Sea grain export agreement was due to end imminently in any case, the damage to the bridge along with the loss of Russian lives was plainly too much for Vladimir Putin to bear. Whereas the previous assumption had been that Russia would play its usual games with vital food exports, but that in the end, international pressure, especially from Turkey – effectively the custodian of the Black Sea – would see the Kremlin relent, there is no chance of that now. The last food shipments for the foreseeable future have left the Black Sea ports.

The consequences are no less grim than the last time Russia enforced its blockade on shipping last November. It is a cynical, even cruel policy, but that has never constrained Mr Putin. The combined effect of the disruption caused to farming by the invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent interruption of normal sea traffic during 2022 left some 47 million people suffering from severe hunger as far away as the Middle East, northern Africa and Latin America.

Ukraine has long been one of the world’s great bread baskets, and the acute shortage of grains, cooking oils, and fertilisers in particular, led to great distress in poorer countries while fuelling record inflation in the rich world. Failing badly on the battlefield, President Putin tried to take advantage of the situation, weaponising food and blackmailing the world.

It was partially successful, when combined with the cessation of the supply of gas and oil, but it didn’t lead to any decisive strategic advantage in Mr Putin’s flailing “special military operation”. Nor should the same tactic be allowed to now.

One hopeful sign is that the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, sponsor of the Black Sea Grain Initiative and a studiously ambiguous figure during this conflict, it is still in talks with the Russians about food exports. Turkey finally lifted its veto on Sweden’s accession to Nato last week, and was rewarded with a supply of American F-16 fighter jets. Mr Erdogan, for the moment, seems more firmly rooted in the Western camp – despite everything, Turkey remains a full member of Nato – and his diplomacy carries more weight as a result.

Mr Putin’s move also risks alarming the few friends he has left in the world. African and Middle East nations inclined to neutrality in his conflict cannot back him while he starves their people; and, more forcefully, China cannot be expected to stand idly by while President Putin threatens to inject another damaging dose of inflation into the global economy.

In short, a world recession and spiralling food prices in China would not be welcomed by its president, Xi Jinping, and he will doubtless make his displeasure clear. Russia is not yet weak enough to be a puppet of Beijing; but militarily, diplomatically and financially, the balance of power between these uneasy friends has tipped decisively in Beijing’s favour. At this juncture, that is a good thing.

The chances are that sufficient international pressure, and a loss of revenue from Russian exports, will push President Putin towards compromise. Meanwhile, the West, with the widest possible coalition of support, needs to take immediate measures to prevent widespread starvation and further global economic damage.

First, the Russians need to be made aware that a Turkish or an international naval and air force will protect a humanitarian “corridor” through the Black Sea for bulk humanitarian food supplies. In support of that, Western governments will need to underwrite the insurance of such vessels.

The European Union has shown some ability to secure food supplies via the Danube, and across land by rail in Eastern Europe. While slower and more expensive than traditional sea routes, such channels have to be developed in order to strengthen Ukraine’s position, and to save lives.

Even so, there is no real alternative to getting President Putin to renew the established Black Sea Grain Initiative, which has already been extended many times. Mr Erdogan is key to that and, for once, his particular talent for realpolitik will come in very handy.