On July 17, Russia ended the agreement on the export of Ukrainian grain
and cereals, signed with the mediation of Turkey and began itsretaliation with the bombing of the port of Odessa in response to thedamage to the bridge connecting Crimea to the province by Kerson. ----Western countries that support Ukraine immediately protested thetermination of the agreement, arguing that this starves the variouscountries in the world that depend for their supplies on cerealproduction from Ukraine. Russia responded to this observation bypointing out that only a small part of Ukrainian exports reached thirdworld countries and that the countries belligerent with Russia above allbenefited from it, which, moreover, took good care not to make,according to Russia, operating the interruption of sanctions on Russianagricultural exports and the operation of Russian banks that deal withtransactions of agricultural products on the banking market.In reality, the question is even more complex since, in response to theSoviet naval blockade of Ukrainian ports, the Ukrainian state had soughtalternative ways to the export of wheat, sunflower seeds and maize,resorting to rail transport through neighboring states West and, throughthem, trying to gain ports for the export of these goods: grain andother products would have had to transit through Hungary, Poland,Czechia and Romania, but the agricultural producers of these countries,which constitute the privileged electorate of reference for thegovernments of these countries and are lined up on right-wing positionsprotested violently, since Ukrainian goods, circulating in the marketsof these countries, produced a significant drop in the prices of thesefoodstuffs, because the hauliers of these goods they did not disdain toplace them on the local markets they crossed. It should be added thatthe length of the transports, the difficulty of them due to the scarceavailability of trains and the difference in gauge between the Ukrainianand European railways, produced an unbearable increase in transportcosts, not to mention that to these costs it was necessary to add theroute that the goods would have had to take to reach the sales markets,starting from the Baltic ports rather than those of the Black Sea. Theonly relatively convenient transport remained that through Romania, madehowever difficult by the fact that it had to take place via barges whichtravel internal channels of the Danube and the river system of theDnieper Delta to then be embarked on ships in the port of Constanta,Romania. In this situation, the agreement with Russia had become theonly outlet for Ukrainian goods, so that they would not rot in the nowoverflowing silos and take the export route.On the other hand, the agreement for the export of grain was part of aseries of economic relations which have remained alive, despite the war,because, although the parties are engaged in a struggle which is sowingthousands of deaths and unspeakable ruins , is producing unbridgeablehorrors and hatreds among once sister populations, business comes firstand therefore, during the war, not only the grain trade but also the oiltrade through the pipelines crossing the Ukraine continued, with goodpeace of all or with the payment by the Russians of the right of way tothe Ukrainians and with the Ukrainians collecting the rights of way.Pecunia non oletFor this reason, in denouncing the agreement, Russia argued that it onlybenefited Ukraine from an economic point of view, temporarily solvingsome problems, but did not ensure a corresponding benefit to the Russianside. To address criticisms that the lack of exports of grain and otherproducts led to food crises in poor countries that depend on thesesupplies, Russia has offered to replace the Ukrainian ones with its ownproducts, being itself a producer of grain , sunflower seeds, corn andwhatever else was producedfrom ukraine. When this is happening it shows that the Westernsolidarity of European governments has a limit in their electoralinterests, proof of which is that they have no intention of antagonizingthe farmers of their respective countries who are part of the electoratethat those governments support in view of the next European elections.What happened with regard to agricultural production suggests anotherreflection: it insinuates a doubt relating also to the great solidarityshown by the conbelligerent countries of Ukraine in welcoming refugeesfrom it.Refugees who have been welcomed with openness and benevolence areconveniently assimilated through migration facilitation policies,certainly new for these countries that have always refused to welcomemigrants. The fact is that the Ukrainians are of white skin, they comefrom a society that has many cultural affinities and similarities withthose of the host countries, they generally belong to the Christian,Catholic or Orthodox religion, they are generally endowed with a goodprofessional preparation and therefore can more easily, easily andconveniently be integrated into the labor market of the host countries,which suffer from a strong demographic depression, and need to integratetheir populations. Better to do it with a "compatible" migration ratherthan opening thedoors to that coming from North Africa or the rest of the world.A typical case of self-interested solidarity.Enrico Paganinihttp://www.ucadi.org/2023/07/28/grano-ucraino-e-solidarieta-occidentale/_________________________________________A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C EBy, For, and About AnarchistsSend news reports to A-infos-en mailing listA-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten