Calling Putin’s Black Sea Bluff

Why did Russia’s president back down on his threat to resume blockading Ukrainian grain exports? A Dispatch Explainer.

By
24
Commercial vessels anchored off Istanbul's southern coast on November 2 (Photo by Charlotte Lawson)

ISTANBUL—Early Wednesday morning a ship with more than 63,000 tons of corn sailed through the Bosphorus Strait to make its way to China. The journey almost didn’t happen.

Last weekend Russia announced it would leave an agreement facilitating the passage of agricultural freight in the Black Sea, renewing fears of a global food shortage. Yet four days later, Russian officials said that the country would stick to the accord. Why didn’t this Russian gamble pay off?

What is the Black Sea Grain Initiative and how did it come about?

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
24
By
Comments (24)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    Nice explainer

    Collapse
  2. Babington

    Useful piece, confirming my sense that, embarrassingly, Russia backed down.

    Perhaps there are Russian naval commanders who would refuse to fire on commercial ships.

    Collapse
  3. Ann Knowles

    Putin keeps making mistakes and it makes him look weaker and weaker.

    Collapse
  4. Tom Doniphon

    The answer to "why" might be contained in the first sentence of the article: Xi might have told Putin he doesn't want him to interfere with grain exports.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    James Joyce

    all Putin has left now is the hope of finding some leverage that will cause the EU, meaning mainly France and Germany, to say we no longer have the stomach or political wherewithals to deal with this mess [which their own foolishness to large extent made possible] and with that breaking of the 'alliance' supporting Ukraine Zelensky will have no choice but to give Putin something he can sell as a 'win' to ignorant Russians - and he'll do just about anything to bring about that leverage, including walking right up to the very edge of nuclear war - causing a food crisis that he can blame on the evil and decadent 'West' is thus a pretty attractive threat to wield - problem is, China now owns Russia, it's now a vassal state of the Middle Kingdom, and China needs all those corrupt, autocratic, West hating regimes out there in its camp, boosting its credibility and endorsing its agenda, which the corrupt regimes will happily do so long as they get their 'reward' - so a food crisis that would really hit them hard doesn't fit with the 'model' China offers - and so as badly as Putin would love to starve a lot of people in order to help his chances, it'd be utterly self defeating if it pisses off China. Putin will have to settle for freezing Europe into submission, stoking the migrant crisis, committing war crimes and threatening with great credibility the use of nukes - because who really expects France and Germany to hold the line here? More likely they'll cave. If things go as badly this winter for Putin as I expect they might, his finger will be edging very close to the nuke button - and France has already signalled that's where they say we're done.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougCLE

      "who really expects France and Germany to hold the line here?"

      Me. There might be some slippage, if the heating fuel crisis gets really bad, but both countries have indicated that they recognize it's in their best interest to keep Russia contained. Even if they did bow out, the U.S. is still perfectly capable of continuing to supply Ukraine on its own. Assuming, of course, that the adults in the GOP are able to keep MAGA's useful idiots from capitulating to Putin so they can spend the money on investigating the 2020 election and Hunter's laptop instead.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rick Henderson

        Poland also would love to emerge from this as the de facto military and diplomatic leader of the EU. France and Germany have much to lose strategically if they quietly step aside.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          George.Skinner

          Both France and Germany are grappling with the problem that there's a significant minority in their countries who'd like to see relations with Russia return to the way they were prior to February 2022. Some are Russian sympathizers, but more simply have economic interests that have been harmed by the sanctions and ongoing war. The majority of public opinion remains strongly onside with support for Ukraine so the minority groups can't really prevail by their numbers. However, they're large enough that they can cause the governments to *lose* by pulling their support. It's analogous to the Freedom Caucus in the Republican Party, or the progressives in the Democrats.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Ted Gale

          I think that makes a lot of sense . . . looking at the map . . . Poland is not the only NATO member with strong reasons (in both history and geography) to be highly wary of Russia . . . the Baltics, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Bulgaria . . . add in the pending memberships of Sweden and Finland, and one could see a major shift in gravity not only in NATO, but in the EU as a whole if Germany and France waffled . . .

          Collapse
    2. Very Old Grumpy Guy

      Don't forget that the US political party that will control both houses of congress after the mid terms will cut off military aid - a disaster for the Ukraine.

      Collapse
      1. Tom Doniphon

        They will?

        Collapse
        1. Very Old Grumpy Guy

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-opposition-to-helping-ukraine-grows-wsj-poll-finds-11667467802?mod=djemCapitalJournalDaybreak

          Collapse
          1. Tom Doniphon

            Yeah, I don't buy it. Ephemeral polling of the electorate doesn't tell me much at all. Currently the GOP is still emphatic about supporting Ukraine.

            You seem to be a little over-invested in the idea of the GOP having a disease, and you find it a little too easy to be convinced they'll do the wrong thing. I'm not trying to pull an ad hominem here, but some people seem awfully quick to interpret any rumblings of skepticism at all about sending aid into an assumption of Republican opposition to Ukraine aid.

            Collapse
        2. Very Old Grumpy Guy

          If they are not, why are they even mentioning it?

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Donald E. L. Johnson, Florida

        I don't think Kevin McCarthy will cut off Ukraine. He and his majority will question Biden's spending on all things, including Ukraine.

        They won't shut down anything. Their voters won't stand for it.

        Collapse
        1. Very Old Grumpy Guy

          Can I hold you to this? My view of my former party is that it relies on a lot of nihilist voters. I do not think any behavior is out of bounds to retain these vote.

          Collapse
          1. Tom Doniphon

            Yes, I think this is a bit of Chicken Little-ism run amok. Once we make a break with a group we formerly considered ourselves part of, there's a mental incentive to see them in as bad a light as possible; that company we left due to an issue with a superior must be viewed as having generally awful management, our ex-girlfriends are all insane, our ex-boyfriends are all lazy philanderers, and our former political party hasn't taken a wrong turn, it's gone completely insane and will always be wrong in close to all ways and nearly all times.

            A few polls of fickle voter opinions are probably not all that telling. Most legislators depend upon swing voters as much as Presidential candidates do.

            Collapse
          2. Rossknode

            It's way easier to say you're going to do something then to actually do it.

            Collapse