Food security in the world has been shaken by Russia's actions

[DrBeer]

Anything could be used as a weapon of war because all warring nations want to win by all means. Russia wants to pressurize the West to do its bidding because it seems that sanctions have started hitting the Russian economy hard. The economy that was portrayed as sanctioned poof is gradually losing its strength. The war is costing so much and it was not expected to last for this long. This halt in this grain deal will affect the world, especially poor nations.

But Russia also raised some valid points. The Kremlin claimed that the West is not keeping its part of the agreement. Russian agricultural products have been restricted from the international market, which is against the agreement. Another point is that one of the main reasons for this agreement is the negative effect the grain blockade had on poor nations. Russia agreed to lift the blockade because many poor nations might experience severe food shortages. But from different reports, it is only 4.5% of grains from Ukraine went to poorest nations. Most of them were diverted to influential nations.

Russia said it is willing to come back to the negotiation table. And as citizens of one of these developing nation I expect that this issue will be settled because the last time the gains supplies from Ukraine was halted, most of us couldn't afford bread. But the perfect solution to all these problems is a peaceful resolution of the war in Ukraine.

A bit of clarification.
Yes, bravado and populism are over in Russia. It turned out that in 2-3 weeks nothing has worked out, Russia is mired in a difficult war, the army is a fake, the economy is a colossus on "feet of clay"..... That is why the west is systematically and monotonously crushing and destroying russia's economy.
The fact is that after Russia loses the war, which is already obvious, there is no guarantee that Russia will be divided into several independent, adequate states. And if Russia manages to preserve its integrity (I hope it will not), it will restore its economy, military-industrial complex, and, having learned from experience, will repeat what it has been doing since 2014. And the world doesn't need that. Therefore, the degradation of the economy should be at such a level that attempts to restore the economy of Russia will take 20-30-50 years.... And this is an acceptable time to build an international system of containment of such inadequate regimes.

Regarding "violations of agreements". There are none. The way out was announced after the defeat of the military infrastructure object "Crimean Bridge", on the territory of Ukraine temporarily occupied by Russia. After which Russia made demands:
- to lift some sanctions that do not allow to receive Western technologies (Russia is technologically left country, like it or not, it is a fact)
- Connect Rosselkhozbank, owned and controlled by Patrushev's son, to SWIFT. This bank used to participate in international aid programs, and more precisely, under the guise of this, made operations on "laundering" and withdrawal of funds of the Kremlin's top brass.

So there are no violations of the agreements, read Russia's statements.

[Lida93]

With its piracy, Russia is blackmailing the whole world, trying to partially lift sanctions for its military invasion of Ukraine and jeopardizing food security in the world, thereby increasing the threat of hunger in many poor countries of the world.

The mains purpose for the black sea grain deal as brokered by Russia and Ukraine was to make sure supply of grains in good quantity is spread around the poor nations of the world by the Ukraine through the back sea but from what we are getting from analysis of 32.9 million metric tonnes exported from Ukraine since August more than half of it were going to the developed and advanced nations that are well to do with just about 2.5% to the poor nations an export diversion that's closely monitored by UN reps and Turkey yet no alarm was raised about this. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/7/17/russia-ukraine-black-sea-grain-deal-all-you-need-to-know
I think Russia must have observed that the West are benefitting much from the grain deal since the war by their provisions of war artilleries and aides to Ukraine and had no option but to protect it territory by cutting off the deal.

The actions, inactions and reactions of both nations at war in the past months is drastically affecting other nations of the world food supply that have no part in this war which should sound as a caveat to government of all nations both rich and poor to put up a state of emergency on agricultural infrastructural development seriously by investing more in agriculture to reduce their dependence on exportation of not just grains but other agricultural produce from Europe.

[Findingnemo]

Not just Ukraine and countries that are supposed to receive the cargos from Ukraine were affected but also Russia since US imposed sanctions against them so it's retaliate from Russia's perspective if all the countries are against them. Geo political conflicts are much more complex either it has to be shut down with power which is not likely the possibility with country like Russia and trying to bring in the Peace in some way.

I wonder what Nato is doing when all these things are happening because if I am not wrong the conflicts began when NATO countries insisted Ukraine to join them.

[Argoo]

Not just Ukraine and countries that are supposed to receive the cargos from Ukraine were affected but also Russia since US imposed sanctions against them so it's retaliate from Russia's perspective if all the countries are against them. Geo political conflicts are much more complex either it has to be shut down with power which is not likely the possibility with country like Russia and trying to bring in the Peace in some way.

It seems that you are very sorry for Russia, which suffered from international sanctions. Of course, one can also feel sorry for those 240 thousand Russian soldiers who were killed in Ukraine, as well as the state of the Russian Federation itself, which has already lost in Ukraine, according to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, 4133 tanks, 8080 armored vehicles, 315 aircraft, 310 helicopters, 4610 artillery systems, 692 MLRS, 440 air defense systems, 7145 various automotive military equipment, 3933 drones, 686 special equipment and so on.

In passing, it is probably worth pitying Russia for the fact that it launches very expensive missiles in Ukraine almost every day and at the same time it suffers great economic damage. So, only on July 19, Russia shelled the southern ports of Ukraine, destroying 60,000 tons of grain in the Ukrainian port of Chornomorsk, which was destined for China. At the same time, the cost of missiles fired at Ukraine on that day is estimated at about $120 million. Russia has spent so much to prevent Ukrainian grain from entering the world market. Already today, futures grain has risen in price on the world market by nine percent.

Shall we pity Russia, which suffers great human and economic losses due to the fact that it fails to conquer the neighboring state of Ukraine and cannot, as planned, destroy a significant part of Ukrainians and cannot forcibly deport another part of Ukrainians to remote parts of Russia in order to assimilate them?

For almost a year and a half, the Russian army has been attacking the territory of Ukraine, and any day it could stop this bloody war, which is now being waged on a front with a total duration of more than 1,200 kilometers, simply by withdrawing its troops and equipment from the territory of Ukraine.

[be.open]

Regarding "violations of agreements". There are none. The way out was announced after the defeat of the military infrastructure object "Crimean Bridge", on the territory of Ukraine temporarily occupied by Russia. After which Russia made demands:
- to lift some sanctions that do not allow to receive Western technologies (Russia is technologically left country, like it or not, it is a fact)
- Connect Rosselkhozbank, owned and controlled by Patrushev's son, to SWIFT. This bank used to participate in international aid programs, and more precisely, under the guise of this, made operations on "laundering" and withdrawal of funds of the Kremlin's top brass.

So there are no violations of the agreements, read Russia's statements.

You are again lying or completely incompetent in the matter, and I do not know which of these is worse. Russia did not put forward any new conditions, it suspended its participation in the grain deal, because none of the original conditions on which it was concluded a year ago were fulfilled. If anyone threatens food security, it is the UN, which sabotaged the grain deal for a year, preventing Russia from exporting its grain to the foreign market and, perhaps even more dramatically for food security, preventing Russia from exporting fertilizers.

Putin said that Russia would not renew the grain deal a few days before the Ukrainian terrorist attack on the Crimean bridge, so one is not a consequence of the other. Perhaps one of the triggers was the Ukrainian terrorist attack on the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline a couple of months ago, the correct operation of which was also one of the conditions for the grain deal. But the terrorist attack on the Crimean bridge was not a cause, but rather a consequence; at the time of the terrorist attack, Ukraine already knew that the grain deal would not be extended.

[coupable]

I wonder what Nato is doing when all these things are happening because if I am not wrong the conflicts began when NATO countries insisted Ukraine to join them.

Here it is necessary to specify exactly what is meant by NATO, because NATO is led by the United States, which can be considered benefiting from this situation, while the rest of the countries can be considered directly affected by it.
In all my positions, I always want to differentiate between the United States and the rest of the NATO countries, because the interests of the alliance differ from the interests of each country alone, and may conflict with them. It can be said that the United States is waging a proxy war through its NATO allies who are directly affected by the measures imposed by Russia in response to the sanctions. While the United States is blessed with a strong economy capable of facing various crises, it can be said that it is indirectly benefiting from it.

[Argoo]

I wonder what Nato is doing when all these things are happening because if I am not wrong the conflicts began when NATO countries insisted Ukraine to join them.

Yes, you are indeed wrong. The United States, like other NATO members, has never insisted and does not insist that Ukraine join this alliance. In Ukraine, this issue arose only after Russia militarily seized the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea and part of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in 2014. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine introduced into the Constitution of Ukraine a course for full membership of the country in the EU and NATO only in 2019. The United States and most NATO members still insist that Ukraine can become a NATO member only after there is no war on its territory and after the approval of this step by all NATO members.

If Ukraine had been accepted into NATO between 2019 and 2021, then most likely Russia would not have dared to start a large-scale war against Ukraine in February 2022. So the United States can be blamed for its inaction on the issue of Ukraine's admission to NATO.

[be.open]

I wonder what Nato is doing when all these things are happening because if I am not wrong the conflicts began when NATO countries insisted Ukraine to join them.

Yes, you are indeed wrong. The United States, like other NATO members, has never insisted and does not insist that Ukraine join this alliance. In Ukraine, this issue arose only after Russia militarily seized the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea and part of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in 2014. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine introduced into the Constitution of Ukraine a course for full membership of the country in the EU and NATO only in 2019. The United States and most NATO members still insist that Ukraine can become a NATO member only after there is no war on its territory and after the approval of this step by all NATO members.

If Ukraine had been accepted into NATO between 2019 and 2021, then most likely Russia would not have dared to start a large-scale war against Ukraine in February 2022. So the United States can be blamed for its inaction on the issue of Ukraine's admission to NATO.

You are lying or absolutely do not know the history of your country, and I do not know which of these is worse. Ukraine aspired to NATO almost from the very beginning of its independence after the collapse of the USSR. Back in 1994, Ukraine signed a framework agreement with NATO as part of the Partnership for Peace initiative. In 1999, a NATO mission was opened in Kyiv and a Ukraine-NATO summit was held. In 2002, the "Individual Partnership Plan with NATO" was adopted. In 2003, Ukraine supported the US operation in Iraq and sent its peacekeeping contingent to Baghdad. 2004 April, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law on the free access of NATO forces to the territory of Ukraine. June 2004, in the Military Doctrine of Ukraine, a provision appeared on Ukraine's policy of Euro-Atlantic integration, the ultimate goal of which was to join NATO.

Some cooling between Ukraine and NATO occurred only in 2010 with the coming to power of Yanukovych, and in the period 2010-2014 Ukraine made a partial turn towards Russia. Before and after that, Ukraine actively sought to join the EU and NATO.

[Findingnemo]

I wonder what Nato is doing when all these things are happening because if I am not wrong the conflicts began when NATO countries insisted Ukraine to join them.

Here it is necessary to specify exactly what is meant by NATO, because NATO is led by the United States, which can be considered benefiting from this situation, while the rest of the countries can be considered directly affected by it.
In all my positions, I always want to differentiate between the United States and the rest of the NATO countries, because the interests of the alliance differ from the interests of each country alone, and may conflict with them. It can be said that the United States is waging a proxy war through its NATO allies who are directly affected by the measures imposed by Russia in response to the sanctions. While the United States is blessed with a strong economy capable of facing various crises, it can be said that it is indirectly benefiting from it.

Neither of them is getting any benefits or at least financially but each country from NATO is providing the firepower, new tech drones and a lot of money to Ukraine it seems to me they took Ukraine as a testing field to test all their inventions related to Military aids so they can be sure of what their actual power in case if they have to use their for own in future which really can be avoided that will bring the ease to the Russia-Ukraine war and ends will minimum damage no matter whoever wins the poor lives can be saved.

[Argoo]

I wonder what Nato is doing when all these things are happening because if I am not wrong the conflicts began when NATO countries insisted Ukraine to join them.

Yes, you are indeed wrong. The United States, like other NATO members, has never insisted and does not insist that Ukraine join this alliance. In Ukraine, this issue arose only after Russia militarily seized the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea and part of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in 2014. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine introduced into the Constitution of Ukraine a course for full membership of the country in the EU and NATO only in 2019. The United States and most NATO members still insist that Ukraine can become a NATO member only after there is no war on its territory and after the approval of this step by all NATO members.

If Ukraine had been accepted into NATO between 2019 and 2021, then most likely Russia would not have dared to start a large-scale war against Ukraine in February 2022. So the United States can be blamed for its inaction on the issue of Ukraine's admission to NATO.

You are lying or absolutely do not know the history of your country, and I do not know which of these is worse. Ukraine aspired to NATO almost from the very beginning of its independence after the collapse of the USSR. Back in 1994, Ukraine signed a framework agreement with NATO as part of the Partnership for Peace initiative. In 1999, a NATO mission was opened in Kyiv and a Ukraine-NATO summit was held. In 2002, the "Individual Partnership Plan with NATO" was adopted. In 2003, Ukraine supported the US operation in Iraq and sent its peacekeeping contingent to Baghdad. 2004 April, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law on the free access of NATO forces to the territory of Ukraine. June 2004, in the Military Doctrine of Ukraine, a provision appeared on Ukraine's policy of Euro-Atlantic integration, the ultimate goal of which was to join NATO.

Some cooling between Ukraine and NATO occurred only in 2010 with the coming to power of Yanukovych, and in the period 2010-2014 Ukraine made a partial turn towards Russia. Before and after that, Ukraine actively sought to join the EU and NATO.

Here the issue was the action plan of the United States and other NATO members in relation to Ukraine's membership in this alliance, and not the actions of the Ukrainian leadership to strengthen cooperation with NATO. Yes, indeed, there were certain actions, but at the Bucharest NATO summit in April 2008, the Ukrainian side was refused because of the position of Germany and France. At the same time, the heads of state and government of NATO member countries stated in Bucharest that Georgia and Ukraine will become NATO members when they meet the requirements for membership in this organization. This formulation can even now be applied to all other states.

Until 2014, the majority of Ukrainians did not support joining NATO. The situation changed dramatically after Russia's aggression in the Crimea and Donbass - the majority of Ukrainians began to support joining NATO. Only after that Ukraine's accession to NATO acquired a real perspective. Thus, Russia, by its aggression, itself pushed Ukraine to join NATO, which will definitely happen after the end of the war with Russia.

[be.open]

I wonder what Nato is doing when all these things are happening because if I am not wrong the conflicts began when NATO countries insisted Ukraine to join them.

Yes, you are indeed wrong. The United States, like other NATO members, has never insisted and does not insist that Ukraine join this alliance. In Ukraine, this issue arose only after Russia militarily seized the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea and part of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in 2014. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine introduced into the Constitution of Ukraine a course for full membership of the country in the EU and NATO only in 2019. The United States and most NATO members still insist that Ukraine can become a NATO member only after there is no war on its territory and after the approval of this step by all NATO members.

If Ukraine had been accepted into NATO between 2019 and 2021, then most likely Russia would not have dared to start a large-scale war against Ukraine in February 2022. So the United States can be blamed for its inaction on the issue of Ukraine's admission to NATO.

You are lying or absolutely do not know the history of your country, and I do not know which of these is worse. Ukraine aspired to NATO almost from the very beginning of its independence after the collapse of the USSR. Back in 1994, Ukraine signed a framework agreement with NATO as part of the Partnership for Peace initiative. In 1999, a NATO mission was opened in Kyiv and a Ukraine-NATO summit was held. In 2002, the "Individual Partnership Plan with NATO" was adopted. In 2003, Ukraine supported the US operation in Iraq and sent its peacekeeping contingent to Baghdad. 2004 April, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law on the free access of NATO forces to the territory of Ukraine. June 2004, in the Military Doctrine of Ukraine, a provision appeared on Ukraine's policy of Euro-Atlantic integration, the ultimate goal of which was to join NATO.

Some cooling between Ukraine and NATO occurred only in 2010 with the coming to power of Yanukovych, and in the period 2010-2014 Ukraine made a partial turn towards Russia. Before and after that, Ukraine actively sought to join the EU and NATO.

Here the issue was the action plan of the United States and other NATO members in relation to Ukraine's membership in this alliance, and not the actions of the Ukrainian leadership to strengthen cooperation with NATO. Yes, indeed, there were certain actions, but at the Bucharest NATO summit in April 2008, the Ukrainian side was refused because of the position of Germany and France. At the same time, the heads of state and government of NATO member countries stated in Bucharest that Georgia and Ukraine will become NATO members when they meet the requirements for membership in this organization. This formulation can even now be applied to all other states.

Until 2014, the majority of Ukrainians did not support joining NATO. The situation changed dramatically after Russia's aggression in the Crimea and Donbass - the majority of Ukrainians began to support joining NATO. Only after that Ukraine's accession to NATO acquired a real perspective. Thus, Russia, by its aggression, itself pushed Ukraine to join NATO, which will definitely happen after the end of the war with Russia.

Lol dude. I'm talking about the fact that Ukraine throughout the history of its independent existence (with the exception of the period of Yanukovych's rule) has tried with all its might to join NATO. And on the part of NATO, just as there was no particular desire to accept Ukraine into its alliance, so now there is none - and nothing has fundamentally changed in this matter since at least 2008. At the recent summit in Vilnius, NATO canceled the Ukrainian Membership Action Plan, but this is not progress, but rather even regression. Because if earlier there was at least some kind of plan, now Ukraine does not even know what conditions it must meet in order to enter NATO.

I'll tell you what these conditions are - you need to end the conflict with a military victory over Russia. In other words, Ukraine will never join NATO because the probability of a military victory over a nuclear power is zero.

ps Statement by the Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN on the terms of the resumption of the grain deal.

[Argoo]

Lol dude. I'm talking about the fact that Ukraine throughout the history of its independent existence (with the exception of the period of Yanukovych's rule) has tried with all its might to join NATO. And on the part of NATO, just as there was no particular desire to accept Ukraine into its alliance, so now there is none - and nothing has fundamentally changed in this matter since at least 2008. At the recent summit in Vilnius, NATO canceled the Ukrainian Membership Action Plan, but this is not progress, but rather even regression. Because if earlier there was at least some kind of plan, now Ukraine does not even know what conditions it must meet in order to enter NATO.

I'll tell you what these conditions are - you need to end the conflict with a military victory over Russia. In other words, Ukraine will never join NATO because the probability of a military victory over a nuclear power is zero.

Can you tell how the current war between Russia and Ukraine will end, and approximately on what conditions?

[be.open]

Lol dude. I'm talking about the fact that Ukraine throughout the history of its independent existence (with the exception of the period of Yanukovych's rule) has tried with all its might to join NATO. And on the part of NATO, just as there was no particular desire to accept Ukraine into its alliance, so now there is none - and nothing has fundamentally changed in this matter since at least 2008. At the recent summit in Vilnius, NATO canceled the Ukrainian Membership Action Plan, but this is not progress, but rather even regression. Because if earlier there was at least some kind of plan, now Ukraine does not even know what conditions it must meet in order to enter NATO.

I'll tell you what these conditions are - you need to end the conflict with a military victory over Russia. In other words, Ukraine will never join NATO because the probability of a military victory over a nuclear power is zero.

Can you tell how the current war between Russia and Ukraine will end, and approximately on what conditions?

Well, I don't like it, but since you ask, so be it, I'll blow the dust off my crystal ball and tell you about the most likely scenario for the end of the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine. All wars end with peace negotiations, and this one will be no exception. Ukraine will have to accept peace on Russia's terms and document its neutral non-bloc status, as well as come to terms with territorial losses. The terms of the peace agreement for Ukraine will worsen over time, in the sense that in April last year the parties almost agreed and then the conditions for Ukraine were as mild as possible. If negotiations start right now, Ukraine will only lose four territories in addition to the long-lost Crimea. If the negotiations take place in a year, Ukraine will probably lose additionally at least Kharkiv, Nikolaev and Odessa, along with the adjacent territories. If the conflict continues for a couple more years, perhaps Ukraine will completely disappear from the political map of the world as a sovereign state. The sooner Ukraine gets rid of unrealizable illusions about the very possibility of defeating Russia, the easier will be its burden of disappointment from the new reality in which it will have to live after the end of the armed conflict.

[Argoo]

Can you tell how the current war between Russia and Ukraine will end, and approximately on what conditions?

Well, I don't like it, but since you ask, so be it, I'll blow the dust off my crystal ball and tell you about the most likely scenario for the end of the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine. All wars end with peace negotiations, and this one will be no exception. Ukraine will have to accept peace on Russia's terms and document its neutral non-bloc status, as well as come to terms with territorial losses. The terms of the peace agreement for Ukraine will worsen over time, in the sense that in April last year the parties almost agreed and then the conditions for Ukraine were as mild as possible. If negotiations start right now, Ukraine will only lose four territories in addition to the long-lost Crimea. If the negotiations take place in a year, Ukraine will probably lose additionally at least Kharkiv, Nikolaev and Odessa, along with the adjacent territories. If the conflict continues for a couple more years, perhaps Ukraine will completely disappear from the political map of the world as a sovereign state. The sooner Ukraine gets rid of unrealizable illusions about the very possibility of defeating Russia, the easier will be its burden of disappointment from the new reality in which it will have to live after the end of the armed conflict.

Well, in a year or two we will see how your forecast will come true. But I am sure that if the agreement between Ukraine and Russia had been in April last year, then it would have been the worst option for Ukraine. And it is unlikely that the Ukrainians themselves would agree with the territorial losses. In Ukraine, the guerrilla war against the invaders would continue and the Russians would simply be cut out at night and fired from captured weapons.

Of course, the degree of military, financial and material assistance of Ukraine's partners will largely influence the situation. If support continues for at least a couple more years and at least at such a clearly insufficient level (and European countries are now considering assistance to Ukraine in the war against Russia in the amount of $20 billion for the next four years), and there will also be similar assistance from the United States and NATO countries, then Russia can hardly count on winning this war. Unless they say in the Kremlin that they have practically destroyed the population, cities and other settlements of Donbass, and this will be considered a great victory over Ukraine.

[bitgolden]

Food security in the world has been shaken by Russia's actions

This ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia has had profound impact on human lives worldwide and its ripple effects are of global concerns. One of the significant consequence is logistic issue, resulting in food and gas shortage not only in war zone but all over the world as Ukraine and Russia are major suppliers of food items and petroleum products.The severity of this situation can potentially trigger severe economic meltdown globally that concerns all of us..

In the light of these grave circumstances, it is imperative for world community to take decisive actions and make vigorous efforts to facilitate a  peaceful resolution to this conflict.

Unfortunately that is true, there are a lot of people who are not entirely sure why their money is becoming worthless and why inflation is high when they are not the ones fighting, but if your nation had a lot of deals with either Russia or Ukraine then you are going to end up with a lot of trouble financially.

Some nations got better because of it, since nations who couldn't get what they want from those two, ended up getting it from another nation, which allowed some of these nations to grow, but aside from that we are talking about a lot of nations growing lower and lower. So in the end, if your nation is doing bad as well, that means you are not going to end up with a good result due to this war even if you are not involved in it.

[BIT-BENDER]

The affects of the war would be far more than the reason at which there was a war in the first place, Russia is not only an agricultural power house they are amongst the OPEC nation and I believe they have the highest petroleum resources in the whole of Europe, which is actually a big deal because the supply vast majority of European countries with it.

The war can only bring enemies, and with the even such as Russia backing out of the grain deal they can still cut off more ties with other countries leaving individual in serious chaos.

[coupable]

I wonder what Nato is doing when all these things are happening because if I am not wrong the conflicts began when NATO countries insisted Ukraine to join them.

Here it is necessary to specify exactly what is meant by NATO, because NATO is led by the United States, which can be considered benefiting from this situation, while the rest of the countries can be considered directly affected by it.
In all my positions, I always want to differentiate between the United States and the rest of the NATO countries, because the interests of the alliance differ from the interests of each country alone, and may conflict with them. It can be said that the United States is waging a proxy war through its NATO allies who are directly affected by the measures imposed by Russia in response to the sanctions. While the United States is blessed with a strong economy capable of facing various crises, it can be said that it is indirectly benefiting from it.

Neither of them is getting any benefits or at least financially but each country from NATO is providing the firepower, new tech drones and a lot of money to Ukraine it seems to me they took Ukraine as a testing field to test all their inventions related to Military aids so they can be sure of what their actual power in case if they have to use their for own in future which really can be avoided that will bring the ease to the Russia-Ukraine war and ends will minimum damage no matter whoever wins the poor lives can be saved.

The biggest beneficiary of this war is the United States, which seeks victory over both China and Russia, who belong to one front. The land is not on its lands, nor on its borders, and its economy is able to withstand.
The rest of the alliance countries, the war is taking place close to them, and they do not hesitate to provide support to Ukraine so that none of them will be on the list next to Russia, and here the threats to Poland have begun to appear on the surface.
In one of my previous comments, I said that in the end, Ukraine might become the least affected, even if it lost the war and Russia annexed it. Simply because all the sanctions imposed by the West on Russia have the opposite effect on him himself.

[serveria.com]

On July 17, 2023, Russia withdrew from the “grain agreement” and officially notified Turkey and Ukraine, as well as the UN secretariat, of its objection to the extension of the “grain deal” for the export of grain and other agricultural products from Ukrainian ports to the world market.

In connection with the termination of the Black Sea Initiative and the curtailment of the maritime humanitarian corridor, from 00:00 Moscow time on July 20, 2023, all ships en route to Ukrainian ports in the Black Sea will be considered as potential carriers of military cargo. Accordingly, the flag countries of such vessels will be considered involved in the Ukrainian conflict on the side of the Kyiv regime, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

Thus, Russia stated that it intends to sink any civilian ships that will be sent to the Black Sea ports of Ukraine. This will greatly complicate the delivery of agricultural products to many poor regions of the world. Due to Russia's sabotage of the "grain corridor" in recent months, the world has not received an additional 25 million tons of agricultural products from Ukraine. In total, 1,002 vessels left Ukrainian ports during the year of this agreement. According to the Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine, since the start of the “grain agreement”, more than 33 million tons of products of Ukrainian farmers have been exported to 45 countries of the world.

It is worth noting that after withdrawing from the grain deal, Russia has been attacking Ukrainian ports with missiles and drones for the third night in a row, trying to hit terminals with Ukrainian grain. So, on July 19, 60,000 tons of grain were destroyed in the terminal of the Ukrainian port of Chornomorsk, which was planned to be delivered to the world market two months ago.

With its piracy, Russia is blackmailing the whole world, trying to partially lift sanctions for its military invasion of Ukraine and jeopardizing food security in the world, thereby increasing the threat of hunger in many poor countries of the world.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://1prime.ru/state_regulation/20230719/841129477.html&ved=2ahUKEwjp-8fln5uAAxUCGhAIHUh2CGgQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2Y-4 amIIxS74jQpfr8rfTw

https://news.zerkalo.io/world/44156.html

https://m.gordonua.com/news/war/rossiya-zayavila-chto-budet-schitat-vse-suda-idushchie-v-ukrainskie-porty-perevozchikami-gruzov-voennogo-naznacheniya-1673774.html

You forgot to mention that:

1. Russia left the grain deal because of the Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian military ships safeguarding shipping routes.
2. Russia stated no attacks will be performed on the civilian vessels, they won't be sunk or shot at, but merely intercepted and taken to the port of Sevastopol.

Other than that your info is precise.  

[Argoo]

-----

You forgot to mention that:

1. Russia left the grain deal because of the Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian military ships safeguarding shipping routes.
2. Russia stated no attacks will be performed on the civilian vessels, they won't be sunk or shot at, but merely intercepted and taken to the port of Sevastopol.

Other than that your info is precise.  

In fact, the only and greatest danger to the "grain" corridor is precisely the Russian ships of the Black Sea Fleet. Until the time when Russia attacked Ukraine and began to block its seaports with its fleet, there was no danger to civilian shipping. Russia almost every day shells the entire territory of Ukraine with all its might of the Black Sea Fleet and at the same time wants its warships not to be subjected to retaliatory attacks from Ukraine? It is somehow naive and stupid to hope for it.

At first, the Russian Ministry of Defense stated that they would sink all ships heading towards Ukrainian ports, and only after some time, fearing that they could be accused of piracy, they made the clarification you mentioned above.

[yhiaali3]

There is only one way out - the destruction of the Rashist regime, as Nazism was destroyed in 1945 .... Otherwise, all this will continue and expand to the whole world

But this will lead to a third world war, and this war, if it occurs, will not be like the war to destroy Nazism in 1945, but rather it will be a nuclear war that could lead to the destruction of the entire planet.

Russia possesses perhaps the largest nuclear power in the world, and an attempt to destroy it through a world war may lead to the use of nuclear weapons, and this is what the whole world does not want.

Endangering global food security is a crime that cannot be tolerated, but the problem cannot be solved in this way, and world leaders are aware of the seriousness of such a step, so they must all work to find alternative solutions and spare the world the specter of a nuclear catastrophe.