A Ukrainian defence official stated that the country’s counteroffensive has regained over 200 sq. km. of territory. A report in the New York Times mentioned that Ukraine lost large quantities of equipment gifted by Nato and also suffered heavy manpower losses.

The report further assessed that Kiev’s chances of success are dim. Russia, aware that Ukraine would launch a counteroffensive, had spent months preparing for it. Truth has always been hard to come by in this conflict, though it is known that Ukrainian forces are weaker than Russia’s. Ukraine even attempted to take the war to Moscow. Kiev’s suicide drones hit Moscow’s financial district prompting Russia to respond in kind. Ukrainian sea drones attacked a naval base in Russia, damaging a warship in the Black Sea, hundreds of miles from Ukraine. Western support for Ukraine continues unabated, despite countries facing their own economic slowdown.

Advertisement

The US has even provided banned cluster ammunition, as it is unable to meet artillery ammunition demands of Ukraine. For the West, collapse of the Ukrainian offensive would signal the possible end of the war, forcing Kiev to the bargaining table, compelling it to accept Russian terms. A defeat of Ukraine would embolden Russia as also be a political challenge to ruling dispensations in the US and Europe. The public is unhappy at levels of finances being spent on Ukraine.

Basically, western taxpayers are funding Ukrainian forces. A warning restricting West’s support to Kiev was given by Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s security council, who stated, “(If the offensive) succeeded and ended up with part of our land being taken away…then we would have to use nuclear weapons.” While Nato is providing weapons and paying Ukrainian mercenaries, it will not risk a direct confrontation with Russia. The withdrawal of the Wagner group does not appear to have altered the scenario on the front in any way.

Russia has now amended its grand strategy. On 17 July, it pulled out of the grain deal and began targeting Ukraine’s grain terminals in Odessa on the pretext of Ukraine damaging the Kerch bridge linking Russia to Crimea. This opened a new front. Simultaneously, Russia’s Black Sea fleet warned that any ship sailing to Ukrainian ports would be considered hostile and targeted. On 19 July, Russian missiles destroyed 60,000 tonnes of agricultural produce destined for China.

A few days later it targeted four grain hangars. Ukraine’s grain production had already been significantly hampered by the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam. After ports on the Black Sea were targeted and blocked, Ukraine switched to employing ports on the Danube River. Last week Russia targeted the Izmail port on the Danube, a short distance from Romania. Almost 40,000 tonnes of grain destined for the African continent, China and Israel were damaged. With the Black Sea route blocked, Ukraine’s grain exports would anyway drop by 50 per cent and become costlier. The strike on the Izmail port spiked global food prices. Ukraine is now attempting to utilize ports of European nations but faces roadblocks from Poland, Hungary and others.

The EU has banned Ukrainian grain imports till 15 September on demand from its members. The West has started accusing Russia of weaponizing food. Secretary Blinken stated at the UNSC, ‘every member of the United Nations should tell Moscow enough, enough using the Black Sea as blackmail.’ Moscow is unwilling to return to the grain deal unless sanctions are relaxed and it is re-permitted to export grains and fertilizers. While Russia’s grain exports are not under direct sanctions, financial restrictions make payment for the same difficult. Simultaneously Russia needs to import agricultural machinery and spare parts. Reversing sanctions would be a loss of face for the West.

Russia is now attempting to force Ukraine out of the global food market thereby compelling the global south, mainly Africa, to apply pressure on Western nations to accede to Russian terms for restoration of the deal. This would also give Russia an enhanced foothold in Africa. Responding to a request to restore the grain deal at the Russia-Africa summit in St Petersburg, President Putin offered to provide 20-25,000 tons of free grains to six African nations. This was far less than the 725,000 tons provided by the World Food Program banking on Ukrainian exports last year.

Ukraine had, last year, shipped 625,000 tons of foodgrains as humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, payment for which was made by its Western allies. Putin also stated, ‘Russia is ready to substitute Ukrainian grain in Africa, especially amid record harvests.’ South African President Cyril Ramaphosa responded, ‘We would like the Black Sea initiative to be implemented and that the Black Sea should be open. We are not here to plead for donations for the African continent.’ This cut no ice with Putin. Russia’s influence in Africa appeared to be waning. Only 20 out of 54 nations attended the Russia-Africa summit as compared to 43 last year. Many skipped it on account of Russia withdrawing from the grain deal. Simultaneously, Russia’s Wagner group continues to expand its presence in Africa.

The group has its presence in Libya, Mali, Central African Republic, Sudan and the Congo. Moscow is unlikely to restrict Wagner’s expanding influence in Africa. Russia is also the largest arms supplier to the continent. Wagner head Yevgenny Prigrozhin, was present on the sidelines of the Russia-Africa summit. Latest reports indicate that Niger, post the coup, is in talks for deploying the Wagner group in the country as also to train Niger’s armed forces. Meanwhile talks for ending the Russo-Ukraine conflict appear to be stonewalled.

Speaking at the RussiaAfrica summit, Putin stated, in response to calls for a ceasefire and talks, ‘Why do you ask us to pause fire? We can’t pause fire while we’re being attacked.’ The Saudi peace conference, which recently concluded in Jeddah, did not include Russia and would probably be another attempt with no end result. Putin’s changed strategy could lead to global food shortages in large parts of the underdeveloped world. It is essential that an amicable solution be found early and the grain deal restored. For this, all involved need to soften their stands.

(The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.)