international-relations

While the Grain War Continues in the Black Sea, Can the Danube be an Alternative Route?

The almost forgotten Danube has been expanding rapidly since the start of the war. Is the Danube safe? It is not entirely clear yet. Russia has threatened all ships sailing to Ukrainian terminals in the Black Sea, so ships sailing to the river may also be involved. Some ship owners are cautious and prefer not to send ships there at the moment.

Does Ukrainian Grain serve companies like Monsanto, Cargill and DuPont?

The Black Sea has historically transported the vast majority of Ukraine's grain exports abroad, helping the country become one of the world's largest suppliers. The closure of Ukrainian ports is expected to reduce that country's monthly export capacity from around 7 to 8 million tonnes to a maximum of 4 million tonnes. This also poses a number of logistical problems.

As of 18 July, the Kremlin has decided not to extend the Black Sea Grain Treaty signed last year, and is currently blocking the use of the Black Sea by grain-carrying ships to sell Ukrainian wheat around the world and deliver it to countries suffering from food shortages. In the meantime, the interlocutors of the issue continue to blame the other side for the lack of a solution by hiding behind ambiguous statements.

For example, according to Putin, 70 per cent of the wheat released under the grain treaty went to high-income countries. This was not the main purpose of this treaty. Russia now says that on its own initiative it will send 25,000-50,000 tonnes of grain directly to African countries with free delivery. Putin is promising to deliver this amount of grain to those in real need.

According to popular opinion, the Black Sea Grain Treaty is being portrayed as a humanitarian initiative that ultimately aims to meet the nutritional needs of poor people, but in reality it is all about big business interests. According to United Nations data, only 750,000 (2.3 per cent) of the 32.9 million grains coming from Ukraine make it to poor countries. Western companies such as Monsanto, Cargill and DuPont, which are the real owners of Ukrainian grain, advocate keeping the Black Sea route open for the continuation of grain trade.

As a matter of fact, the views of these companies find a place in the American media. According to the American media, Russia is blockading Ukrainian ports and destroying grain silos following its withdrawal from the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Retired US Admiral James Stavridis, a former NATO commander, said: "NATO should seriously consider escorting these grain shipments in and out. Under international law, this is entirely permissible. I think NATO's next step would be a wise step to make sure that that happens," he has said on television programmes. In a sense, US Admiral Stavridis is demanding that the US and NATO attack Russian ships in the Black Sea. In my opinion, he uses a sharp language that provokes the Russians, meaning that the US can monitor the grain ships in the Black Sea and open fire on the Russian navy in case of a threat.

Of course, what the American Admiral proposes would be a wrong policy for the alliance in principle. Because NATO is only obliged to defend ships carrying cargo under the flag of its member states. If grain convoys originating from Ukraine are to be protected in the Black Sea, US naval forces must first reach the Black Sea through the Turkish straits. But is the US administration ready to show such a will? There is nothing on the horizon. Nor should there be. Moreover, I do not find such absurd practices, which could potentially violate Montreoux and put Turkey in the position of a belligerent, to be correct. If Turkey and/or the NATO countries bordering the Black Sea were to join the NATO task force to protect cargo ships in the Black Sea, could this be seen as a justifiable justification for war that could be taken to a declaration of war by the Russians? If Turkey did not take part in such a task force, would its NATO alliance be questioned? What would happen if Turkey refused to allow the NATO task force to pass through the straits on Montreoux grounds? Finally, what would happen if Russian ships or aircraft used force, including harassing fire, against elements of the NATO task force? All this would have to be discussed at length in the NATO-Ukraine Council and only among the allies, and a decision would have to be made as to why and how the consequences would be borne. On the other hand, the fact that the formation of a task force is not even mentioned on NATO platforms is an indication that the Alliance wants to act prudently.

Alternative to the Black Sea: Danube, Railways and the Adriatic

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian side realises that they are not hopeful from Turkey and that Turkey will not step in for Ukrainian grain in the Black Sea. For this reason, they have started to talk about European ports and railway networks as alternative routes instead of the Black Sea.

Andriy Klymenko, a Crimea and Black Sea expert at the Black Sea Institute for Strategic Studies in Ukraine, said: "Turkey will intervene only when it sees that the Black Sea is turning into a Russian lake. It will escort merchant ships and somehow make its military presence felt in the Black Sea. Until the Turks do that, there is only one way for Ukrainian grain: The railway to European ports."

The EU, on the other hand, considers that a railway via the Danube or other European routes will not work in reality. Matti Maazikas, the EU Ambassador in Kiev, spoke about these issues and shared his assessment of why the "grain deal" will no longer return: "The Russians can afford it because they can attack the infrastructure of Ukraine's Black Sea ports with the help of their new Onyx missiles, which have not been widely used so far. Thus, they make it clear that neither Ukraine nor Turkey have any doubts that ships loaded with grain will be attacked. Now the Russians have made it clear that it is not worth the risk." He also recalled that Ukraine's main export is agricultural products, especially grain. The EU and Ukraine's neighbours have made great efforts to export grain by land. However, this is more expensive and the border infrastructure is not suitable for it. "In this context, the Russians have issued a warning targeting Ukraine's Danube ports, which will have a very significant impact on its economy," the EU Ambassador said.

The almost forgotten Danube has been expanding rapidly since the start of the war. Is the Danube safe? It is not yet entirely clear. Russia has threatened all ships sailing to Ukrainian terminals in the Black Sea, so ships travelling to the river could also be involved. Some ship owners are cautious and prefer not to send ships there at the moment. A possible attack on the Danube terminals could be a game changer. It is useful to watch this carefully. According to experts following the region, the probability of such an attack is quite low but cannot be ruled out.

Earlier this week, Russia pulled out of the Black Sea grain export agreement and announced that all ships sailing to Ukrainian ports would now be considered military vessels. With the start of harvest, this means that Ukrainian farmers can no longer rely on the route they used to transport about half of their crops last season. This increases pressure on global food markets and deals a serious blow to one of Ukraine's largest sources of income.

The threat of Russian aggression against Ukraine's Black Sea ports and ships will force the country to export its vast quantities of grain by river, road and rail, all of which are fraught with challenges. Ukraine is forcing itself to look for longer and more costly routes to global markets.

Ukrainian sources say it plans to increase its export capacity through alternative routes, but this may take time. The country's infrastructure minister estimates that the Danube alone can handle 23 million to 25 million tonnes of foodstuff exports this year, about half of the country's pre-war annual grain exports. USAID has also pledged to help increase capacity.

The most obvious route, the Danube, stands out above all. But the heatwave currently gripping southern Europe is lowering river levels and reducing export capacity, which could make grain shipments even more difficult. Road routes are also jeopardised by the fact that Eastern European countries continue to oppose the entry of crops from Ukraine on behalf of local farmers who argue that imports threaten their livelihoods. As the road option is problematic in this respect, Danube River ports are expected to be loaded. The volume of crops transported across the river has increased from around 1.4 million tonnes per month last year to 2 million tonnes currently. In May and June, these shipments surpassed even the Black Sea corridor, where inspections slowed the flow of ships. The Danube is close to becoming a serious alternative. This is an important relief for the pressure on the Black Sea.

On 19 July, Croatia, on the other hand, offered to replace the Black Sea corridor with the Adriatic railways and ports as an alternative route for exporting Ukrainian grain. This would require Serbia or Hungary, and shipments would initially have to go through Romania and Moldova.

What are NATO and Turkey doing?

For the time being, Zelensky has maintained a pro-Black Sea posture. On 26 July, on the eve of the NATO-Ukraine Council meeting, he made the following statement on this issue: "Today I held a preparatory meeting ahead of the first meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council, which will take place tomorrow. The consultations are specifically about our security in the Black Sea - our ports and our grain exports. Now is the time when it is important to reap the harvest of resolve, of security resolve, so that no one has to be the harvester of chaos in the future, neither in African countries nor on other continents."

NATO is stepping up its intelligence activities in the Black Sea region following the termination of the grain agreement. This decision was taken after the recent meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Council.

In any case, in the short term, after the Russian regime sabotaged the Black Sea grain agreement, the Danube ports remain the only working sea route for the export of Ukrainian grain. Blocking the operation of these ports means less grain exports and more hunger worldwide. The weaponisation of hunger is also seen as a violation of basic human rights.

It was highly likely that the Kremlin would stop the grain deal and show everyone that they should stay away from Odessa. The attack on Odessa was expected after Putin's angry interview, but last week Russia only carried out light warning attacks on the port. In fact, Odessa shipments are not seen as a game changer at the moment. Ukraine has the potential to continue grain shipments via other routes. It is as if these routes have been put aside and the Black Sea card is being played more violently.

There is talk that the potential escalation may come from Ukraine. There are those who believe that there may be open Ukrainian attacks on ships going to Russian ports. This may be Russian propaganda or a real analysis output. In any case, it seems possible that there may be some attempts to disrupt shipments. There is nothing preventing Ukraine from attacking many points affecting Russian shipments from Azov or Novorossiysk to the Crimean bridge. Russia also has much more grain to ship out than Ukraine. The disruption of this shipment could take the 'grain tension' between the parties to another level.

Turkey is aware of the expectations of both sides. Erdoğan may step in to ease tensions. For now, however, Moscow does not seem willing to return to the Black Sea Grain Treaty, especially without seeing steps to loosen Western sanctions. Russia has said it is willing to return to the agreement if its conditions are met. Russia, which has been demanding for months that one of its agricultural banks be reconnected to the SWIFT international payment system, has also made additional demands on logistics and insurance. Russian banks were cut off from SWIFT after the large-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Ankara seems to be aware of this fact and is considering the grain issue. Perhaps for this reason, Turkey does not give much space to statements pressurising Russia.