Ukraine’s Black Sea grain export success tested by Red Sea crisis

Ukraine’s Black Sea grain export success tested by Red Sea crisis
Ukraine has managed to boost its Black Sea grain exports to a level not seen since before Russia's invasion, although the Red Sea shipping crisis poses a new challenge to its crucial agricultural trade. (Reuters/File)
Short Url
Updated 24 January 2024
Follow

Ukraine’s Black Sea grain export success tested by Red Sea crisis

Ukraine’s Black Sea grain export success tested by Red Sea crisis
  • The export turnaround helped Ukraine’s economy to steady last year and further tamed global food prices
  • Before Russia’s invasion, Ukraine exported about 6 million tons of food monthly via the Black Sea

PARIS/KYIV: Ukraine has managed to boost its Black Sea grain exports to a level not seen since before Russia’s invasion, although the Red Sea shipping crisis poses a new challenge to its crucial agricultural trade.
Kyiv’s success in replacing a UN-backed Black Sea export deal with its own shipping scheme has brought relief for Ukrainian farmers and importing countries while representing a naval breakthrough for Ukraine’s military as a land counteroffensive has stalled.
The export turnaround helped Ukraine’s economy to steady last year and further tamed global food prices after Russia’s invasion in February 2022 drove them to record highs.
Kyiv shipped around 4.8 million metric tons of foodstuffs in December, mostly grain, from its Black Sea ports, surpassing for the first time volumes achieved under the previous UN-sponsored corridor. Moscow quit that deal last July saying commitments to safeguard its own exports were not being respected.
Before Russia’s invasion, Ukraine exported about 6 million tons of food monthly via the Black Sea.
“The alternative Black Sea export corridor from Ukraine has definitely been a positive signal for the agricultural industry,” Svetlana Malysh, senior Black Sea agriculture analyst at LSEG, said, adding: “There are lot of concerns related to the situation in the Red Sea.”
Ukrainian grain exports by sea in January could drop by around 20 percent compared with last month, a senior Ukrainian official said last week, mostly because of the Red Sea crisis.
Strikes on shipping in the Red Sea by the Iran-aligned Houthis who control much of Yemen have stymied trade between Europe and Asia. The Houthis say they are acting in solidarity with Palestinians as Israel strikes Gaza. Their actions have prompted US and British air strikes against Houthi targets.
Passage through the Red Sea is very important for Ukraine as almost a third of its exports via the Black Sea corridor are sent to China.
Under its new export scheme, Ukraine is also supplying grain to Pakistan for the first time since Russia’s invasion, said Alexander Karavaytsev, senior economist at the International Grains Council.
Grain ships are increasingly being diverted away from the Suez Canal-Red Sea route, according to analysts and traders.
“The Red Sea situation is likely to hamper long-haul shipments from Ukraine,” Karavaytsev said.

BETTER THAN BEFORE
Ukrainian Black Sea food exports remain substantial. Over January 1-19, about 1.9 million tons were shipped via sea ports and another 1.7 million tons are still scheduled for January, said Spike Brokers, which tracks and publishes export statistics.
Ukrainian producers have welcomed the sea route as an improvement on both makeshift routes via the European Union and the UN-sponsored corridor, under which protracted cargo inspections with Russia drove up vessel charges.
“Since the invasion, now is the best time for farmers in terms of logistics,” said Dmitry Skornyakov, CEO of Ukrainian farm operator HarvEast.
Easing shipping costs have allowed depressed domestic prices in Ukraine to rise. Corn export prices have gained around $30 per ton since the start of the new corridor, while the cost of a medium-sized bulk vessel from Odesa to Spain has fallen by a similar amount, according to LSEG data.
Ukraine hopes to cement the role of its Black Sea corridor, which currently serves three ports in the Odesa region, by winning recognition from the UN’s International Maritime Organization, which could send a mission in February.
That could help ease worries about Russia’s military threat at sea.

EXPORT ROUTES
Ukrainian officials cite effective use of drones against Russian navy ships and the recapturing of an island near the Danube delta as allowing Kyiv to establish the route that hugs the Black Sea coast from Odesa down through Romanian and Bulgarian waters.
Kyiv now wants to re-open the port of Mykolaiv further east while maintaining transhipment via the Danube, Deputy Infrastructure Minister Yuriy Vaskov told Reuters.
Ukraine sees potential to raise total cargo shipments, including metallurgical products, from Black Sea and Danube ports to 8 million tons per month, against more than 7 million in December, he said.
Security for Ukrainian exports remains fragile as Russia intermittently strikes ports while the Black Sea is littered with mines.
If disruption to the Red Sea route to Asia persists, a fresh influx of cheaper Ukrainian grain in the EU may also deepen discontent among farmers in eastern member states such as Poland who have been staging protests.
But with Russia seen unlikely to actively target a food supply route serving countries that have not taken sides in the war, and with buyers lured by competitive Ukrainian prices, the sea corridor is expected to retain a sizeable role in global grain trade.
“In my view overall shipments by sea from Ukraine will continue to expand,” a European trader said, noting Ukrainian corn was sold to China last week despite Red Sea risks.


Trump’s election could assure a conservative Supreme Court majority for decades

Trump’s election could assure a conservative Supreme Court majority for decades
Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

Trump’s election could assure a conservative Supreme Court majority for decades

Trump’s election could assure a conservative Supreme Court majority for decades
  • The decisive outcome spares the court from having to wade into election disputes. It also seems likely to change the tenor of cases that come before the justices, including on abortion and immigration

WASHINGTON: Donald Trump has already appointed three Supreme Court justices. In his second term, he could well have a chance to name two more, creating a high court with a Trump-appointed majority that could serve for decades.
The decisive outcome spares the court from having to wade into election disputes. It also seems likely to change the tenor of cases that come before the justices, including on abortion and immigration.
The two eldest justices — Clarence Thomas, 76, and Samuel Alito, 74 — could consider stepping down knowing that Trump, a Republican, would nominate replacements who might be three decades younger and ensure conservative domination of the court through the middle of the century, or beyond.
Trump would have a long list of candidates to choose from among the more than 50 men and women he appointed to federal appeals courts, including some of Thomas’ and Alito’s former law clerks.
If both men were to retire, they probably would not do so at once to minimize disruption to the court. Justices David Souter and John Paul Stevens retired a year apart, in the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency.
Thomas has said on more than one occasion that he has no intention of retiring.
But Ed Whelan, a conservative lawyer who was once a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote on the National Review’s Bench Memos blog that Thomas will realize that the best way to burnish his legacy is to have a like-minded justice replace him and retire before the midterm congressional elections.
If Thomas stays on the court until near his 80th birthday, in June 2028, he will surpass William O. Douglas as the longest-serving justice. Douglas was on the court for more than 36 years.
There’s no guarantee Republicans will have their Senate majority then, and Thomas saw what happened when one of his colleagues didn’t retire when she might have, Whelan wrote. “But it would be foolish of him to risk repeating Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s mistake — hanging on only to die in office and be replaced by someone with a very different judicial philosophy,” Whelan wrote.
Ginsburg died in September 2020, less than two months before Joe Biden’s election as president. Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy and majority Republicans rammed her nomination through the Senate before the election.
Barrett, along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s other two high court appointees, joined Thomas and Alito to overturn Roe v. Wade and end the national right to abortion.
Along with Chief Justice John Roberts, the conservatives also have expanded gun rights, ended affirmative action in college admissions, reined in Biden administration efforts to deal with climate change and weakened federal regulators by overturning a 40-year-old decision that had long been a target of business and conservative interests.
The court’s landmark decision didn’t end its involvement with abortion: the justices also considered cases this year on emergency abortions in states with bans and access to medication abortion.
The new administration seems likely to drop Biden administration guidance saying doctors need to provide emergency abortions if necessary to protect a woman’s life or health, even in states where abortion is otherwise banned. That would end a case out of Idaho that the justices sent back to lower courts over the summer.
Access to the abortion medication mifepristone is also facing a renewed challenge in lower courts. That suit could have an uphill climb in lower courts after the Supreme Court preserved access to the drug earlier this year, but abortion opponents have floated other ways a conservative administration could restrict access to the medication. That includes enforcement of a 19th century “anti-vice” law called the Comstock Act that prohibits the mailing of drugs that could be used in abortion, though Trump himself hasn’t stated a clear position on mifepristone.
Immigration cases also are bubbling up through the courts over the Obama era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Trump tried to end DACA in his first term, but he was thwarted by the Supreme Court. Now, the conservative appeals court based in New Orleans is considering whether DACA is legal.
One of the first Trump-era fights to reach the Supreme Court concerned the ban on visitors from some Muslim-majority countries. The justices ended up approving the program, after two revisions.
He spoke during the campaign about bringing back the travel ban.


Trump has vowed to shake some of democracy’s pillars

Trump has vowed to shake some of democracy’s pillars
Updated 3 min 55 sec ago
Follow

Trump has vowed to shake some of democracy’s pillars

Trump has vowed to shake some of democracy’s pillars
WASHINGTON: American presidential elections are a moment when the nation holds up a mirror to look at itself. They are a reflection of values and dreams, of grievances and scores to be settled.
The results say much about a country’s character, future and core beliefs. On Tuesday, America looked into that mirror gave Donald Trump a far-reaching victory in the most contested states.
He won for many reasons. One of them was that a formidable number of Americans, from different angles, said the state of democracy was a prime concern.
The candidate they chose had campaigned through a lens of darkness, calling the country “garbage” and his opponent “stupid,” a “communist” and “the b-word.”
Even as Trump prevailed, most voters said they were very or somewhat concerned that electing Trump would bring the US closer to being an authoritarian country, according to the AP VoteCast survey. Still, 1 in 10 of those voters backed him anyway. Nearly 4 in 10 Trump voters said they wanted complete upheaval in how the country is run.
In Trump’s telling, the economy was in shambles, even when almost every measure said otherwise, and the border was an open sore leeching murderous migrants, when the actual number of crossings had dropped precipitously. All this came wrapped in his signature language of catastrophism.
Trump’s win demonstrated his keen ear for what stirs emotions, especially the sense of millions of voters of being left out — whether because someone else cheated or got special treatment or otherwise fell to the ravages of the enemy within.
So the centuries-old democracy delivered power to the presidential candidate who gave voters fair warning he might take core elements of that democracy apart.
After already having tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power after his 2020 loss, Trump mused that he would be justified if he decided to pursue “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
One rough measure of whether Trump means what he says is how many times he says it. His direct threat to try to end or suspend the Constitution was largely a one-off.
But the 2024 campaign was thick with his vows that, if realized, would upend democracy’s basic practices, protections and institutions as Americans have known them.
And now, he says after his win, “I will govern by a simple motto: promises made, promises kept.”
Through the campaign, to lusty cheers, Trump promised to use presidential power over the justice system to go after his personal political adversaries. He then raised the stakes further by threatening to enlist military force against such domestic foes — “the enemy from within.”
Doing so would shatter any semblance of Justice Department independence and turn soldiers against citizens in ways not seen in modern times.
He’s promised to track down and deport immigrants in massive numbers, raising the prospect of using military or military-style assets for that as well.
Spurred by his fury and denialism over his 2020 defeat, Trump’s supporters in some state governments have already engineered changes in voting procedures, an effort centered on the false notion that the last election was rigged against him.
Yet another pillar of the system is also in his sights — the non-political civil service and its political masters, whom Trump together calls the deep state.
He means the generals who didn’t always heed him last time, but this time shall.
He means the Justice Department people who refused to indulge his desperate effort to cook up votes he didn’t get in 2020. He means the bureaucrats who dragged their heels on parts of his first-term agenda and whom Trump now wants purged.
But if some or all of these tenets of modern democracy are to fall, it will be through the most democratic of means. Voters chose him — and by extension, this — not Democrat Kamala Harris, the vice president.
And by early measures, it was a clean election, just like 2020.
Eric Dezenhall, a scandal-management expert who has followed Trump’s business and political career, said it’s not always easy to suss out what Trump truly intends to do and what might be bluster. “There are certain things that he says because they cross his brain at a certain moment,” Dezenhall said. “I don’t put stock in that. I put stock in themes, and there is a theme of vengeance.”
The voters also gave Trump’s Republicans clear control of the Senate, and therefore majority say in whether to confirm the loyalists Trump will nominate for top jobs in government. Trump controls his party in ways he didn’t in his first term, when major figures in his administration repeatedly frustrated his most outlier ambitions.
“The fact that a once proud people chose, twice, to demean itself with a leader like Donald Trump will be one of history’s great cautionary tales,” said Cal Jillson, a constitutional and presidential scholar at Southern Methodist University whose new book, “Race, Ethnicity, and American Decline,” anticipated some of the existential issues of the election.
From the political left, any threats to democracy were not on the mind of independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont when he offered a blistering critique of the Democratic campaign.
“It should come as no surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working people would find that the working class has abandoned them,” he said in a statement. “Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing?”
He concluded: “Probably not.”
Guardrails remain. One is the Supreme Court, whose conservative majority loosened the leash on presidential behavior in its ruling expanding their immunity from prosecution. The court has not been fully tested on how far it will go to accommodate Trump’s actions and agenda. And which party will control the House is not yet known.
Among voters under 30, just under half went for Trump, an improvement from his 2020 performance, according to the AP VoteCast survey of more than 120,000 voters. Roughly one-third of those voters said they wanted total upheaval in how the country is run.
By Trump’s words, at least, that’s what they’ll get.

Kamala Harris concedes election to Trump but vows to fight on

Kamala Harris concedes election to Trump but vows to fight on
Updated 5 min 11 sec ago
Follow

Kamala Harris concedes election to Trump but vows to fight on

Kamala Harris concedes election to Trump but vows to fight on
  • “A fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results," she said, adding: "anyone who seeks the public trust must honor it"
  • She encouraged her supporters not to give up even in their disappointment and said: “Sometimes the fight takes a while. That doesn’t mean we won’t win.”

WASHINGTON: US Vice President Kamala Harris vowed to keep fighting for the ideals that powered her presidential campaign on Wednesday in a concession speech that acknowledged President-elect Donald Trump’s win while warning of potential dark times to come.
“While I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign,” she told supporters, many of them in tears, at her alma mater Howard University, a historically Black college in Washington.
Harris, her voice at times wavering, pledged to continue fighting for women’s rights and against gun violence and to “fight for the dignity that all people deserve.”
She said she had called Trump, congratulated him on his triumph in Tuesday’s presidential election and promised to engage in a peaceful transfer of power.
“The outcome of this election is not what we wanted, not what we fought for, not what we voted for, but hear me when I say — hear me when I say: The light of America’s promise will always burn bright,” she said.
The somber mood was in striking contrast to the homecoming celebration a few weeks ago on the Howard campus when thousands of students and alumni gathered ahead of what they hoped would be the election of the country’s first graduate of historically Black Colleges and Universities as president.
Harris addressed a crowd on Wednesday that included former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, aides in President Joe Biden’s White House and thousands of fans. Harris’ campaign anthem, Beyonce’s “Freedom,” played as she entered the stage.
Her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, joined the crowd.
“A fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results. That principle, as much as any other, distinguishes democracy from monarchy or tyranny, and anyone who seeks the public trust must honor it,” Harris said, in a nod at Trump’s efforts, before he won, to sow doubt about the legitimacy of the election.
Trump claims falsely that he won the 2020 election, which he lost to Biden.
Harris encouraged her supporters, especially young people, not to give up even in their disappointment and said: “Sometimes the fight takes a while. That doesn’t mean we won’t win.”
Harris rose to the top of the Democratic ticket in July after Biden stepped aside. She brought new-found enthusiasm and cash to the effort, but she struggled to overcome voters’ concerns about the economy and immigration.
“I know many people feel like we are entering a dark time, but for the benefit of us all, I hope that is not the case. But here’s the thing: America, if it is, let us fill the sky with the light of a brilliant, brilliant billion of stars ... the light of optimism, of faith, of truth and service,” she said.
Thousands had gathered at the school on Tuesday night for what they hoped would be a historic victory for the first woman to become president. They came back on Wednesday to show their support and rue her loss.
Jamela Joseph, 31, a doctoral student at Howard, said: “America had its opportunity to move forward in a progressive and intentional manner, and as a nation it has, you know, shown that it’s going to repeat itself and its history and its legacy of upholding white supremacy racism, in terms of treating women as second class citizens.”
Donna Bruce, 72, said she had come to show love and respect for what Harris had done. She noted she had just seen a little girl with a T-shirt that said: “A Black girl will save the world.”
“I still believe that,” Bruce said. “It may not be this Black girl, but I believe a Black girl will.”


Russia says forces capture two more settlements in eastern Ukraine

Russia says forces capture two more settlements in eastern Ukraine
Updated 7 min 42 sec ago
Follow

Russia says forces capture two more settlements in eastern Ukraine

Russia says forces capture two more settlements in eastern Ukraine
  • In September, Moscow’s forces advanced at their fastest rate since March 2022, according to open source data, despite Ukraine seizing a part of Russia’s southern Kursk region

MOSCOW: Russian forces have captured two more settlements in areas of heavy military activity in eastern Ukraine, Russia’s Defense Ministry said on Wednesday.
Ukraine’s military noted fighting around both villages in eastern sectors of the 1,000-km (600-mile) front line, but did not acknowledge that either had fallen into Russian hands.
The Russian ministry identified the villages as Maksymivka, just north of the hilltop town of Vuhledar, captured by Russian forces last months after long months of fighting, and Antonivka, near the embattled town of Kurakhove, further north.
The General Staff of Ukraine’s military said Kyiv’s forces had repelled two attacks near Maksymivka and a nearby village in the vicinity of Vuhledar in Donetsk region. Four clashes were still going on.
The general staff reported a “tense” situation around the city of Kurakhove, with 39 Russian attacks on Ukrainian positions. It listed Antonivka as one of several villages in the area where Moscow’s troops were trying to advance.
Reuters could not independently verify battlefield reports from either side.
A Ukrainian officer, in a radio interview, said Russian forces were advancing in parts of the Kurakhove area, making the situation particularly difficult.
“There is a danger of encirclement,” Nazar Voitenko, press officer of the 33rd separate brigade, told US-funded Radio Liberty.
“I cannot currently assess the issue of withdrawal, but the situation is indeed extremely challenging. Compared to the summer, it has changed quite rapidly.”
After failing in their initial attempt to move on Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, Russian forces have focused on capturing the eastern Donbas region, made up of Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
Russian forces hold about one-fifth of Ukrainian territory.
In September, Moscow’s forces advanced at their fastest rate since March 2022, according to open source data, despite Ukraine seizing a part of Russia’s southern Kursk region.


A-listers fail to win Harris votes as Trump lauds famous ‘bros’

A-listers fail to win Harris votes as Trump lauds famous ‘bros’
Updated 07 November 2024
Follow

A-listers fail to win Harris votes as Trump lauds famous ‘bros’

A-listers fail to win Harris votes as Trump lauds famous ‘bros’
  • Celebrity endorsements have long been part of the fabric of US elections, harking back to the days when Frank Sinatra wrangled the ‘Rat Pack’ to support John F. Kennedy in 1960
  • Donald Trump, backed by Elon Musk, also received a last-minute endorsement from Joe Rogan, the influential podcast host

LOS ANGELES, United States: A raft of celebrities from Taylor Swift and Beyonce to George Clooney and Harrison Ford proved unable to prevent Kamala Harris’s crushing defeat in the US election, underlining the limited impact of sweeping star endorsements on voters.
Instead it was Donald Trump and the Republicans — who received scant support from the entertainment industry at large, but tapped into a targeted subset of well-known, hypermasculine influencers — who won comfortably.
So, did the Democrats’ long-standing Hollywood and music industry connections, including last-minute rally appearances from Lady Gaga and Jennifer Lopez, make any difference at all in the end?
“Not in this election, clearly,” said New York University arts professor Laurence Maslon.
“At the end of the day, people probably realize that Beyonce and George Clooney don’t have to worry about the cost of gas or the cost of eggs — so maybe they’re sort of irrelevant,” he told AFP.
Celebrity endorsements have long been part of the fabric of US elections, harking back to the days when Frank Sinatra wrangled the “Rat Pack” to support John F. Kennedy in 1960.
Even this year, Hollywood-led fundraisers helped raise tens of millions of dollars for Harris’s record-breaking campaign war chest.
But their impact in actually influencing votes has always been a “mixed bag,” said Arizona State University associate professor Margaretha Bentley, who teaches a public policy course on Taylor Swift.
“It’s never going to be the golden ticket that everybody’s looking for,” she said.
Mark Harvey, author of “Celebrity Influence: Politics, Persuasion, and Issue-Based Advocacy,” agreed that we “shouldn’t be terribly surprised” by the lack of celebrity impact.
“There isn’t a real strong science behind this idea that celebrities can influence people to vote for candidates,” he said.

Famous supporters have only ever been effective when advocating on very specific issues on which they are widely regarded as expert, added Harvey.
As Donald Trump delivered his victory speech early Wednesday, the new president-elect was flanked by — and showered praise on — famous names from the world of sport.
UFC boss Dana White was lovingly hailed as “tough” and “a piece of work,” while golfer Bryson DeChambeau was celebrated as “fantastic” and even having a “slightly longer” drive than the golf-loving Trump.
Loud cheers — and a significant portion of Trump’s address — were devoted to his best-known supporter of all, tech billionaire Elon Musk.
Trump also received a last-minute endorsement from Joe Rogan, the influential host of one of the world’s top podcasts.
The Republican may have benefited from these associations because, in an election “largely driven by cultural issues, one of the most potent cultural issues was masculinity,” said Harvey.
“This sort of ‘be a real man,’ the Trump ‘macho’ sort of thing... it’s the kind of thing that Joe Rogan plays all the time.”

For the Democrats, this latest scarring experience will require a “deep self-analysis... of what they did and didn’t do, and what might have been successful,” including with celebrity endorsements, said Bentley.
Ashley Spillane, author of the report “Celebrities Strengthening Our Culture of Democracy,” agreed there was “debate” about the “value and impact of celebrity endorsements of candidates.”
But there is still “robust evidence that celebrities do have a real impact in promoting overall, nonpartisan civic engagement,” she wrote via email, pointing to Swift’s endorsement of Harris, which was credited with driving 400,000 people to a voter registration site.
Even if their endorsements failed, Hollywood celebrities showed no indication Wednesday that they would remain silent.
Waking up to the news of Trump’s victory, several well-known figures took to social media to vent their frustrations.
Oscar winner Jamie Lee Curtis said Trump’s win would usher in “a sure return to a more restrictive, some fear draconian time.”
“Fascist with total power... That may have been the last free election,” wrote actor John Cusack. “Horror is coming.”
Pop singer Cardi B, who appeared at a Harris rally last Friday, simply wrote: “I hate yall bad.”