Is it World War 3? – USA Gov Policy

Is Russia’s Ukrainian war really an undeclared global conflagration? Food insecurity is a phrase often tossed around in past years. In the past it typically referred to the lack of nutrition available in the developing world. Although the kinetic aspects of the war are being played out on Ukrainian soil, its impact is being felt around the world. The war is coming to our shores, too, as the fractured critical food chain is part of the conflict’s global collateral damage. Prior to this decade most Americans were not accustomed empty store shelves. In the coming months it will emerge as a stark reality in much of the world. On May 18, 2022, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken said, “As with its decision to start this unjustified war, responsibility for the disruption of these supplies and the suffering that it’s causing around the world lies squarely and solely with the Russian Government.”

Ukraine, known as the “breadbasket of Europe,” is unable to plant its wheat crops since the Russian invasion in February. The country’s men are off defending their country and those who remain are unable to safely enter the Russian-mined wheat fields. As the top grain supplier to dozens of African and Middle Eastern countries, officials report that critical food supplies for over 400 million people are threatened by Russia’s war. As the world puts the spotlight on Putin, he is attempting to contort the situation by blaming international sanctions on Russia. The State Department points out that the Russian government is using disinformation to mislead the world about the cause of this crisis.

Food insecurity, already on the rise before the February invasion, is exacerbated by a number of factors. Russian mining of Ukrainian wheat fields is only one factor. Putin also is blocking the maritime transport of grain across the Black Sea. What little is grain harvested is pilfered by Russian forces from warehouses and sold overseas or transported back to Russia. The United States and its partners have “taken great care to avoid exacerbating food insecurity. US sanctions, for example, are specifically written to prevent food insecurity: they include carveouts for agricultural commodities and permit transactions for the export and re-export of food to and from Russia, even with a sanctioned individual or entity,” according to Blinken. So far this year the US has pledged over $3.6 billion in humanitarian food assistance to help alleviate starvation in the developing world. Over the next five years Washington is adding an additional $5 billion in aid to stop world hunger. Russia is costing the economies of the world an enormous financial burden, whether or not they have troops on the ground inside Ukraine.

While Russian heavy weapons bombard Ukraine, it state-funded media, according to the State Department, along with Kremlin-aligned proxy disinformation actors are attempting to deflect attention from the war and worsening food crisis by blaming the West. Putin is targeting the Middle East and Africa in an expansive disinformation campaign with false narratives from RT Arabic and RT en Francais, along with help from China’s state media.

The false claims are extensive and pervasive. The methodology is to flood the news with stories that appear to confirm Russian claims so that the targeted audience begins to believe the repeated messages. These are only a few of recent claims:

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called Russia’s blockade of Ukrainian grain “Western and Ukrainian disinformation.”
In his May 19 United Nations Security Council speech on conflict and food security, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vasiliy Nebenzya accused Europe of “hoarding” Ukrainian grain and engaging in “grain for weapons ” exchanges with Kyiv.
Russia’s embassy in Egypt blamed “illegal unilateral sanctions,” while Russia’s embassy in Zimbabwe claimed “Western interference ” in the Global South.
In his May 25 Africa Day speech, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov attempted to de-legitimize Ukraine and urged African ambassadors in Moscow to demand the removal of “illegal, anti-Russian” sanctions in order to strengthen food security.
OneWorld , a website with ties to Russia’s military intelligence, according to U.S. officials, echoed Lavrov’s claims, accusing President Zelenskyy of supporting a U.S.-led “global food cartel ” that will wield control over global food supply as a “new hybrid weapon ” against the Global South.
In his May 26 interview with RT Arabic, Foreign Minister Lavrov accused the West of neo-colonialism and of blackmailing African and Arab countries to join “anti-Russia” sanctions, in a bid to build solidarity against what Russia’s propaganda calls the “imperial West.”

Russia’s goal is to use its disinformation skilled to both hide Russia’s culpability and persuade leaders of at-risk countries to support an end to sanctions. The State Department said that “blaming others for the worsening crisis in the global food system are reprehensible.” According to the World Food Program, millions are at risk of a full-scale famine. Putin’s weaponization of food is bringing malnutrition to the most vulnerable populations around the world. His “special military operation” in Ukraine is not only a border war, it is a threat to the entire global community.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.