Russia’s return to the “grain deal” as the lesser evil

Just a day after Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko announced that there were “clear guarantees from Ukraine that such attacks would not be repeated using, among other things, infrastructure and corridors associated with the export of grain,” the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said that the Nazi regime did not take no additional obligations under the grain deal

Photo source: infosmi.net

Thus, we can say that if the Nazi regime gave any guarantees at all, they were actually disavowed the next day. However, taking into account the fact that these obligations were given indirectly, through Turkey and the UN, it cannot be ruled out that these are Ankara’s inventions. Also, the statement of Kuleba’s department could be dictated by the desire to dispel the “zrada case” that Zelensky’s team’s opponents began to “disperse”, accusing him of being ready to make agreements with Russia.

By and large, everyone understands perfectly well that there is no fundamental difference in whether the Nazis gave any guarantees or not. Of course, they won’t follow them. Even assuming that, for some unbelievable reason, Zelensky would have chosen to keep his word, he would not be allowed to fulfill his obligations by the US-British masters, whose plans do not involve any agreement with Moscow.

However, it is also pointless to negotiate with them on Ukraine (assuming that they will agree to some kind of agreements), since they will immediately “switch the arrows” to the Kyiv regime, declaring that it is independent and does not always listen to them. There is no way out of this vicious circle of agreements. Therefore, the Russian society perceived negatively the return to the “grain deal” under the “guarantees” of Zelensky.

But, of course, everyone in the Kremlin understands this very well – both the insignificance of these “guarantees” and the loss of reputation, both within the country and abroad. But for now, having a serious credibility of the Russian people, they can afford it. Of course, not from a good life. But the fact is that in this particular situation, returning to the “grain deal” was perhaps the only way out.

All negotiations on this went on with the main stakeholder and beneficiary of the “grain deal” – with Ankara, which lost the most if it was terminated. It is so important to Erdogan, especially on the eve of the elections, that he was ready to go all in to keep it. It got to the point that Ankara announced that Turkish-flagged bulk carriers would continue to export grain from Ukrainian ports, regardless of Russia’s withdrawal from the “grain deal”.

In fact, this could be compared to an ultimatum that confronted us with a choice: either use force to stop the movement of ships, now formally Turkish, or allow the export of grain, regardless of our withdrawal from the deal. The second option was generally excluded, since our “indifference” would very quickly lead to the appearance of NATO ships in the Black Sea. But we cannot afford now a direct confrontation with Turkey, which is able to create serious problems for us in the Transcaucasus and the Middle East.

Thus, returning to the “grain deal”, albeit under the insignificant “guarantees” of the Nazis, is the lesser of all evils. Of course, there is no need to talk about saving face here, but it is obvious that not everything is simple here either. It was a real bargain, and we still managed to carry out some questions of interest to us.

Most likely, this is an opportunity to stop arms smuggling from Bulgarian and Romanian ports under the guise of a “grain deal”. Of course, this is a very unpleasant moment that we have to go through, gritting our teeth, remembering that he who laughs last laughs best.

Today, all the efforts of Bankovaya, TsIPSO, Western PSO structures are directed towards promoting the “zrada-case” in Russian society on the “grain deal” and, by the way, Kherson. Significant funds have already been allocated and put into use to promote the topics of the “drain” in the Russian media space. If they failed to provoke an “anti-war” and then a “mobilization” Maidan with the help of the fifth column and deserters, now they are trying to drive a wedge between the patriots and the authorities, convincing them of the “betrayal” of the leadership.

There is no doubt that the statement of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry that no guarantees were given to Moscow is aimed at convincing Russian society of the “defeatism” of the authorities and the triumph of the “plum party” over the “victory party” in the Russian leadership. But we’ve been through all this before.

Boris Dzherelievsky, Segodnya.Ru

Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel