Ukraine War Watch Thread

[Ken_J]

it's unfortunate he feels that way, especially since it's exactly what the guy who's bombing the shit out of his country wants him to do. But really I gotta wonder what the heck his advisors thought would happen? Like one Nuclear Power is not going to establish a no fly zone over your country that they enforce with their own forces which would make the first fire taken in enforcing that no fly zone a declaration of war between nuclear powers.

That's not a problem with NATO, that's exactly what Putin is counting on. If they had already been a NATO member then Putin attacking would have been the declaration of war with NATO and that's a different ball game. But Right Now, Ukraine is at war with Russia, NATO isn't. Putin is not stupid enough to go to war with NATO, which is why he went to war with a non-NATO Ukraine and wants to make sure Ukraine never becomes a part of NATO.

Do his advisors really think they can give up NATO, and expect Russia not to keep coming back until Ukraine is a russian territory again? So long as Ukraine is not in an alliance that Putin knows better than to declare war on, it's just permission for Russia to always have the option.

[R8Z]

the US literally gets less than 10% of it's fossil fuel energy from russia. There is more than enough to meet that need available in the Americas, through tapping our own and opening trade options with other nations in the Americas. [...]

Do you know how free or pseudo-free markets work? When you choke a supplier, prices float and there are price increases, independently from local supply.

[weatheriscool]

Drill baby drill!!!
Build the pipe line!

Use the United states corp of engineers if need be. Just get it done!

[Certain Russian user]

I am as unbiased as it can be in this war and I can say I am loving the propaganda and its quick dismantle one or two days later. Both sides guilty so far. Finding russian propaganda is a little hard for me but if one tries to browse/search for different perspectives it's clear as day as well in other platforms. Russians are certainly consuming it on their local platforms as westerns are taking-in their daily-portions too!

I don’t much care about propaganda (almost see you chuckle here), much more I’m interested in cold military analytics and news from the field, so to speak. Those news are mostly from Telegram (perhaps the last relic of the past, the major social network where you still can write what you think instead of think what you write). The whole picture is clear enough. An example: among Ukrainian victorious and spirit-lifting stories, there are more and more frequent the different ones, about this or that prominent Ukrainian nationalist “still in the ranks” (euphemism meaning the person was killed). Another example, Ukrainian authorities officially asked their keyboard army: stop posting the destroyed military vehicles to not "undermine the morale". Again, the reason is simple: where the average civilian sees (and enthusiastically reposts) the “destroyed Russian tanks”, the average Ukrainian serviceman thinks “WTF? But these are ours…”

And so on. The stories of "retaken Chuhuiv" and "another killed Russian general” (see posts above) come from one source and lay in one pile with fearless defenders of Snake Island or legendary “Ghost of Kyiv” pilot that already shot down dozens of Russian warplanes or local farmers (or gypsies, here the story varies) that stole Russian tanks... Usually, the reasonable person will at least try to check such kind of stories. In this very thread, however, the majority of users turned into enthusiastic shiteaters happily consuming the offered stuff and asking for more and more…

Reality is such: not a single Ukrainian town, previously captured by Russian army, was retaken in battle and no one Russian general’s death was confirmed. And the cherry on the cake: Ukrainian regime released from prisons and armed its worst criminals. No doubt, a clear sign of an approaching victory.

In short, sometimes a single picture is better than walls of text. As for pictures, here is the good source, the professional military maps updated daily. Maybe you'll find them interesting (and maybe not, but they're still much more valuable and informative than this whole thread):

https://dragon-first-1.livejournal.com/

[Ken_J]

the US literally gets less than 10% of it's fossil fuel energy from russia. There is more than enough to meet that need available in the Americas, through tapping our own and opening trade options with other nations in the Americas. [...]

Do you know how free or pseudo-free markets work? When you choke a supplier, prices float and there are price increases, independently from local supply.

you seem to misunderstand the goals involved. There is no mention nor intent to avoid a price rise. The goal should not be to find a way back to feeding the addiction to a resource that is exploited for political influence and at the core of countless military actions and lives as collateral damage to maintain the flow of.

and there are few better opportunities to get the whole political spectrum of Americans in particular to work together toward a desired outcome like opposing somebody elses agenda, especially one who so happily acts like a Bond Villian.

[Maximus]

...
Putin might want to restore a Russian sphere of influence across Eastern Europe, but to assume he's going to invade every other country there as well doesn't strike me as too reasoned. The other Eastern European countries just don't share the same recent history as Ukraine. The Baltic states, for example, were integrated into NATO and the EU without Russia lifting a finger. They also haven't had the same complications around Western-backed revolutions leading to domestic insurgencies that Ukraine has. Ukraine and Russia have a uniquely fraught relationship. Neighbouring countries aren't at the same risk. What they are at risk of is an increase in coercive diplomacy from Russia, but war? Not likely, unless NATO changes its mind and decides it does want to escalate.

It's no longer a question of us letting this or that happen. We aren't that powerful. We're not the world's police force anymore. We have options to respond - either through sanctions, which is what we're doing currently, or militarily - which I hope to God doesn't happen. But we have to balance those responses against reality. If our responses aren't likely to achieve their goals, or if they're even likely to backfire against us, what's the point in them? I don't support this invasion, but I'm honestly not sure what sort of response would be effective if the goal is to end the war. The only realistic option I can see is encouraging Ukraine to accept neutrality, which in the West is politically impossible because that would just be seen as caving in to the Russians. Still, I don't see any other way that this war is going to end. Banning Russian oil (along with all the other sanctions) will, in all likelihood, provide a short-term shock which will be severe but in the medium to long term, speed up Russia's detachment from the West and a more complete reorientation towards China and other markets in the developing world. These sanctions are internecine, and I doubt that Russia will really end up so much worse off than us.

Where you and I differ on the question of Russia's plans for Eastern Europe, is that you assume Putin is still rational. I do not. He genuinely seemed unhinged in his war speech when he threatened us all with nukes. He's getting old, and he's filled with hate over Russia's standing in Europe. Reports about him becoming more paranoid and isolated are common. Dictators, while cold and calculating at first, can easily end in madness. All the decades of sycophants bowing before them, all the power, it gets to their heads. I know it would be insanity for Russia to try pulling off a Ukraine on the Baltic states, which is why I'm worried, because Putin may be insane. Yeah, this is just my intuition speaking, but I was right before. He is staking his entire country's future on his butthurt over the USSR. He has riled up all of Russia with bloodthirst over Ukraine, and a thirst for revenge over Russia's Versailles moment, the perceived betrayal by the West when it was weak after the USSR collapsed. They even have children parading around waving that Z swastika of theirs, meanwhile Russian tanks painted with that same symbol shell apartments and schools in Ukraine. In your recent posts you talked about being worried about fascism returning in the West as a result of this. My friend, fascism is staring us right in the face, and you have to look no further than Moscow. I wouldn't put anything past this Putin, with an entire country united in fascism behind his revanchist goals.

No we (NATO) aren't the world's police force, I agree with that. But the actions in Ukraine threaten and affect us, so we need to respond somehow. I also agree the West must concede and accept Ukraine, against its own will, must become neutral. Who will end up worse from the sanctions? Seeing the damage to the ruble (rubble at this point), and the complete collapse of the Russian stock market (the biggest Russian bank was down ~-90% on foreign markets, and the Russian market is STILL closed), I think Russians will suffer more short and medium term. Unless those natural gas lines are plugged, in which case Europe is indeed screwed. Which is why I argue against the oil ban for Europe, for now. They need to wean themselves off it though.

Whether these sanctions speed up Russia's reorientation towards China does not matter any more. By pursuing this war in Europe, Russia has already shown its contempt for Europe and the West. They've been cozying up to China for some time now, and have been actively working to destabilize Western countries. We might as well rip the band-aid now. And whether we end up better or worse (we're a much, much, much bigger market than Russia, so I'm thinking better), it is ironic to know mighty Russia will likely become dependent on China's grace and mercy for its economic survival. If Xi says he wants that oil at 50% off, he's gonna get it. But at least they stuck it to the West!

[wjfox]

Drill baby drill!!!
Build the pipe line!

Use the United states corp of engineers if need be. Just get it done!

Are you serious? When we're this close to climate destabilisation?

The U.S. has enormous wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal resources – more than enough to substitute fossil fuels many times over.

And I'm no fan of nuclear, but at least it's preferable to carbon-based energy generation, and then there's the emerging Small Modular Reactors that will be cheaper and safer.

[Maximus]

U.S. rejects Poland's offer to give it Russian-made fighter jets for Ukraine

WASHINGTON, March 8 (Reuters) - The United States rejected a surprise offer by NATO ally Poland on Tuesday to transfer its Russian-made MiG-29 fighter jets to a U.S. base in Germany as a way to replenish Ukraine's air force in its defense against invading Russian forces.

The United States has sought to speed weapons deliveries to Ukraine. But the prospect of flying combat aircraft from NATO territory into the war zone "raises serious concerns for the entire NATO alliance," the Pentagon said.

NATO has said it does not want direct conflict with Russia, a fellow nuclear-armed power, and President Joe Biden has ruled out sending U.S. troops into Ukraine to fight, something the Pentagon has said would apply to troops on the ground or in the air, flying missions.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-sur ... 022-03-08/

This is good. This would have been a dangerous escalation, Ukraine is doing well enough with all the anti-air and anti-armour we're sending, no need to raise the stakes and potentially get NATO pilots involved.

[Ozzie guy]

PhoenixRU

I hope you are doing fine despite all the sanctions they must be rough.

[caltrek]

Certain Russian: I don’t much care about propaganda (almost see you chuckle here), much more I’m interested in cold military analytics and news from the field, so to speak.

I don’t know about chuckling, but I did note that the rest of your post was filled with propaganda.

Those news are mostly from Telegram (perhaps the last relic of the past, the major social network where you still can write what you think instead of think what you write). The whole picture is clear enough. An example: among Ukrainian victorious and spirit-lifting stories, there are more and more frequent the different ones, about this or that prominent Ukrainian nationalist “still in the ranks” (euphemism meaning the person was killed). Another example, Ukrainian authorities officially asked their keyboard army: stop posting the destroyed military vehicles to not "undermine the morale". Again, the reason is simple: where the average civilian sees (and enthusiastically reposts) the “destroyed Russian tanks”, the average Ukrainian serviceman thinks “WTF? But these are ours…”

One definition of propaganda allows for the information used to actually be factual. So, the information you present may be factual. There may have been instances of false identification of military vehicles. Looking at this thread, I am struck by how much I need to rely on experts and local witnesses to determine whether destroyed armored vehicles are Russian or Ukrainian. I have listened to military experts being interviewed on television. They have reviewed videos and rendered opinions as to how successful the Russians are in their invasion…err…I mean military activity in the Ukraine. More propaganda to be sure. So the question is whose propaganda is most accurate?

And so on. The stories of "retaken Chuhuiv" and "another killed Russian general” (see posts above) come from one source and lay in one pile with fearless defenders of Snake Island or legendary “Ghost of Kyiv” pilot that already shot down dozens of Russian warplanes or local farmers (or gypsies, here the story varies) that stole Russian tanks...

Death of the Russian generals have been confirmed, just not by Russia. So again, whose propaganda is to be trusted?

As for Snake Island, I can believe that was an honest mistake. In any event, Ukraine now acknowledges that at least some of the defenders were taken prisoner, apparently after they ran out of ammunition. So, both sides are now telling pretty much the same story.

There is video of a tractor hauling off a Russian armored vehicle with what is reported as being a Russian soldier running frantically after the tractor. The vehicle had reportedly run out of gas, which might account for why the Russian driver may have stepped out and walked far enough away to allow the tractor to hook up to the vehicle. At any rate, it has been cited in U.S. media more as a humorous anecdote rather than as something that actually proves anything.

Reality is such: not a single Ukrainian town, previously captured by Russian army, was retaken in battle and no one Russian general’s death was confirmed. And the cherry on the cake: Ukrainian regime released from prisons and armed its worst criminals. No doubt, a clear sign of an approaching victory.

Or signs of willingness to mobilize the whole population, “worst” being an ambiguous description.

In short, sometimes a single picture is better than walls of text. As for pictures, here is the good source, the professional military maps updated daily. Maybe you'll find them interesting (and maybe not, but they're still much more valuable and informative than this whole thread):

Interesting map. I was going to cut and paste so that we could look at them directly, then realized that I would be in violation under Russia law if I made any comments that could be construed as being disparaging of the Russian military. So, more information presented for the sake of propaganda.

So, lets grant you the benefit of a doubt that Russian forces will successfully capture most if not all Ukrainian cities. Then what?

In debates in the old thread with you, I mentioned the tactic of nonviolent noncooperation. The Ukrainians, it would appear, may take a different tact, that of violent noncooperation. Whether I like it or not. Hence your comparison to ISIS. Still, one man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter.” No matter what you call it, military analysts I have heard indicate that Russia simply does not have the manpower it would need to completely win a counterinsurgency struggle. Meaning, this could go on for years. One analogy that has been made is to Afghanistan. A country that both the old Soviet Union and the United States failed to subdue. Under such circumstance, Russia might very well feel compelled to withdraw from at least a sizable portion of Ukraine just to have a more manageable territory to handle. In the meantime, casualty reports will continue to trickle back into Russia through both official and unofficial sources. Sanctions will continue to immiserate the Russian population.

For what?

You said it yourself, so that Putin can have his war trophy?

Right. No fascism there.

[caltrek]

Drill baby drill!!!
Build the pipe line!

Use the United states corp of engineers if need be. Just get it done!

Are you serious? When we're this close to climate destabilisation?

The U.S. has enormous wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal resources – more than enough to substitute fossil fuels many times over.

And I'm no fan of nuclear, but at least it's preferable to carbon-based energy generation, and then there's the emerging Small Modular Reactors that will be cheaper and safer.

Well, I think you both make interesting points here. Yes, the crisis should be taken as an opportunity to accelerate the move away from fossil fuel dependence.

Still, inflation is a real concern. High gas prices will impact some more than others. Those that are most impacted may retaliate at the polls. One way to offset that would be through another relief package modeled on the 2020 Covid relief package. Otherwise known as another round of UBI. So those that are most vulnerable to inflation, including a hike in gas prices, could have the negative impact considerably cushioned.

Of course, the problem in the U.S. is obtaining full Senate approval. Hopefully, voters will remember which party favored relief measures, and which party insisted that the burden be once again shifted on to the shoulders of the poor and most vulnerable.

[wjfox]

I don't have much problem with a short-term, temporary increase in oil production to ease this year's inflation. But the Keystone pipeline and other such infrastructure is a medium to longer-term commitment, with a gigantic carbon footprint. Keystone specifically has already been described by scientists as "game over" for the climate.

[wjfox]

Latest from Mariupol –

[joe00uk]

Where you and I differ on the question of Russia's plans for Eastern Europe, is that you assume Putin is still rational. I do not.

In your recent posts you talked about being worried about fascism returning in the West as a result of this. My friend, fascism is staring us right in the face, and you have to look no further than Moscow. I wouldn't put anything past this Putin, with an entire country united in fascism behind his revanchist goals.

But the actions in Ukraine threaten and affect us, so we need to respond somehow.

I think Russians will suffer more short and medium term.

And whether we end up better or worse (we're a much, much, much bigger market than Russia, so I'm thinking better), it is ironic to know mighty Russia will likely become dependent on China's grace and mercy for its economic survival. If Xi says he wants that oil at 50% off, he's gonna get it. But at least they stuck it to the West!

Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that matter. I prefer not to psychoanalyse world leaders because it doesn't help anyone understand wider national or regime motives or strategy, and it's often the basis for poor predictions. After Putin either dies or falls from power by other means, perhaps we can judge if, in the end, he really was a ruthless and cunning mastermind, a mad tyrant drunk on power, or something else entirely. For now, I think these questions are best set aside so that we can focus as much as we can on real data and the facts on the ground. Of course, that in itself usually provides many other points of contention.

As for fascism, well, it depends on how you want to define "fascism". If any kind of nationalist authoritarianism is what you mean by fascism, then yes, I suppose you can call Russia "fascist" - and you can call many other countries the same. Some people have tried to argue that Trump's administration was fascist, or that Orban's Hungary is a fascist state. If the definition is along Mussolini's idea of corporatism, then some people have even used that to argue that Western countries have become fascist in the last few years. Not that I agree with that - I don't - but it just goes to show that definitions for terms like fascism are rarely agreed upon by everyone. When I spoke of the possibility of fascism returning to Europe as a result of this war and its aftermath, I meant something a lot more similar to classical 1930s-style fascism with uniformed paramilitaries, the formal abolition of political opposition, and labour camps.

I'm honestly not too sure how what happens in Ukraine directly affects us. Indirectly, sure, there are all sorts of vagaries in the world economy that Ukrainian events can affect and all sorts of diplomatic consequences. But I don't think that the national security of countries like the UK, US or Canada has much to do with what happens in Ukraine. I would argue that the West was much more secure during the Cold War when most of Eastern Europe was directly under Soviet domination. Again, I'm not saying that those were wonderful times for them or that we should go back to that, but the main threats to Western security today come from within our own countries, not outside them.

The Russian economy is certainly going through a severe shock, and I'm not going to pretend to know how long it will last, but I don't think it will be very long before things stabilise and fall far short of current doomsday predictions being excitedly prophesied here in the West. We've had a lot of overblown hype about one event after the other for the last six or seven years now, and this looks like a continuation on that theme. Europe and North America are big markets, but Russia's the country with the resources we need to buy to prop up our own economies. In that sense, they have the upper hand. Our ability to get the resources we want for the prices we want is steadily vanishing. We're probably more subject to the rest of the world at this point than they are to us. I agree, however, that Russia will eventually become a junior partner in the Pax Sinica world. I imagine that if China replaces America, Russia will replace Europe, but of course the details aren't going to be copied and pasted as simply as that.

[R8Z]

Russian propaganda keeps parroting about US biolabs in Ukraine.

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

[R8Z]

Strong and brave people. Each and every one should've had their own AK-74 and proper training. Unfortunately too late now, they've been disarmed on purpose by their previous leaders and screaming won't change their situation.

[Maximus]

Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that matter. I prefer not to psychoanalyse world leaders because it doesn't help anyone understand wider national or regime motives or strategy, and it's often the basis for poor predictions. After Putin either dies or falls from power by other means, perhaps we can judge if, in the end, he really was a ruthless and cunning mastermind, a mad tyrant drunk on power, or something else entirely. For now, I think these questions are best set aside so that we can focus as much as we can on real data and the facts on the ground. Of course, that in itself usually provides many other points of contention.

As for fascism, well, it depends on how you want to define "fascism". If any kind of nationalist authoritarianism is what you mean by fascism, then yes, I suppose you can call Russia "fascist" - and you can call many other countries the same. Some people have tried to argue that Trump's administration was fascist, or that Orban's Hungary is a fascist state. If the definition is along Mussolini's idea of corporatism, then some people have even used that to argue that Western countries have become fascist in the last few years. Not that I agree with that - I don't - but it just goes to show that definitions for terms like fascism are rarely agreed upon by everyone. When I spoke of the possibility of fascism returning to Europe as a result of this war and its aftermath, I meant something a lot more similar to classical 1930s-style fascism with uniformed paramilitaries, the formal abolition of political opposition, and labour camps.

I'm honestly not too sure how what happens in Ukraine directly affects us. Indirectly, sure, there are all sorts of vagaries in the world economy that Ukrainian events can affect and all sorts of diplomatic consequences. But I don't think that the national security of countries like the UK, US or Canada has much to do with what happens in Ukraine. I would argue that the West was much more secure during the Cold War when most of Eastern Europe was directly under Soviet domination. Again, I'm not saying that those were wonderful times for them or that we should go back to that, but the main threats to Western security today come from within our own countries, not outside them.

The Russian economy is certainly going through a severe shock, and I'm not going to pretend to know how long it will last, but I don't think it will be very long before things stabilise and fall far short of current doomsday predictions being excitedly prophesied here in the West. We've had a lot of overblown hype about one event after the other for the last six or seven years now, and this looks like a continuation on that theme. Europe and North America are big markets, but Russia's the country with the resources we need to buy to prop up our own economies. In that sense, they have the upper hand. Our ability to get the resources we want for the prices we want is steadily vanishing. We're probably more subject to the rest of the world at this point than they are to us. I agree, however, that Russia will eventually become a junior partner in the Pax Sinica world. I imagine that if China replaces America, Russia will replace Europe, but of course the details aren't going to be copied and pasted as simply as that.

Through "pscyhoanalysing" Putin, as you put it, I'm really trying to explore the national consciousness of Russia. Putin is the undisputed leader. His ideas dictate domestic and foreign policy. He has fanned these flames of getting revenge on the West for years. He's made it his goal to regain the USSR's standing and glory in the world. Instead of seeking closer relations with the West, he's chosen a path of paranoia which has further isolated Russia from us. His pursuit and idealization of Russia's past has resulted in Russia's present. Now we see the result; Russians, from children, to influencers, to shop owners, are cheering on a war on a neighbouring country like it's some kind of sick sports game. He has sculpted the Russian (nationalist) mindset to be one of paranoia, victimhood, and revenge. You say we should focus on real data, but how do you quantify these sentiments on a national level? A poll would be one way, and I am sure it would deliver exactly the results I outline here.

Yes, the definition of fascism I am applying to Russia is national authoritarianism. I agree that Trump's administration was fascist. Not the entire US, because his political opposition was not powerless, as in Russia, and democratic structures proved resilient. We see that from his failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. But Russia is a more insidious brand of this kind of fascism. Trump's fascism was directed inwards at the US. Russia's is the kind that seeks to avenge a historical aggrievement through upsetting the status quo, and moreso, through war. I know you dislike the comparison, but this is Nazi Germany (granted without the genocidal aspect).

As for your outlined brand of fascism arising in the West, with "uniformed paramilitaries, the formal abolition of political opposition, and labour camps", well we're gonna have to disagree. The US came close with Trump, but these signs are all absent in Western democracies. I doubt that return of a few thousand or so disgruntled foreign fighters from Ukraine is gonna have that effect. Who knows what the future holds though, we'll have to wait and see.

How does Ukraine affect us? You seem to be more interested in the direct security implications of this, more than economic or humanitarian arguments. I can concede Russia isn't a direct military threat to the US, UK, and Canada, if you discount their nuclear arsenal. But I don't agree the sole premise for our involvement or interest in a foreign affair should be its military threat to us. The economic, humanitarian, and yes, even the idealistic aspects do matter. Why did the US intervene in WW1 or WW2? Conceivably, it could have been satisfied with letting Europe tear itself apart, or watching Nazi Germany carry out its atrocities from the streets of London to the ends of Siberia. The US would have been far less secure and less prosperous had all of Europe been conquered by Hitler, and in turn, all of Asia by Japan. If nothing else, it was wrong to let these fascist regimes conquer and oppress free people across the world.
Today, Russia and China want to upend our order of liberal democracies. Ukraine could be the first domino. Next is Taiwan in all likelihood, and I've made my thoughts clear on Russia's plans to advance further into Europe. We will be far less secure by turning a blind eye in Ukraine, and thus encouraging other democracies in Eastern Europe and beyond to topple and turn to Russia, or China. Standing up for Ukraine strenghthens our economic and political bloc of liberal democracies, which benefits us both economically, and in terms of security.

Russia does have a lot resources, which Europe does need to sustain itself. Canada and the US are more fortunate in that regard. So yes, Europe is vulnerable to Russian backlash, but that will also be short-term. Europe can find oil and gas elsewhere, perhaps for greater prices. Russia is by no means the only oil producing country in the world. Europe can also find alternatives; Germany ending its crusade against nuclear energy would help, for one. In short resources can be found elsewhere, despite the economic pain. Russia on the other hand is mainly a resource-based economy, or as put by some politician I can't recall, a "gas station with nuclear weapons". It's not a high tech economy, and Western sanctions will prevent it from becoming one. A resource based economy is not able to compete in the modern world. Russia becoming dependent on China to buy its oil will be the final nail in its economic coffin. The leverage China will have will be much greater than your comparison of the US-EU relationship. The EU is roughly on par economically with the US, and both have close ties economically with China. Russia's GDP is dwarfed by China, and this imbalance will only become more pronounced in the future as China ascends to the top of the world. It will be China's gas station.

[Yuli Ban]

The invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing sanctions imposed on Russia have European nations worried about access to natural gas on which they have long depended. The conflict has increased pressure on energy resources, driving up the prices of oil, gas, coal and other commodities.

But the war in Ukraine could hit more than just energy supplies in Europe. Global food security is also at risk. In particular, it could disrupt the wheat supply chain in several Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) countries.

Russia is the world's top wheat exporter and the largest producer after China and India. And Ukraine is one of the top five wheat exporters worldwide.

Several MENA countries are highly dependent on these exports due to the prominent role wheat plays in their regional diets.

Egypt is the world's top wheat importer, with around 70% of its wheat coming from Russia and Ukraine. Some 80% of Tunisia's grain also hails from these two countries. Lebanon imports 60% of its wheat from Ukraine.