Ukraine grain has become a major propaganda tool of the West for eliciting condemnation against Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. They are especially using it in a vicious attempt to manipulate Africa into vilifying Russia, with the intention of adding a sense of geographic validation to their claim that ‘the international community condemns Russia,’ a condemnation primarily limited to NATO countries and a few of America’s client states elsewhere.
The repetitive and now monotonous narrative alleges that Russia is frustrating the ‘Black Sea grain deal’ to try and force a humanitarian food crisis that would affect mostly developing countries, especially Africa, where they condescendingly claim it will lead to ‘starvation.’ This assertion is now being peddled by Ukraine, in consonance with Western media, diplomats, and leading figures.
Ukraine more needy than African countries
The portrayal of Ukraine as a benevolent Western nation that cares for Africa’s well-being is a strategic narrative constructed by both Ukraine and its Western allies. This claim attempts to paint Ukraine in a positive light while demonizing Russia for allegedly obstructing the ‘Black Sea grain deal.’ However, in reality, Ukraine is currently at war and is worse off than many third-world countries. It lacks a real president serving the interests of its people and is instead led by a NATO puppet.
On the economic front, aside from the billions of Dollars being sent from Europe to support the aggression against Russia, Ukraine is a poor country in need of food supplies itself. Therefore, it is disingenuous for the West to present Ukraine as a benevolent, well-to-do European country that can patronizingly meet Africa’s food needs. In fact, Ukraine’s GDP has long been on par with that of many African countries. So, the claim that such a country, while at war, can now feed “Africa’ with its grain, is preposterous.
EU, not Africa gets Ukraine Grain
A critical aspect of the narrative is that ‘poor Africa will starve’ due to Russia’s actions impacting the ‘Black Sea grain deal.’ However, the reality is quite different. Only a meager 3% of the Ukraine grain shipped via the Black Sea deal actually reaches African countries. The bulk of it, 97% or more, ends up in European countries. This means that Europe (which, by the way, has sanctioned and is doing its best to starve Russia) is the major beneficiary of the deal, not Africa, despite what they keep mentioning.
At least the Italian Defense Minister admitted yesterday what we already know, that almost all of the Ukraine grain doesn’t go to Africa but ends up in the EU. Indeed, a delegation from Mozambique informed the UN Security Council yesterday that a key issue with the grain deal, as Moscow has previously said, is that only a small fraction of the food supplies actually reaches Africa. So, the truth is that Europe, not Africa, needs Ukraine grain. But as often is the case, even when Europe is in need, it is too proud to admit that.
However, by disproportionately representing Africa as the major victim of a potential ‘starvation crisis’ rather than Europe, those perpetuating this narrative aim to evoke sympathy and solidarity from Africans. But they are also perpetuating a racist slur that undermines and presents Africa as a poor, needy continent. This misleading portrayal serves the purpose of garnering support and condemnation against Russia while diverting attention from other geopolitical interests at play.
Ukraine racially treated African Migrants
During the conflict’s onset, reports emerged of African migrants facing racial mistreatment while trying to flee Ukraine. Such incidents directly contradict the narrative’s image of Ukraine as a caring and benevolent nation towards Africa. While Ukraine’s Zelensky has since tried to court African nations, it appears that this outreach only began when Russia gained ground, and he and his NATO backers needed other nations to vilify Russia. Even so, Ukraine’s national attitude toward Africa has historically been poor and carried racist undertones.
Just last month, when the Africa Peace delegation visited Kyiv to propose a peace plan, several Ukraine leaders, including President Zelensky, ridiculed their efforts, publicly stating that African leaders had no business getting involved in European affairs. This was disparaging and aligned with Ukraine’s racist attitude toward Africa, which suggests that it does not genuinely care for Africa’s plight. The mistreatment of African migrants during a time of crisis, therefore, casts doubt on the authenticity of the narrative and exposes underlying hypocrisy.
Provoking the Grain Deal Crisis
One cannot ignore the strategic timing of Ukraine’s attack on the Crimean Bridge, which affected the viability of the ‘Black Sea grain deal.’ Ukraine was aware that such an attack could compel Russia to reconsider its participation in the ‘Ukraine Grain’ deal for military expediency. However, despite this knowledge, Ukraine proceeded with the attack. This proves that Ukraine’s priority was not Africa’s food security.
The deliberate provocation suggests that Ukraine knew and wanted Russia to pause the ‘Black Sea grain deal’ so that it could later blame Russia and demonize it in the eyes of the world. As evidence of this, you will notice that ever since then, every leading politician, diplomat, and media outlet in the US-led NATO has ‘condemned’ Russia, attempting to demonize and cast Russia as the aggressor and the frustrator of the deal
Africans not complaining
If Ukraine’s grain deal were genuinely crucial for ‘poor Africa,’ one would expect African leaders or representative institutions like the African Union (AU) to raise their concerns and advocate for a resolution. However, the absence of any outcry from African nations or institutions shows the actual significance of the deal for Africa’s food security. It indicates that African leaders recognize the falseness of the narrative about the ‘Ukraine Grain’ for Africa and clearly realize that Ukraine, rather than Russia, is the one frustrating the Black Sea grain deal.
Overall, the portrayal of the Ukraine Grain deal as a solution for Africa’s food security is a strategic narrative used by the West to condemn Russia and manipulate perceptions. The reality of the situation suggests that the deal primarily benefits European countries rather than Africa. The absence of significant African outcry and reports of mistreatment of African migrants further raises questions about the authenticity of the narrative
