Who is winning the trade war waged by Putin before bombing Ukraine? : Analysis

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to shut down the Black Sea to Ukrainian agricultural exports last year was a response to Ukraine’s attempt to damage the Kerch Bridge, Russia’s vital connection to the Crimean Peninsula. The move was part of a larger trade war that started in 2012, with Russia imposing arbitrary tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural products. Putin sought to leverage Black Sea security to overturn Kyiv’s sanctions and wanted to reopen the fertiliser pipeline through Odesa. However, despite the embargo, Ukraine’s agricultural exports have been increasing, reaching a record harvest of 80 million tonnes. Rising agricultural exports may now represent Ukraine’s best hope of prosecuting the war, as the country faces a significant budget deficit. Overall, Ukraine is winning against Russia’s trade war, with its increasing share of the global market and competitive position in agriculture.

Analysis:
Based on the given article, there are several points to consider in evaluating its reliability and potential biases:

1. Credibility of sources: The article does not indicate any specific sources or provide any references to support the claims made about Russia’s trade war with Ukraine or Ukraine’s agricultural exports. Therefore, the credibility of the information presented cannot be independently verified.

2. Presentation of facts: The article mentions that Russia imposed arbitrary tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural products and that Putin shut down the Black Sea to Ukrainian agricultural exports. However, no evidence or specific examples are provided to support these claims. Without more detailed information, it is difficult to assess the accuracy of these statements.

3. Potential biases: The article seems to present a positive view of Ukraine’s situation, highlighting its increasing agricultural exports and competitive position. This may indicate a bias towards portraying Ukraine as the “winner” in the trade war against Russia. However, without further context or supporting evidence, it is challenging to determine the accuracy of these claims or whether there may be alternative perspectives.

4. Impact of the information presented: The information presented in the article implies that Ukraine’s increasing agricultural exports may help offset its budget deficit and contribute to its ability to prosecute the war. However, without a deeper analysis of the economic and political factors involved, it is difficult to determine the true impact of these exports on Ukraine’s situation.

Regarding the political landscape and prevalence of fake news, it is essential to consider the potential influence on public perception. It is possible that individuals who already have a negative view of Russia or a positive view of Ukraine may accept the information presented in the article without critical examination. Additionally, the lack of specific sources or evidence may lead some readers to question the reliability of the information or rely on alternative sources that may have their biases or agendas.

In conclusion, the given article lacks specific sources or evidence to support its claims about Russia’s trade war with Ukraine and Ukraine’s agricultural exports. The absence of detailed information and potential biases highlight the need for a more nuanced understanding of the topic. It is crucial to approach this information with skepticism and seek additional sources for a more comprehensive analysis.

Source: Aljazeera news: Putin waged a trade war long before bombing Ukraine. Which side is winning?