adrian: why has russia exited the grain deal brokered by turkiye? president erdogan says that he's hopeful it can be revived, but cracks are beginning to show in these countries' relationship. so, how much politics is at play here, and what does it mean for global food supplies? this is “inside story.” ♪ adrian: hello and welcome to the program. i'm adrian finighan. when the grain export deal was reached last year, it was hailed

as a diplomatic breakthrough. a rare instance of cooperation between russia and ukraine, but now moscow says it won't extend the agreement. the u.n. secretary general has expressed disappointment over the decision and raised concerns that the developing world could again face rising food prices. turkiye brokered the original deal. and president richard tabor gone -- and president recep tayyip erdogan says that he's hopeful it can be salvaged, but trust in his role as a neutral mediator may not be as high as it once was. we will bring in our panel in a few moments. but first, our correspondent reports. reporter: this is the last ship to carry grain from ukraine under the black sea grain initiative. russia has pulled out. it says its demands haven't been read, and kyiv hasn't acted in good faith. >> there's been no progress here, and kyiv regime continues to use the cover of the open

mayor tim keller dart alledge attacks against russian civilians and military. against this backdrop, it decision was taken to exit this deal. reporter: the u.n. hailed the deal for benefiting developing countries by keeping global food prices down. it enabled more than 30 million tons of grain and other foods to safely leave ukraine through a corridor across the black sea. without the agreement being restored, those exports will end. >> russia is blackmailing the world. this blackmail affects the lives of millions of ukrainians, and tens of millions more around the world primarily in africa and asia, who face the threat of rising food prices and hunger. reporter: turkiye was instrumental in brokering the deal last year. and president recep tayyip erdogan was hailed as an international statesman for bridging a seemingly impossible gulf between russia and ukraine. he still believes in agreement can be salvaged. >> i believe my friend

president putin once this humanitarian bridge to continue. in the meantime, our foreign minister will hold his meetings with his counterpart and i will meet with mr. putin as soon as i return from the trip. when we meet with him in our country in august, we will have the opportunity to discuss all these issues. we will also explore how we can act on paving the way for the shipment of russian green and fertilizer. -- russian grain and fertilizer. reporter: but erdogan's claims , to neutrality have been undermined in recent weeks. these ukrainian commanders were supposed to see out the war in tu turkiye under a prisoner exchange deal with russia. instead, everyone returned them to ukraine. russia called that a blatant violation of the deal and accused erdogan of caving into pressure from nato. turkiye also dropped its objections to sweden joining nato, another move criticized by russia. world powers are now searching for a way to revive the grain deal and see what role, if any, turkiye might play.

fenton monahan for "inside story." adrian: let's bring in our guests. from moscow, we are joined by andrey baklanov, the deputy chairman of the association of russian diplomats. from istanbul, we are joined by helin sari ertem, associate professor of international relations at istanbul medniyet university. and from washington, d.c., rich outzen, non-resident senior fellow at the atlantic council in turkiye and senior fellow at the jamestown foundation. a warm welcome to you all. andrey, let's start with you. president erdogan says he believes that president putin wants the humanitarian bridge to continue. does he? or is that wishful thinking on president erdogan's part? what is the view on this grain deal in moscow? guest: actually, we were very patient, very patient. the experts of the russian

federation are criticizing the ministry of foreign affairs and relevant other ministries and the government for being patient too much. why? because instead of the grain deal, we have the fraud, the double-fraud from our western collaborators. and unfortunately, the united nations authorities. why we are speaking about this double fraud? first of all, the pretext for the deal was the necessity of helping the poor countries, african countries. but only 3% of all the grain were coming to the african states. instead of that, the majority of, 97% went to european

countries, and some of this quantity came to china. so this is a fraud. the second fraud was that the deal had two aspects. one aspect, the opportunity for the ukrainian grain to go to the market. the second part of the deal was the opportunity for the russian grain to come abroad. so we gave the opportunity for 33 million tons of ukrainian grain to be exported to other countries. but zero, zero terms of russian-made crop went anywhere. the same was the case of fertilizers. it was the consent that all our fertilizers will have the opportunity to be unblocked in the ports of the western countries and go to africa and other states.

but only one piece of this amount really had the opportunity to go. this is the case of the fraud. adrian: even if only 3% of the grain actually got to african nations, as you claim, what it has done is keep prices down so that the people who can't afford grain when the prices rise, the people who need it most, can still afford to eat. guest: yes. but we had contacts with african countries, and perhaps we will have direct opportunities to export our grain to these countries. we will find some additional opportunities without the frameworks of this deal. unfortunately, the deal is not dead, but temporarily, we are stopping and asking for the

deeds. we have been waiting for too long. if the deeds will be in real terms, if our exports will go, if our fertilizers will go, we will return to this deal. if not, we will not return. adrian: helin, it was always a political deal, not a legally binding deal. if the political will to make it work is no longer there, it falls apart. given that was it, was it always doomed to failure, regardless of what president erdogan said here ? how much of this failure is down to him? guest: i wouldn't call this a failure because it has been working for more than a year. it is still valuable and still on the table, although the russians seem to be making an exit at the moment. they are just saying we are

suspending it. so it's not 100% of the grain. for that reason, i do believe that turkiye as a moderator still has a chance to make the agreement continue. but at the same time, especially after last week's nato summit in which turkiye seemed to be on the western side, giving a kind of green light to sweden's partnership with the nato alliance, i can say that turkiye is not moving towards the west or towards the east. it is continuing its balancing policy. for that reason, i still think turkiye's position is very significant not -- both for europe, the united states, and for russia. russia needs turkiye. turkiye needs russia. the west needs russia and russia needs the west. so it's a kind of complicated

world to understand because we are talking about interdependency. complex interdependency between other state actors and the international system. each one of these actors are actually bound to another one and this one to another one. for that reason, it is very complicated to tear one of these countries out and to say, well, it is ok, we are not working with you anymore. we have to work altogether. and this is about the humanity, it is about humanitarian purposes. in my point of view, we are seeing the elephants somehow in the room, fighting against each other. most of the time we are forgetting about these unfortunately poor countries who are really in need. they are being oppressed by the pressure that is being applied by the great powers. adrian: i want to kick you when two things you said, first on

the suspension, and the fact that it could get up and running again. experts are saying that if it lasts longer than a few days, it won't be possible to get it up and running again and grain prices will rise anyway. also, i wonder -- you talked about turkey maintaining this balancing act. there are those who would say that russia's failure to re-sign this deal is a direct snob to president erdogan after he pivoted, since his election, towards the west. guest: well, actually, i still believe there is a chance for the agreement to continue. it seems to be a kind of reaction towards the west dance well and start. at the same time, i think the so-called friendship, the close relationship between president erdogan and president putin is not something to be given up, to be forgotten in only one

incident. it is a strong relationship. they have direct contact with each other. this is a valuable part of it. in the past, turkiye and russia had many problems. for a while, we were in such a big crisis that people in russia were talking about bombing the both sides of bosphorus in istanbul, due to this jet crisis. however, both countries show the determination, they showed a strong decision to continue their relationship. they were really keen on moving on a strong relationship. for that reason, i don't think that the relationship between putin and erdogan is something that can be given up that easily. adrian: rich, thanks for being patient. u.s. secretary of state antony blinken called russia's move unconscionable, saying that scrapping the deal will worsen food security for millions. ukraine's foreign minister said

that russia is blackmailing the world. is he right? guest: absolutely, adrian. it is good to be with you. and i also appreciate the previous speakers' comments. a little history is in order here. we don't have to look that far back to see that this is actually standard operating procedure for russia. anything that has to do with humanitarian interests, they will absolutely threaten, suspend and wring every concession out of that they can. when the original green deal of -- when the original grain deal or the black sea initiative was negotiated with, they did the same. every time there is a you and motion to approve another segment of food across international borders through the world food programme, russia threatens to blackmail and derail it. at the end of the day, for

russia, there is no such thing as a truly humanitarian gesture. it all comes down to trying to get an additional concession on economic, military or political matters. so in this case they want to get sanctions lifted on their agricultural bank to get access back to the s.w.i.f.t. system. they would like to see easier imports into russia of agricultural repair goods and they want to see goods on -- and frozen goods. it's not that big a surprise. they are willing to raise the prices. in fact they may benefit from prices going up somewhat as they have with movements of the oil price because they are commodity -exporting countries. i think russia is more than happy to on the backs of a hungry consumers to go ahead and play these games in order to try to get concessions. in the end, the deal is a good deal for russia because i disagree with the statistic that no russian grain has moved. [laughs] i think we check that statistic. one last thing, i would like to debunk this idea that only 3% goes to africa. a lot of this ukrainian green goes to countries like turkiye

that turn the grain into products like macaroni and things like that that and get sent on to hungry countries in africa and elsewhere. it is quite a significant deal in terms of helping developing countries. adrian: russia had obstructed the proper operation of this deal for months, according to the uk's foreign minister. this then forms part of a wider strategy, as you see it. with some of the west's sanctions against russia be lifted in order to allow further grain shipments? guest: that is russia's goal, to get some sanctions relief. the copulation in washington and wrestles and elsewhere has to be this, how much leverage does russia actually have to stop the export of ukrainian grain anymore? after the loss of the sinking of the several major russian

vessels, i think that it's in question. it's in doubt whether russia can actually stop the export of grain. it would take a major naval escalation by russia to do that. we are not going to have the grain and are this deal, maybe it does drive up prices. i don't think they can actually stop it. the question for the rest will be can this mischief that russia is up to, can the impact on prices, is that worth the offset of allowing a little bit more import of agricultural equipment to russia and to loosening these sanctions and somewhat. what the sanctions more are a moral signal than they are a crushing economic blow? russia has still economic relations and trade with india, with china, even with turkiye, so the sanctions are not crippling. the idea of giving some incremental relief is something that will be entertained, i think, in the west. adrian: andrey, what do you, what do you make of what you just heard that this is standard operating procedure for russia. it is mischief. what is it that russia wants? guest: well, russia's position

is very clear. we want only the balance and the real fulfillment of the provisions we had in the deal. we are speaking about the deal. we are not speaking about everything in the world. we are speaking about the deal. the deal was the result of the negotiation process which gave this kind of deal which had two sides. one side was fulfilled. the other side was not fulfilled. we are proposing for the western countries to fulfill their part of the story, their part of the deal. unless it is satisfied, we will not return back to the deal. yesterday we had a big gathering in moscow further specialists on the grain and international affairs, et cetera. the majority of them said that perhaps it was good intentioned,

but it was a mistake to make any deal with western countries under the present situation when our contradictions are so acute and the approach is so different. well, i personally think it was a good trial, the results were absolutely unsatisfactory, and we should have made this step nine months ago, when after three months of the first accomplishment of the deal, it was absolutely clear that we are facing the fraud from the western countries. and also very insufficient and very inadequate attitude of mr. guterres, who as diplomat and as an ambassador, is the worst secretary-general in the history of the organization. adrian: helin, the west and

russia have already begun to trade barbs about who is to blame. is there any reason to cut russia some slack here? does it have legitimate grievances -- cooking up on what andrey was saying there about the u.n. security general, how much leverage does the u.n. have here, and what role should it be playing now? guest:? be somehow criticizing about united nations secretary general's position, whether he -- whether his organization is neutral or not. but since the very beginning, the united nations worked a lot to make this agreement work. they have been in a huge effort to continue, every two or three months they were in a great effort to promote the agreement. maybe they will do it again.

in my view, particularly after last week's nato summit, russia is feeling much more pressurized . the western world is talking about giving new types of weapons to ukraine. and there is a full military support. they are talking about cluster bombs. since the very beginning, people were not sure about ukraine's military position, but up until now, ukraine's is still struggling. not to be defeated. it is strong and it still has moral support from the rest, and superiority, in my point of view. ukraine has a moral superiority in this war. but, at the same time, russia is feeling more pressurized politically and military from , the western world. for that reason, it has two cards to play. one is the energy crisis it can create. the other is the food crisis it

can create. for that reason, it is using the energy card or the food card to persuade the west to lift the sanctions that are being applied on russia. however, up until now, they could not succeed in that. i also believe that russia is doing not so bad regarding its economic standards, its economic positions. despite western expectations, russia actually performed relatively good, despite the sanctions being applied against it. still, we are not talking about economic pressure, we are talking about military and political pressure that is being increased on russia, especially after last week. for that reason, i think this grain dealer agreement comes, especially after last week's summit. adrian: rich, what do you make

of what you just heard? guest: i agree with what she just said. a great deal -- the grain deal has a symbolic value that outspent the minutiae of implementation that our russian colleague has been discussing. why? because it shows that ultimately when two sides are at war, they can still do things that are in global interest and mutual interest. it is the sort of manichean, black and white view that we are either all at war or all at peace and things. either we are trying to totally overthrow the other country or we are accepting everything they do. russia launched an offensive war against ukraine and is trying to wipe a sovereign country off the map. that must be resisted. yet at the same time, russia has some legitimate interests in trade and certainly wants to get its grain to the market. i think that was foreseen under the deal. i i think that aspect is legitimate. but by trying to hold the deal hostage, russia is essentially saying, look this one thing that could be the basis for further win-win talks, which by the will

have to happen at some point. everyone were and. at some point it ends with compromise solution. i don't think anybody expects that kyiv will totally collapse and be removed off the map, or that russian government will totally collapse as well. so there will be, at some point there will be a negotiated peace. can you build based on small steps of cooperation like this? it's a step backwards. adrian: we are reasonably short on time. andrey, president zelenskyy says it should be possible to use the black sea corridor without russia's agreement if turkiye allows vessels through. is he right? guest: i am not quite sure. this will be a very dangerous trial for settling the problem. i think the conditions are there . we will explore together with our turkish colleagues -- with

our colleagues, including turkish colleagues, the opportunities for any other options outside the present day of this grain deal. but we ask all countries to be cautious. here very serious about the necessity of safeguarding our interests, our military, our political interests. many people are criticizing the moscow government for being too mild during this period of time. i think that the expert community is also demanding from the government to be much more stern in their measures against the attempts against us. adrian: helin, you said you were optimistic that this deal could be revived. is it going to come down to president erdogan, the wily

political operator? is he going to pull a rabbit from a hat? guest: from time to time he has been saying that he can guarantee vessels from ukraine to the outside world and the black sea. i think this might come to the table once again, turkiye's guarantee, it's patrolling is an option. i am not sure about the russian answer. i want to be optimistic still. i do think erdogan still has a chance to persuade putin, especially because of humanitarian purposes. the two leaders' highly possible meeting in istanbul next month is very significant to follow-up. adrian: ok. rich, do you share helin's optimism that this deal will eventually have to be done -- and i didn't get your thoughts way back at the beginning of the program on whether russia's failure to re-sign this deal is

actually a direct snap to president erdogan? guest: i think it was a secondary purpose, to expressed displeasure with something that resident erdogan clearly has an accompaniment he likes to tout as proof-of-stake and schip. i think the primary purpose is to put pressure on sanctions relief. i've just done some quick research checking that russia exported a record amount of cereal grains last year. so clearly russia is still able to get its out. and the idea that somehow this deal has prejudiced the russian ability to export grain, it's just false. i do you think ultimately, because they make money for the -- from the grain, and because it is a win-win situation, they will come back to the deal. it might be under a different name, but they will have some sort of modus vivendi with the russians that allows ukrainian grain out as well as russian grain. so i think the deal gets resumed after russia has had its temper tantrum, and after trying to extract some sort of sanctions. adrian: ok. there we must end it.

many thanks indeed to you all, andrey baklanov, helin sari ertem, and rich outzen. and as always, thank you for watching. you can see the program again at any time by going to the website at aljazeera.com. for further discussion, join us on our facebook page. you will find that at facebook.com/ajinsidestory. and, of course, you can join the conversation on twitter, our handle @ajinsidestory. from me, adrian finighan and the team here in doha, thanks for watching. we will see you again. bye for now. ♪

- how my life becomes better is politics. - we're going to change city hall. - i'm formally announcing my candidacy for city council district 8. [audience cheers] she looks out into the audience and says, "i am here, i am her, i am trans-visible." [audience cheering] [ambient music]