“Nearly a year after Biden’s announcement, the Department of Homeland Security says that over 271,000 Ukrainian refugees have been admitted to the United States. More than 117,000 came through the “Uniting for Ukraine” program, a private refugee sponsorship scheme through which Americans can volunteer to financially support Ukrainians. Another 150,000 came to the U.S. through pathways like the traditional refugee resettlement program or by crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
Bringing in 271,000 refugees, while a modest accomplishment compared to what countries such as Poland, Germany, and Canada have done, is a huge deal in the context of American immigration politics—especially with as little controversy as it provoked. It speaks volumes about America’s ability to absorb large numbers of people without changing something fundamental about its culture, which immigration restrictionists often doubt. Judging by the scores of Americans who stepped up to welcome Ukrainians, American culture is equipped to absorb.”
…
“assimilation potential is a slippery concept. Take language skills: According to EF Education First’s English Proficiency Index, Ukrainians fall into the same proficiency band as Cubans, Hondurans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans. This is roughly true of their economic circumstances as well. Ukraine’s per-capita gross domestic product was $4,835 as of 2021, per the World Bank—roughly $200 lower than Guatemala and $300 higher than El Salvador.
Given those factors, Ukrainian refugees may not be as different from other migrant groups as might appear. What has been unique is the way Uniting for Ukraine has been successful in capitalizing on and building public buy-in. It offered migrants an organized, predictable, low-drama pathway, and it allowed Americans to contribute to relief efforts directly by sponsoring migrants. Ukrainians leaned into the legal immigration option, and American sponsors gladly helped them do so—both in large numbers. Contrast that with the traditional government refugee resettlement process, which resettled just 12 Ukrainian refugees in the first month following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.”
“The United States on Wednesday imposed sanctions on at least four Turkey-based entities it said violated U.S. export controls and helped Russia’s war effort, in the biggest U.S. enforcement action in Turkey since the invasion of Ukraine last year.
The designations – which included an electronics company and a technology trader alleged to have helped transfer “dual-use” goods – were part of a global sanctions package on more than 120 entities announced by the U.S. Treasury.
Washington and its allies imposed extensive sanctions on Russia after its invasion, but supply channels from Black Sea neighbour Turkey and other trading hubs, including Hong Kong and the United Arab Emirates, have remained open.
A U.S. administration official told Reuters the sanctions targeted entities and people in Turkey’s maritime and trade sectors that were “primarily” Russia-owned or Russia-linked.
“It’s meant as a warning shot in the evolving phase of enforcing export controls,” the official said, requesting anonymity.”
“The United Nations General Assembly on Thursday adopted a resolution calling for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine, almost exactly one year after it invaded the neighboring country.
In the 193-member body, 141 members voted in support of the resolution, exceeding the two-thirds threshold needed to pass.
even members — Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua, Russia and Syria — voted against the resolution. Thirty-two members abstained, including China, India, Iran and South Africa.
The nonbinding resolution, which is largely symbolic, calls for Russia to halt its attack on Ukraine and to withdraw its troops from the region, as well as for a lasting peace.”
“U.S. intelligence officials have determined that people with ties to Russian intelligence are planning to stage protests in hopes of toppling the Moldovan government, according to the White House.”
“In peacetime, Ukraine’s food exports were enough to feed 400 million people. Its farmers supplied a tenth of the wheat and half the sunflower oil sold on world markets. Its shipments of grains and oilseeds through the Black Sea fell to zero last March, from 5.7 million metric tons in February.
For net importers the impact was immediate and direct. Egypt and Libya had imported two-thirds of their cereals from Russia and Ukraine, for instance. Other countries were hit by the fallout: Prices shot up, first in response to the invasion, and again as countries like India imposed bans on grain exports.
“One of the cruelest ways in which Putin has used the weapons of war to impose costs on people around the world is the ways in which his early blockade of Black Sea ports raised prices for hungry people in dozens of countries around the world,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a close ally of President Joe Biden and who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview.
Coons noted the U.N., Turkey and Ukraine’s work to forge the Black Sea grain deal has reduced some of the overwhelming strain on global food prices, “but not enough yet.”
In Ukraine, farmers could not sell their crops after a bumper harvest before the war left grain stores brimming. The next harvest, already in the ground, had nowhere to go, said Joseph Glauber, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute and former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The standstill to exports also endangered the home front. Before the war, almost half of the country’s budget stemmed from exports, and nearly half of those exports were agricultural, according to Dmytro Los of the Ukrainian Business and Trade Association. “So don’t forget that, during the war, we lost almost 45-50 percent of GDP,” Los said.
To stave off starvation abroad and rescue Ukrainian farmers, the EU set up overland “solidarity lanes” to help bring food exports out through Eastern Europe. And, in July, the U.N. and Turkey mediated the deal to allow safe passage for Ukrainian food shipments through the Black Sea.
Some 21.5 million tons of Ukrainian produce have been transported under the initiative, enabling the World Food Programme to deliver valuable aid to countries like Ethiopia and Afghanistan.
This has helped ease some of the pressure on global food prices — although they remain high — while ensuring Ukraine’s agriculture sector, a leading driver of its economy, doesn’t collapse.
“It’s very important for Ukraine, but it is even more important for the world,” said Oleksiy Goncharenko, a Ukrainian MP who represents Odesa — one of the few ports covered under the current agreement.
As talks resume this week, the fate of the grain deal hangs in the balance. Both sides have plenty of gripes.”