Stolen Ukrainian Grain: From Russia’s Plunder to Israel’s Port
By: Giorgio Provinciali
Live from Ukraine
Mykolaiv — For twelve years, Moscow has bombed and plundered Ukraine’s grain stores, mined Black Sea shipping routes, and attempted to replace Ukraine’s legitimate trade with smuggling of what it has stolen.
Anyone who knowingly buys it or chooses not to know is not buying grain: he’s complicit in a crime.
Shifting the focus of the “Panormitis” affair — the ship Kyiv claims is transporting grain stolen from Ukrainian territories illegally occupied by the Russian Federation (TOT) to Haifa — Kyiv has requested legal assistance from Israel in a letter addressed to the Foreign Ministry and the Justice Ministry in Tel Aviv. Ukrainian lawyers have also forwarded the request to the Israeli Attorney General’s Office. Linking the suspicions to a second shipment believed to be grain stolen from the TOTs, the Ukrainian commander, Ruslan Kravchenko, has asked Israel to seize the Panormitis and its cargo, search the vessel, obtain documentation, collect grain samples, and question the crew.
For its part, Israel has criticized the public handling of the matter, calling it “Twitter diplomacy”, but has also acknowledged that the Ukrainian request is under review by the competent authorities.
The legal crux is plunder. If that grain truly comes from Crimea, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk, or other TOTs, Moscow cannot transform it into Russian goods simply by seizing it, “nationalizing” it, purchasing it under duress, or moving it through controlled ports and operators. International law does not recognize the occupier’s sovereign title to the goods of the occupied territory. The Hague Regulations formally prohibitpillage; the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international humanitarian law confirm this prohibition; and the Rome Statute classifies it as a war crime when committed in the context of an armed conflict (ICRC, 1907/1949).
From this perspective, the Panormitis affair becomes a test, a testing ground for what remains of international law, to see whether it is still capable of recognizing looting when it materializes not with a tank but with an orderly hold, a commercial flag, and apparently regular documents.
The case takes on even greater force when read in the context of the broader battle for the Black Sea. From July 2022 to July 2023, the UN- and Turkish-mediated Black Sea Grain Initiative enabled the export of nearly 33 million tons of Ukrainian grain and other food products through the ports of Odesa, Chornomorsk, and Pivdenny.
On July 17, 2023, however, Moscow withdrew from the agreement, attempting to reinstate a de facto blockade on Ukrainian exports and to use food as a global strategic lever. From that moment on, Ukraine forcibly reopened its export routes, winning the naval battle in the Black Sea and inflicting an unprecedented defeat on the Russian navy. For the first time in history, a country without its own navy had prevailed in a naval engagement of that magnitude, sinking a nuclear-armed power.
Since then, Kyiv has exported its grain through a corridor reconquered by the force of law and technology. At the same time, Moscow has never stopped trying to sell the economic product of its occupation as its own. By imposing its technological dominance for the first time, Kyiv transformed its naval inferiority into interdiction superiority, initiating the paradigm shift that — as I described yesterday in these pages — would restore the strategic initiative to Kyiv two years later.
If Russia’s strategic paradox stems from a nuclear power attempting to do two things at once, such as blocking legal Ukrainian wheat and selling the stolen grain as its own, Israel’s problem is twofold: a state that rightly demands respect for international law in other theaters cannot afford to appear lenient when the goods arrive from territories illegally occupied by another power.
Domestically, Israeli criminal law covers the receipt or handling of goods knowing they were stolen or obtained through crime; the provision specifically addresses anyone who receives, controls, or handles goods knowing they were stolen or obtained through a felony.
An importer can claim ignorance of a shipment's illicit origin only until he receives concrete, repeated, and qualified signals. After diplomatic notifications, judicial requests, and identification of the vessel, cargo, and route, the due diligence threshold changes.
It’s no longer enough to say “we didn’t know”. It’s necessary to demonstrate that checks were carried out.
In international trade, especially when dealing with goods originating from occupied areas, good faith doesn’t matter.
The issue isn’t limited to Israeli importers. It can affect insurers, brokers, shipowners, trading companies, banks, ports, inspectors, intermediaries, and customs authorities.
If a party knows — or cannot reasonably be unaware — that they are dealing in goods originating from an international crime, the nature of the transaction changes: from trade to monetization of the loot.
And the loot, in the case of Ukrainian wheat, is not an agricultural detail but part of a system that finances the Russian occupation and war.
The principle of non-recognition and non-assistance also applies: states must not recognize as legitimate a situation created by a serious violation of international law, nor provide assistance in maintaining it.
The European response must be read in this light. The EU has already introduced measures against vessels involved in transporting stolen Ukrainian wheat, as well as against segments of the Russian shadow fleet. Israel is not automatically bound by EU sanctions, but Israeli individuals and legal entities could become targets of restrictive measures if Brussels believes they have helped Moscow circumvent the sanctions regime or monetize products stolen from TOTs.
Therefore, Israel cannot treat the case as a diplomatic dispute. International law is expected to take a stand, reminding us of its existence.
In 1.526 days of war, we recorded over 250 videos from ground zero and wrote more than 1,500 articles.
We are doing our best to provide genuine, first-hand reports from zones where almost no press dares to go. This means living in a kill zone constantly. We take the risk, but without your invaluable support, our voices would remain unheard and silent. Without brave people sharing our articles from afar, they would remain unread. Our reports would go unseen, and our efforts would be lost. There’s still a lot of work to do here, as the people around us are also in no better situation.
We’re renewing our fundraising campaign and thanking everyone who joins us in helping to restore what Russia is destroying. Moving forward with only a small reimbursement for each article from a brave newspaper that believes in us is extremely challenging. That’s why we are grateful to all the kind people who support us and trust in our mission.
Even a small donation helps.
We’ll keep you updated on developments.
Thank you all, dear friends
被盜的烏克蘭糧食：從俄羅斯的掠奪到以色列的港口
作者：Giorgio Provinciali
翻譯：旺財球球
烏克蘭前線報道
尼古拉耶夫 — 十二年來，莫斯科轟炸並掠奪烏克蘭的糧倉，在黑海航道布設水雷，並試圖以走私其所竊取之物來取代烏克蘭的合法貿易。
任何明知而購買這些糧食，或選擇視而不見的人，都不是在買糧食：他們是在共犯一樁罪行。
“帕諾爾米蒂斯”事件中——基輔聲稱該船正在將從俄羅斯聯邦非法占領的烏克蘭領土（TOT）竊取的糧食運往海法——基輔已向駐特拉維夫的外交部與司法部致函請求法律協助。烏克蘭律師也已將該請求轉交以色列總檢察長辦公室。將該船與與第二批被認為來自TOT的被盜糧食聯係起來，烏克蘭指揮官魯斯蘭·克拉夫琴科請求以色列扣押帕諾爾米蒂斯號及其貨物、搜查該船、獲取文件、采集糧樣並訊問船員。
以色列方麵批評了公開處置此事的方式，稱其為“推特外交”，但也承認烏克蘭的請求正由主管當局審查。
（圖：Alla與我在烏克蘭基恩德拉蒂夫卡被俄羅斯聯邦摧毀的一個糧食集散地報道——版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
（視頻：Alla與我在烏克蘭基恩德拉蒂夫卡被俄羅斯聯邦摧毀的一個糧食集散地報道——版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
該案法律焦點在於掠奪。如果那些糧食確來自克裏米亞、赫爾鬆、紮波羅熱、頓涅茨克、盧甘斯克或其他被占領土，莫斯科不能僅憑沒收、“國有化”、在脅迫下購買，或通過受控港口和運營商搬運，就將其轉化為俄羅斯商品。
國際法不承認占領者對被占領土財物的主權所有權。《海牙條例》明確禁止掠奪；《日內瓦第四公約》及國際人道法習慣規則也對該項禁令予以確認；而《羅馬規約》將其列為在武裝衝突背景下構成的戰爭罪（國際紅十字會，1907/1949）。
從這個角度看，帕諾爾米蒂斯事件成為對國際法剩餘效力的試金石——以檢驗國際法是否仍能識別掠奪，即便這種掠奪不以坦克為形、而以整齊的倉艙、商船旗幟與表麵合法文件出現。
將此案置於更廣泛的黑海博弈的背景下，則其意義更加凸顯。自2022年7月至2023年7月，經聯合國與土耳其調解的黑海糧食倡議，使近3300萬噸烏克蘭糧食及其他食品通過敖德薩、契爾諾莫爾斯克與皮夫登尼港出口。
（視頻：我在第聶伯拍攝的影像 ——版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
然而，2023年7月17日，莫斯科退出該協議，試圖恢複對烏克蘭出口的事實性封鎖，並將糧食作為全球戰略杠杆。從那時起，烏克蘭強行重開了出口通道，在黑海贏得海上戰鬥並給俄羅斯海軍以史無前例的打擊。曆史上首次，一個沒有自己海軍的國家在如此規模的海戰中獲勝，擊退了一個擁有核武的強權。
自那時以來，基輔通過以法律與技術之力奪回的通道出口糧食。與此同時，莫斯科從未停止試圖將其在占領地奪取所得的經濟產品作為己有出售。基輔首次確立技術優勢，將其海上劣勢轉化為攔截優勢，引發範式轉變，正如我昨日在本欄所述、這一轉變在兩年後使基輔重新掌握戰略主動權。
（圖：Alla與我在烏克蘭霍廷一個被俄羅斯聯邦摧毀的烏克蘭糧食集散地報道 ——版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
如果俄羅斯的戰略悖論來自一個核大國試圖同時做兩件事——封鎖合法的烏克蘭小麥出口並把被盜糧食當作自己的出售，那麽以色列麵臨的問題則是雙重的：一個在其他戰場上合理要求尊重國際法的國家，在麵對來自他國非法占領地區的貨物時，不能顯得寬容。
在國內層麵，以色列刑法涵蓋明知貨物為贓物或通過犯罪獲得而收受或處理的行為；該條款專門針對任何明知其為贓物或通過重罪獲得卻仍接收、控製或處理相關物品的人。
進口商隻有在收到具體、反複且有權威的信號前，才能主張對貨物非法來源不知情。在經曆外交通知、司法請求並確認涉案船舶、貨物與航線之後，盡職調查標準發生變化。
僅僅說“我們不知道”已不再足夠，必須證明已進行相關核查。
在國際貿易中，尤其是涉及來自被占地區的貨物時，誠信並不能免除責任。
（視頻：Alla與我在烏克蘭東南前線拍攝的影像——版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali
問題並不僅限於以色列進口商。它可能影響保險人、經紀人、船東、貿易公司、銀行、港口、檢驗員、中介及海關機構。
若一方知情，或在合理判斷下不可能不知情，其所交易的貨物源自國際性犯罪，則交易性質發生變化：從貿易轉為對掠奪所得的變現。
而在烏克蘭小麥的案例中，這些贓物並非普通農業產品，而是資助俄羅斯占領與戰爭體係的組成部分。
不承認與不協助原則亦同樣適用：國家不得承認由嚴重違反國際法而形成的局勢為合法，也不得為維持該局勢提供協助。
由此應解讀歐洲的回應。歐盟已對參與運輸被盜烏克蘭小麥的船隻以及俄羅斯“影子船隊”的采取了措施。以色列並非自動受歐盟製裁約束，但若布魯塞爾認為以色列個人或實體幫助莫斯科規避製裁或變現從TOT的被盜產品，相關主體可能成為限製措施的目標。
因此，以色列不能將此案簡單視為一場外交爭端。國際法要發揮效力，以提醒世人其仍然存在。
（圖：Alla與我在烏克蘭蘇梅一所被俄羅斯聯邦摧毀的烏克蘭糧食集散地報道 ——版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
***
在1526天的戰爭中，我們從前線錄製了250多段視頻，並撰寫了1500多篇文章。
我們盡最大努力從幾乎沒有媒體敢進入的地帶進行真實的一手報道，這意味著我們長期生活在“殺傷區”。我們承擔風險，但若沒有你們寶貴的支持，我們的聲音將無從傳出。若沒有遠方的勇敢的人們轉發分享我們的文章，它們將無人問津。我們的報道會被忽視，我們的努力將付諸流水。這裏還有大量工作要做，周圍的人們境況同樣艱難。
我們正在更新籌款活動，感謝每一位加入我們、幫助修複俄羅斯破壞的人們。僅靠一家勇敢的報紙為我們每篇文章支付微薄稿酬以維持前線報道極為困難。因此，我們感激所有支持並信任我們使命的善良人們。
哪怕是小小的捐助也有助益。
我們會持續為你們更新事態進展。
謝謝大家，親愛的朋友們
如果你認可我們的工作，請支持我們
在過去三年裏，自烏克蘭大規模戰爭爆發以來，作為自由撰稿人，我們一直在烏克蘭戰爭的所有前線進行報道…
Paypal捐款鏈接：https://www.paypal.com/pools/c/9oqgW5u5oE
