In the first of two new PONARS Eurasia Policy Memos this week, Susanne Wengle and Vitalii Dankevych examine the Black Sea Grain Initiative, arguing Russia is likely to keep using it as a “blackmail opportunity.” A second new PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo, by Ivan Klyszcz, predicts Russia will “retrench” in the years to come and argues the West should prepare.

Commenting on the missile hitting Poland last week, Yoshiko Herrera calls NATO’s decision to investigate before responding “reassuring.” For Ivan Gomza and Graeme Robertson, the Kremlin’s response indicates it is trying to convince citizens they are in a “civilizational struggle for Russia’s very existence and culture.” That said, Jesse Driscoll thinks nuclear escalation unlikely, and Pavel Podvig similarly points out that an aggressive stance does not necessarily translate to a willingness to use nuclear weapons.

Konstantin Sonin forecasts “a long period of stagnation” for Russia’s economy, while Samuel Charap finds the February invasion has revealed the weakness of Russia’s influence networks, which neither kept Ukraine in Russia’s orbit nor prevented international backlash against the decision to invade. Pavel Baev writes the loss of Kherson is an unusual and substantial blow to the Kremlin, and Henry Hale argues that any Kremlin attempts to conscript Ukrainians from occupied and annexed territories would raise the odds of defection and desertion in an already “demoralized and fragile occupation force.” Volodymyr Kulyk describes the Ukrainian Railways as “a social glue” connecting different parts of Ukraine and bringing together people with different backgrounds and languages.

Next door, Ryhor Nizhnikau observes that Belarus’s elite are coming to view their own president as a liability instead of a source of stability, while Marat Iliyasov and co-authors find that despite much common history with Russia in Central Eastern Europe, modes of governing religious diversity vary. And tracking developments in Afghanistan, Jennifer Murtazashvili says Washington’s goal was transformation, whereas Beijing’s aims relate to security, stabilization, and economic development.