A sincere question:

Would it not then be helpful to support these new or temporary supply chains as a war effort? Shouldn't that fall under humanitarian aid?

If the shortages are in rail lines, grain elevators, shipping terminals, bulk cargo ships, etc...no sort of "support" can create those at all quickly.

Trucks. Lots and lots of trucks.

Leaving aside the issue that trucks can't move stuff across oceans, how do you get the extra trucks to where they are needed?

As a Romanian I visited Lviv a few years ago. There were some disaster potholes right past the border. It took 1 hour to go through say, 10km with a small car. Unless those roads get fixed, I expect only military or otherwise rugged trucks to be able to pass quickly. Otherwise, you'd need a lot of trucks to get a significant flow of goods.

Example:

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.0388842,22.9469939,3a,75y,33...

That's why the Russians de facto imposing a blockade on Odessa and generally speaking on the Ukrainian ports at the Black Sea is so important to them.

Also Romanian in here, from the Southern part of the country where we happen to grow lots of wheat. We're also close by the Danube, which helps a lot with transport (companies like Cargill have invested massively during the last decade in here).

Cargill is in the running for world's most evil corporation. Competition is stiff and enthusiastic.

Nestle? BASF/Monsanto? Exxon? CCP? Halliburton? We might not recognize the name of the leader.

Probably helps that they're in private hands, which I don't know how they managed to do for so long.

Ah, looks barely worse than roads in the Silicon Valley. Maybe that's why everybody drives SUV and pickup truck over here.

Lots and lots of snorkel kits.

Ships

Not sure about the EU, but the US has a massive truck driver shortage already.

Is there really a shortage or are salaries just not high enough to attract candidates?

Agree.

If the options are:

- kill more people to end the war and return wheat supply

- send more people to potentially die while killing more people to end the war and return the wheat supply

- or pay more to get wheat to where it needs to be to ensure other people don't die of starvation during this war.

I truly wish that the answer was: - pay more people to get wheat where it needs to be

I think China may step up here, as it is a great opportunity to promote their One Belt, One Road Initiative. And they will be one of the countries with excess wheat to sell. And it will make Australia look stupid if they have wheat but no boats and no signature on the agreement.

Another step up opportunity for China would definitely be problematic for the US

Problem for US hegemony. For the US, its likely a net benefit in that in buying cheap Chinese wheat, those consumers will be more able to afford expensive american ones

Agreed, and that cheap chinese wheat would be a massive problem for US hegemony on which many, many things in the US and adjacent economies rest.

Yeah...I was thinking ships from India and trucks from the east for example.