Makes sense. Once we're talking about liquidity, though, there's a wide variety of rich country behaviour that raises food prices: Eating large amounts of grain-fed meat, turning food (or crops grown on land that could have been used to grow food) into ethanol, etc. Maybe the message should be: "Support Ukraine by eating less meat and planting a victory garden." In terms of a concrete government policy, that might look like fixing food and fertilizer imports at last year's levels (from non-Russia countries, imports from Russia would be fixed at 0 due to sanctions), and then figuring out how to feed the country on that plus whatever can be produced internally. That should more or less zero-out the effect of sanctions on global food prices. (Rich countries still contain poor people, so internally they would need to work out a subsidy for plant-based foods.) It should still be easy to feed everyone in a rich country where there's high meat-consumption, high food wastage, and only 1% of the population are farmers. Just stop eating so much meat, and have a few more people start being farmers. The government could hire a bunch of patriotic chemists and engineers to quickly spin up more Haber-Bosch reactors. Rich countries have lots of chemists and engineers. All this will cost money, sure, but think about it as just another kind of military spending. If someone came to me tomorrow saying: "we're building a bunch of Haber-Bosch reactors so we can maintain our sanctions against Russia, the pay is minimum wage, are you in?", I'd quit my current job the very same day. For some reason, our current governments aren't doing these things. Maybe they don't realize the severity of the situation. Maybe they don't care about the world's poor people. Maybe they're smarter than me, and have an even better plan. Still, it's insane to me that getting our butts in gear and making some relatively minor sacrifices in order to cover the shortfall is not being discussed as an option.