MaxQ

You are correct that I didn't factor in the EU in my response. I should have, but most responses I put some thought into tend to become too long and then it becomes a tree falling in the forest.

A couple of quick ones regarding the EU. Each country has more autonomy than EU detractors acknowledge. They also have ways to get variances and flexibility. Also the bureaucrats are not as myopic to the impact of EU decisions on the world as a whole. I would be very surprised if it hasn't been estimated how much these decisions impact both European and World food supply. We also don't know what the overall impact would be of the decision to do nothing. Is this runoff creating a massive dead zone from the rivers mouths? If so is creating a drop in food availability from destruction of a fishery? (side note: I have no clue, it is a hypothetical I made up to illustrate that rule makers sometimes take more into account than initially appears)
3 key strategic goals of Putin's vision for the future of Russia are: 1. Weakening/destruction of NATO.2. Weakening /destruction of the EU. 3. Weakening/destruction of the unofficial USA/European cultural and economic alliance.
They have had a great deal of success from many years of SVR/GRU active measures. Social media has been a gift to them. It is unlikely that Brexit would have occurred without Russia activity. Due to a natural sympathy that authoritarian Nationalist parties and leaders would have with the cultural/nationalistic/anti-democracy leadership of Putin the EU is less unified, and hence weaker, than it was 10-15 years ago. (I won't even go into what was nearly accomplished by the previous administration with NATO). Europeans have a better economic life with better health and household security with the EU. That also should lend itself to a stronger polity. All of which Russia seeks to undermine. We should be thoughtful regarding whether or not to assist them in their destructive goals.

Your post brings up a key issue regarding the problems and predicaments that Mankind faces. Due to the reality that everything, and I mean everything, is connected any action or inaction we take regarding one issue impacts multiple other issues. Often times these impacts are unexpected. We have to decide which crisis to address, knowing it will exacerbate another crisis.
We have built a civilization of breathtaking complexity. It has become virtually impossible to isolate any significant aspect of it. If a bridge needs repair, we have to disrupt traffic and spend a great deal of resources just to keep it at a level we already have. The powers that be have to decide whether or not to spend, suffer the anger of the public, and fix it...or...leave it be and hope all those engineers are wrong.

You point out that the poorest countries take the hit first regarding food. Racism is mentioned. I actually had to smile at the irony of the argument. I have seen exactly the same argument by people who support action to limit climate change. The argument is that the poor of Africa and Asia will suffer the earliest and the most from climate change, hence if you oppose taking any action an underlying motive may be racism.

Which leads back to my original point. Any action we take to mitigate or solve one of our polycrisis makes another one (or more) crisis worse. It creates situations where a vested interest in one area or another will go to great lengths to prevent any attempt to address problems that would cascade into their area of concern. (convincing the body politic that an emerging crisis is a hoax would be one way to prevent said action).
It also leads to a situation where we are paralyzed as to what to do. We want to find painless solutions to fixing problems that have arisen from the success of our ways. We add band aid fixes, which add to the complexity, which makes the next mitigation even more difficult. And so on.
So...I am not optimistic. We do nothing to address problems....people starve.
We attempt to address problems....probably some of the same.
Happy Thanksgiving.