Poland’s military and economic support is indispensable to Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression. That partnership has been imperiled by the Polish government’s insistence on banning Ukraine’s grain exports, which are essential for the global food supply and for the Ukrainian economy.
By widening divisions among allies, the dispute is playing directly into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hands.
European leaders need to act quickly to resolve it.
Russia’s blockade of Black Sea shipping routes and its bombing campaigns against ports on the Danube River have forced Ukraine to use slower and more expensive land routes to get vital exports to markets. The EU had waived quotas and tariffs on Ukraine’s foodstuff after Russia’s invasion, but a flood of imports into eastern member states created an uproar from local farmers.
In May, under pressure from several states, the EU relented and imposed a temporary ban on sales of Ukrainian grains in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.
Meanwhile, Russia’s own hefty harvest helped drive down wheat prices further.
When the ban expired last month, the EU resisted calls to extend it, raising the prospect of another spike in imports. The timing was bad for Poland’s ruling Law and Justice Party, which relies heavily on rural votes and faces an election on Sunday next week. It pledged to defy the EU and keep the ban in place, which caused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to file a complaint with the WTO and question whether Poland’s solidarity with Ukraine was mere “theater.”
Polish leaders, in turn, have warned Zelenskiy that his rhetoric could jeopardize weapons shipments to Ukraine.
This spat benefits no one but Putin. Ukraine’s exports are critical to its ability to sustain a war of attrition — that is the rationale behind the EU’s “solidarity lanes” — and the EU was right to want to lift the import ban, which not only hurt Kyiv, but violated the principles of a common market.
At the same time, Brussels needs to balance support for Ukraine with the interests of member states, even prickly ones with an authoritarian bent.
The Polish blowback is a sign of how difficult that task would be.
Poland and Ukraine agreed this week to shift border checks on Ukrainian grain passing through Poland to the Lithuanian port of Klaipeda, which might help to reduce tensions, but the bigger issues remain.
In the near term, the EU has little choice under the circumstances but to provide more direct subsidies to farmers facing losses from Ukrainian imports. While such transfers risk creating dependencies, the EU has long recognized that economic shocks affect countries differently and has provided “solidarity” funding to cushion the blow. An export licensing system — envisaged by the European Commission and part of a deal that Slovakia cut with Ukraine to end its unilateral ban — might help regulate import flows, although work should be done to ensure that such schemes are not undermined by bureaucracy and corruption.
Over the longer term, the EU needs to invest to help Poland and others upgrade their lagging transportation and storage facilities. That would alleviate some of the capacity problems that have hurt farmers and help prepare for increased future trade flows as the EU expands. For its part, Poland should remember that continued support for Ukraine serves its own economic and security interests.
Given Poland’s outsized importance to Ukraine’s defense — and Europe’s own security — a swift, diplomatic resolution of the grain dispute is far preferable to squabbling and threats of litigation. The costs might be high, but the losses would only be greater if allies are pulling in opposite directions.
The Bloomberg Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS