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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS