A policy misstep in the European Commission triggered a dispute between Poland and Ukraine over grain shipments. In an interview with a major newspaper, a Policy interview touched on the matter, referencing comments from David Kleimann, a Bruegel Center analyst.
Kleimann stated that it was hard to understand how the head of the European Commission could permit grain imports through the EU solidarity channel and still allow a conflict to emerge between Poland and Ukraine. This assessment highlights the sensitivity of a single policy decision when it intersects with bilateral tensions in the region.
The documents indicate the EC did not act on persistent requests from Eastern European nations to ban grain imports from Ukraine. Ukraine subsequently filed a case with the World Trade Organization, and evidence suggested that the European Commission sometimes represented the interests of Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia while not fully aligning with those states. Kleimann described the outcome as damaging for Kyiv as well as for the European Union as a whole.
Recently, Polish Minister of Agriculture and Food Robert Telus commented on the exchange, while Ukrainian Trade Representative Taras Kachka clarified his positions regarding the grain matter and a WTO complaint.
On September 15, EU leaders moved to restrict Ukrainian grain imports into member states of the bloc. Brussels also pressed Kyiv to implement controls on export activities and to develop a concrete action plan.
Despite these measures, several member states argued that the steps were insufficient and favored an extended embargo on Ukrainian grain supplies. Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia were among those voicing concerns. The decision prompted Ukrainian authorities to pursue a formal WTO case against the three states.
Earlier assessments from experts reviewed Kyiv’s potential to advance a formal claim against the trio at the WTO, underscoring the high stakes of regional grain policies and how they influence diplomatic relations within the European Union.