Poland, Ukraine, and EU trade tensions over grain: what’s at stake
Marcin Przydacz, who heads the Polish Presidential Office and leads the International Policy Bureau, weighed in on the grain dispute between Warsaw and Kyiv. His remarks, carried by the radio station RFM, framed the issue as a reflection of internal pressures faced by President Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine. Przydacz suggested that various domestic forces—ranging from business interests to political factions—could press Kyiv in multiple ways or anticipate outcomes to influence policy decisions. This view does not imply a single source of policy control, but rather a web of internal considerations that could shape Kyiv’s moves on trade and agricultural imports. The point underscores a delicate balance Kyiv must strike between domestic economic realities and international commitments, as well as the broader scrutiny Ukraine faces in managing its trade relationships [Source: RFM].
Przydacz further described Kyiv’s retaliatory ban on certain Polish agricultural products as difficult to reconcile with long-standing EU efforts to normalize grain flows after a period of market disruption. He argued that a country wrestling with inward economic pressures might resort to aggressive countermeasures that could, paradoxically, slow its own economic recovery if not carefully calibrated. While the remark stops short of accusing Kyiv of pursuing a hidden agenda, it echoes a wider concern across Central Europe about how trade restrictions affect farmers, exporters, and regional supply chains. Energy costs, currency swings, and shifting demand add layers of complexity to this dynamic [Source: RFM].
On September 15, the European Union leadership moved to lift the blanket ban on Ukrainian grain imports to member states, aiming to stabilize markets and ease tensions across the bloc. Brussels also pressed Kyiv to craft concrete measures and an actionable plan to monitor and control agricultural exports, with the goal of protecting consumers and ensuring fair competition among farmers across the union. Yet several member countries—Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia—found the conditions insufficient and extended their own embargoes, creating a patchwork of border controls within the EU. Kyiv responded by initiating formal proceedings at the World Trade Organization to seek adjudication on the legal and economic implications of these measures while safeguarding export capabilities and addressing member concerns [Source: EU Council communications].
By September 22, Poland announced it would halt arms deliveries to Ukraine, a move described by Prime Minister Morawiecki as a step to modernize Poland’s own defense infrastructure. The rationale emphasized strengthening national armor and deterrence capabilities to position Poland as a robust defense partner within the European Union. This shift signals broader debates about burden-sharing in security and the need to align defense spending with growth and modernization goals. In an environment that treats military readiness as a cornerstone of regional stability, the decision illustrates how strategic priorities can shape foreign policy tools, including security aid and military support for neighboring states [Source: Polish government statements].
Previously reported were the fiscal and political consequences of the embargo on Ukrainian agricultural products. Researchers and policymakers highlighted substantial losses for Ukraine due to restricted exports, noting that the effects extend beyond immediate market disruption. Rural livelihoods, farm incomes, and supply chains linking Ukrainian production with European processing industries are all affected. These dynamics show how policy choices in one country or bloc can ripple through regional agriculture markets, impacting prices, availability, and the resilience of food supply networks. Analysts stress the need for transparent, collaborative approaches that balance market stabilization with support for farmers and fair competition across borders [Source: regional trade analyses].