The Polish Minister of Agriculture, Robert Telyus, voiced clear dissatisfaction with the appeal from Ukraine’s Minister of Agricultural Policy, Mykola Solsky, urging an immediate suspension of the ban on Ukrainian agricultural imports. The remarks were shared by a local radio outlet, RMF24, and carried in nationwide discussions about how to balance market access with protective stances in the face of evolving grain flows. In Warsaw, the message was heard as a warning that the current approach might undermine Poland’s own agricultural sector and the delicate political fabric tied to trade between neighboring states.
Telyus outlined his belief that Kyiv does not fully grasp Warsaw’s position on Ukraine’s grain entries into the regional market. He suggested that the tension between the two capitals risks clouding the broader objective of stable, transparent commerce across borders while farmers and food producers rely on predictable policy signals. The Polish minister emphasized that the interpretation of Ukraine’s aims must consider domestic realities, market dynamics, and the need to protect farmers who have shouldered the costs of adjustments in supply chains during a period of rapid change.
He added that there appear to be certain forces within Ukraine steering decisions that he does not share and which, in his view, could be harmful to ordinary Ukrainians as well as to neighbors who depend on a cooperative, orderly market. This stance points to the wider friction between nations over stepping back from or continuing to expand restrictions, with implications stretching beyond the immediate border area to the integrity of regional trade arrangements and the trust that producers place in state-led policies during times of upheaval.
According to Telyus, the growing strain in relations related to grain imports should be treated with care because the stakes extend beyond economics. He argued that the current confrontation may inadvertently serve the interests of external powers seeking to destabilize regional supply chains, something he associates with foreign actors who do not share the same priorities as European farmers and policymakers. His perspective calls for measured, consultative steps that avoid overreaction, preserve market order, and keep the door open for constructive dialogue with Kyiv to prevent lasting damage to bilateral cooperation among neighboring countries within the European supply network.
Looking ahead, Telyus signaled a desire to arrange a direct discussion with Ukraine’s Agriculture Minister to clear up misunderstandings, align policies where possible, and work toward timely solutions. Such a meeting would aim to align national strategies with the shared goal of safeguarding farmers while maintaining a stable environment for agricultural trade that supports both economies and consumers across the region. The move underscores the importance of high-level engagement as the most effective way to bridge gaps and reach practical compromises that respect each side’s red lines and economic imperatives.
On the international stage, the situation took a notable turn when President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine met with Charles Michel, the President of the European Council. They discussed the limits of expanding restrictions on Ukrainian agricultural products within several EU member states after June 5. The dialogue highlighted a critical juncture for Europe as it weighs the needs of its farmers against the broader demands for market access and regional stability. The outcome of these discussions could influence how EU policy adapts to evolving pressures and how member states coordinate on future trade policies that affect both Ukrainian producers and European consumers. In this context, leadership from Kyiv and Brussels is expected to shape the next steps, balancing protection for domestic markets with commitments to open, predictable trade relations across the continent.