Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova's answer to a media question concerning statements by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell
Question: How would you comment on the recent article by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, Russia Must Stop Using Food as a Weapon, published by a number of international media? Reacting to Russia's refusal to extend the Black Sea deal, the chief of European diplomacy insists that EU sanctions have no negative impact on global food security and that Ukraine plays a critical role in it, while prioritising the fight against Russia’s misinformation on this issue.
Maria Zakharova: This is misinformation, a fake narrative. The termination of the Black Sea Initiative limits Europe’s ability to replenish its own coffers and strips the EU of a plausible pretext to do so while tacitly abusing the most vulnerable states with impunity, profiting at their expense by reselling cheap Ukrainian grain and other goods. Moreover, this created additional pressure on the alternative routes created by Brussels for the export of Ukrainian grain – the “corridors of solidarity” used to export over 60 percent of grain from Ukraine since the beginning of the special military operation, according to the European Commission.
All of this is fraught with tangible consequences for the EU's own food security, especially against the backdrop of the well-known negative consequences of the anti-Russia sanctions for the EU’s internal market, along with unfavourable climate and phytosanitary factors in a number of EU regions. There are risks of political instability in the countries bordering Ukraine, where local farmers – a significant part of the electorate – are on the verge of ruin because of the Ukrainian agricultural products being sold at dumping prices on the local market.
We have repeatedly commented on the EU's true priorities when it comes to food security and explained exactly which Brussels decisions on sanctions have affected Russia's trade with third countries in agricultural products and fertilisers, and how. The Foreign Ministry website includes a permanent section on Debunking the myths spread by the EU leadership, which cites examples with clear references to specific articles of EU regulations that have a negative impact on global food security.
Josep Borrell does not even bother to rationalise his stance by any serious argument. He simply juggles the facts and offers unfounded, obviously untenable statements. He simply expects the audience to believe his assurances that Russia has allegedly benefited “significantly from the second part of the package deal,” the Memorandum of Understanding with the UN (which was never actually put into practice) or that the sanctions have not affected Russian exports. The international community should hold Borrell accountable for the lies he is spreading. He never cited a single fact but did leave out a lot.
The part describing the European Union’s “heroic efforts” to save the world from famine does not contain a word about the fact that countries in need did not receive their share of Russian and Belarusian fertilisers due to EU sanctions and the resulting long-term devastating consequences for global food security. Moreover, Belarus, which accounted for 20 percent of the global potash fertiliser trade before 2022, is not mentioned in Borrell’s article at all. Meanwhile, on August 3, Brussels imposed sanctions against Belneftekhim, a concern that owns key Belarusian producers of nitrogen and phosphate fertilisers. Does this mean that European officials churning out anti-Russia and anti-Belarus restrictions are so ignorant about agriculture? Or are they making deliberate targeted efforts to undermine the export potential of Russian and Belarusian agriculture sectors? I think the answer is obvious. And their concern for global food security is nothing more than another attempt to justify the disastrous consequences of the EU's sanctions policy.
As usual, the Spaniard made no mention of Russian products’ share of the global agricultural market and the number of countries that use supplies from our country to meet their needs.
We are confident that the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America this article targets are well aware what Brussels’ irresponsible behaviour is leading to: the EU is ready to disrupt good and reliable supply chains of Russian agricultural products to countries in need without hesitation just to “inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.”
The European Union, which still desperately claims to be a responsible international player, has only a simple choice in this situation: either to stop purposefully destabilising global food markets by introducing more and more restrictions on Russian and Belarusian agricultural products, or to stop posing as a champion of global food security.
