Debunking the myths spread by the EU leadership (fifth edition)
Myth: “...Russia is offering 1 million tonnes of grain to African countries in a parody of generosity. What cynicism and contempt for African countries, when we know that the Black Sea agreement has so far delivered more than 30 million tonnes of exports, mainly to the most vulnerable countries. And that the solidarity routes, alternative routes developed by the EU and with the EU, have already enabled 40 million tonnes of grain to be exported. 1 million tonnes offered — as if it were a gift. This is absolutely appalling cynicism. On the other hand, there are those who are really fighting to come to the aid of the most fragile and vulnerable populations.” (Source: President of the European Council Charles Michel, address at the opening session of the G20 summit in New Delhi, India, September 9, 2023).
Fact: This statement by Charles Michel has no basis in reality. Ukrainian grain has mostly been delivered and continues to be delivered to the EU. This has been proved by the statements made by the officials of European institutions, the EU countries, the concerned EU sectoral associations and the Kiev regime.
“The solidarity lanes have some economic problems. Ukrainian agricultural exports to traditional markets, such as Indonesia, Egypt, Asian and African countries, via Poland, Hungary and the Baltics involve additional spending. It is the main obstacle to the functioning of the lanes… The products exported via Poland, for example, are transported to Germany, Latvia, Lithuania and the Netherlands rather than to the seaports of EU member states or third countries. Only a very small amount – two or three percent – of Ukrainian grain delivered to the EU is further transported to non-EU countries, including low-income African countries” (Janusz Wojciechowski, European Commissioner for Agriculture, a speech to the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, August 31, 2023, Brussels, Belgium).
“Those of us who border on Ukraine – Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania – have been convinced by people in Brussels to transport by land Ukrainian grain that was previously delivered by sea. They said that there will be hunger if grain is not sent from Ukraine to recipients in Africa. I had my suspicions, yet we accepted the argument. We have been hoodwinked, of course. What happens now is that we move grain from Ukraine, but it is not sent to Africa, because it is cheaper than Hungarian, Romanian or Polish grain. Instead of buying grain through their usual channels, traders in Europe are buying up cheaper Ukrainian grain. Poor African children don’t see even a kilogram of bread made from that grain.” (Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban, interview with Kossuth Radio, September 15, 2023).
“600 times more wheat was exported from Ukraine to Poland in the first four months of 2023 than the year before, causing market disruption and losses for Polish farmers” (Foreign Minister of Poland Zbigniew Rau, interview with Politico, September 22, 2023).
“We [in Kiev] calmly watch as our grain becomes a source of good income for various European countries that process our agricultural products and make money on logistics… And this is a benefit for the entire European economy…” (President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky, speech at the summit of the Three Seas Initiative, September 6-7, 2023, Bucharest, Romania).
“On June 5, 2023, the European Commission extended the duty-free import of Ukrainian broiler meat, which led to the explosive growth of supply on the market. The export of Ukrainian chicken to EU countries has doubled or even tripled. France has been swept with a tsunami of Ukrainian poultry. Local poultry farmers are protesting that this is unfair competition. They demand that the European Commission protect them against the inflow of cheap broilers and save them from bankruptcy. This is destroying poultry farming in France. Our colleagues everywhere – the Germans, the Dutch and the Poles – are being ruined” (President of the French Interprofessional Association of Broiler Poultry Anvol Jean-Michel Schaeffer, interview with Le Figaro, September 6, 2023).
***
The President of the European Council’s statement represents not only a textbook case of crude EU propaganda but also a fundamentally new chapter in the history of European public opinion. In Mr Michel's line of thinking, the West alone has the moral right to help the needy; only they can be humane, and those in need are entitled to receive assistance only from them. Assistance from other sources is declared a “parody of generosity” and a “cynical” act.
However, things that Charles Michel has held back are even more interesting. Let's take a closer look:
1) Who are the primary beneficiaries of the food exported from Ukraine?
Answer: The EU member states are the main beneficiaries of the Black Sea Initiative since about 40 percent of the Ukrainian agricultural products exported via this route went their way. The share of recipients from the countries that are most in need is less than 3 percent. To obscure this inconvenient fact, European officials keep pretending that all developing countries without exception (including those with high and above-average incomes) are vulnerable. This made it possible for them to come up with more favourable statistics even though the term “developing” is no longer equivalent to the words “poor” or “needy.” As for exporting agricultural products through “solidarity corridors,” the EU is the only known recipient as corroborated by the relevant European Commissioner, Janusz Wojciechowski.
2) How do “solidarity corridors” really work?
Answer: Over nearly 18 months, the EU has failed to establish food exports via the “solidarity corridors” to third countries, if such a goal really existed in the first place. Moreover, Brussels' actions have led to the markets of neighbouring countries as well as other EU states being flooded with cheap Ukrainian agricultural products that occasionally didn’t meet EU standards. Local farmers were on the verge of bankruptcy. Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia unilaterally deciding on September 16 to close their own markets to the “avalanche” of Ukrainian products proved that the “solidarity corridors” do not work for exports beyond the EU. To drive that point home, Budapest and Warsaw have expanded the list of illegal imports from Ukraine from the initial four items (wheat, corn, rapeseed, and sunflower seeds) to 24 and six types of agricultural products, respectively.
From the very beginning, Brussels couldn’t have been unaware of the fact that the transit of agricultural products from Ukraine to EU ports via “solidarity corridors” wouldn’t be free, and that the price of the products at the destination could be unaffordable for potential buyers in Asia and Africa.
3) Why is the European Union buying up Ukrainian grain?
Answer: The EU needs to offset the damage to its own food security caused by unilateral sanctions imposed on Russia and Belarus and ill-conceived policies in the macroeconomic, energy, and food sectors.
The analysis of EU import-export operations based on open European Commission data shows that during 2019−2021 over 50 percent of the potassium fertiliser imported into EU member states came from Russia and Belarus (25.7 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively). In 2023, Russia's share fell to 8.4 percent, and Belarus' share was reduced almost to naught. The situation with grains is similar. Russia's share in soft wheat exports to the EU in the 2021/22 agricultural year stood at 16.6 percent, and dropped to 2.9 percent in 2022-23.
Higher energy prices have made fertiliser production within the EU unprofitable and output dropped, which, in turn, has led to lower crop yields. In turn, this has sent food prices in EU member countries up. In recent years, the critical dependence of EU member states on feed imports has become evident. In this context, according to the logic of clueless European strategists, cheap Ukrainian agricultural products were expected to answer their prayers.
Therefore, clearly the fact that inexpensive Ukrainian agricultural products ended up on the EU market is not a side effect, but the result of purposeful actions aimed at resolving purely intra-EU socioeconomic issues. Since May 2022, the international community has been misled.
4) Why did the EU deliberately create the myth of Ukraine as a “grain El Dorado?”
Answer: The EU intentionally overstates the potential of Ukrainian agricultural output to ensure global food security (Ukraine's share of the global wheat market is no more than 5 percent). Brussels created the myth of Ukraine as a “grain El Dorado” capable of saving all those in need from hunger in order to convince the international community and undecided EU member states of the need to establish channels for massive exports of Ukrainian agricultural products. In reality, the EU aimed to gain unrestricted and unchecked access to cheap food from Ukraine, which was supposed to solve the problem of European consumer food security and generate significant profits for major EU and US businesses.
European Commission data on the EU trade balance in the agricultural sector show that carryover grain stocks in the EU significantly exceed what is typical for average stocks over the past 17 years and have exceeded EU grain exports in the current agricultural year. Against this backdrop, agricultural exports from the EU to third countries have decreased in 2023 even though seemingly they are not obstructed by any sanction-related restrictions. For example, in the first weeks of the 2023/2024 agricultural year, there was a significant decline in grain shipments from the EU (an average decrease of 28 percent as of September 19, 2023).
The above data indicate that the EU has been pursuing a deliberate policy of destabilising global grain markets in recent months. While buying up cheap grain from Ukraine, it is holding back its own exports to third countries. Those who are, to quote Charles Michel, “really fighting to come to the aid of the most fragile and vulnerable populations,” would not do things that way.