Poland, EU and Ukraine clash over grain embargo

We’re saying Wesołych Świąt with a 10% discount!

Take advantage of our Xmas offer and get 10% off all courses & lessons – book individual lessons from only 29€ per session or a 12-week group course for just 224€ 249€. Valid until 06.01.2026.

Contact us to claim your discount

The news in Polish

1. utrzymywać
   kontynuować jakiś stan lub działanie, nie przerywać czegoś ↩︎
2. embargo  (n.)
   zakaz przywozu lub wywozu towarów z jakiegoś kraju ↩︎
3. produkt  (m.)
   rzeczy, które powstają w wyniku produkcji lub wytwarzania ↩︎
4. niezadowolony
   taki, który nie jest z czegoś zadowolony, nie podoba mu się coś ↩︎
5. Bruksela  (f.)
   miasto, stolica Belgii; często używane jako skrót na instytucje Unii Europejskiej ↩︎
6. kompromis  (m.)
   porozumienie, w którym obie strony trochę rezygnują ze swoich żądań, żeby się dogadać ↩︎

Translation

Text comprehension

Question 1: Why does the Polish government say it is keeping the embargo on grain and other farm products from Ukraine?

Question 2: What is the European Union trying to balance while it looks for a compromise?

Vocabulary

Polish	English
utrzymywać	to maintain
embargo  (n.)	embargo
produkt  (m.)	product
niezadowolony	dissatisfied
Bruksela  (f.)	Brussels
kompromis  (m.)	compromise

Read the full story

Poland’s continuing embargo on Ukrainian grain and agricultural products has become a key point of tension inside the European Union, even after a new EU–Ukraine trade arrangement came into force on 29 October.

The European Commission expected the updated trade deal with Ukraine to close a difficult chapter that began after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, when Ukrainian food exports were redirected through EU countries. Instead, three member states – Poland, Slovakia and Hungary – have kept in place their own unilateral bans on importing many Ukrainian farm goods. These national measures clash with the core EU principle of a single internal market, where trade rules are meant to be common to all members.

Commission spokespersons have stated that Brussels sees no justification for continuing national-level embargoes. Officials have warned that “all options are on the table”, a phrase that in EU language includes the possibility of launching a formal infringement procedure before the Court of Justice of the EU against governments that break EU law.

On paper, this sounds like a serious confrontation. If the Commission opened a case and the Court agreed that the embargoes violated EU rules, the countries involved could ultimately face financial penalties. In theory, tensions over grain imports could also influence talks on other sensitive files, such as migration policy, energy and border security.

However, politicians in Poland’s ruling camp suggest the situation is less dramatic than it appears. Government figures quoted in Polish media describe Brussels’ threats as part of a familiar political ritual: the Commission must be seen to defend the rules, while Warsaw defends its farmers. According to these voices, Poland’s Ministry of Agriculture has no intention of lifting the embargo quickly, even under EU pressure.

Sources in both Warsaw and Brussels describe what they call an informal understanding rather than an open conflict. EU officials repeat publicly that the new trade deal protects EU farmers and is strategically important to support the Ukrainian economy during the war. Yet when asked in detail about deadlines for forcing Poland to end its embargo, Commission insiders say there is no fixed timetable to resolve the dispute.

According to politicians from Poland’s governing coalition, this reflects a kind of pragmatic compromise. The government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk can maintain the embargo to calm domestic anger among Polish farmers, who fear being undercut by cheaper Ukrainian goods. At the same time, the Commission continues its overall pro‑Ukraine trade policy and avoids a confrontation that could strengthen more Eurosceptic forces in Poland before the next parliamentary elections, scheduled for 2027.

Some Polish politicians openly admit that the embargo serves political and communication purposes as much as economic ones. They argue it signals to farmers that their concerns are taken seriously, at a time when parties critical of the EU, such as Law and Justice (PiS) and the right‑wing Confederation, are trying to gain rural support.

Behind this political theatre, there is a further paradox. While Polish officials publicly criticise elements of the new EU–Ukraine trade agreement, government representatives in Brussels ultimately voted in favour of the deal. Key figures in the ruling coalition now say privately that, given the current balance of power in the EU and widespread sympathy for Ukraine, the final compromise is “the best Poland could realistically hope to obtain”.

The updated agreement does not offer full, unlimited access for all Ukrainian food exports. It fully liberalises only so‑called less sensitive products, such as milk and dairy goods. For highly sensitive products – including wheat, maize, eggs, poultry and sugar – there are strict limits on how much can enter the EU. The Commission plans to increase these volumes gradually over time, monitoring the impact on local markets.

Central to the new framework is a safeguard or “emergency brake” mechanism. If a member state believes that imports of a specific Ukrainian product are destabilising its domestic market, it can officially notify the Commission. Under the new rules, the EU can then temporarily restrict imports of that single product for the whole Union, and it must react within around one month of the complaint. EU officials say this tool should reduce the need for uncoordinated national bans like the Polish embargo.

From the Commission’s perspective, this arrangement marks the start of a more stable phase in EU–Ukraine trade relations. Brussels argues that common rules, backed by a fast‑acting safety mechanism, allow both the protection of EU farmers and the support of Ukraine’s exports. Officials hope that, as trust in the mechanism grows, governments will feel less pressure to take unilateral steps.

For now, however, Poland is not ready to make specific promises. The Ministry of Agriculture says its primary goal is to defend the interests of domestic farmers and that discussions with both the European Commission and the Ukrainian government are ongoing. Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski has indicated that lifting the embargo is possible in the future, but he speaks in terms of “weeks or months”, not days.

Krajewski notes that pressure at the Polish–Ukrainian border is currently lower because Black Sea ports have been at least partly reopened for Ukrainian exports. He also warns that, if large volumes of Ukrainian grain once again flow towards Poland and significantly hurt local prices, he would be prepared to restore or tighten restrictions. In his view, any change must follow careful observation of the market, rather than fixed political dates.

In summary, the dispute over Ukrainian grain imports illustrates a wider balancing act inside the EU. Member states aim to show solidarity with Ukraine and keep food prices reasonable for consumers, while also protecting their own farmers and respecting the principles of the EU single market. Poland’s current stance suggests that, beyond formal agreements, much depends on informal political calculations and the ability of national and European institutions to manage domestic sensitivities during wartime.

Info: ‘Polish Learner News’ is a service from ‘Let’s Learn Polish’, a language school that focuses on Polish language learning and offers various types of online Polish courses to support learners at different levels.