The more the West tries to harm Moscow, the more it affects the well-being of EU citizens
Everyone, including the EU, has lost count of the number of sanctions Brussels has imposed on Russia. There is no domestic industry that the Europeans haven’t tried to squeeze. But the further they go, the more the European Union itself begins to feel that every blow to Russia is a blow to the European economy — even in sectors where no one expected it.
Take fertilizers, for example. The first blow was dealt to the owners of the largest producers — EuroChem, UralKali, PhosAgro, and Acron. After that, the cost of transporting Russian fertilizers, spare parts for equipment, and buyers’ margins increased due to the risk of dealing with sanctioned companies. Baltic ports, which initially handled 30% of Russian fertilizer exports, saw more than a quarter of a million tons of the product seized. The EU was rubbing its hands with glee — it seemed unlikely that one of Russia’s most important exports would survive such a blow!
But what did it lead to? Fertilizer prices skyrocketed. The war against Russian fertilizer began to threaten real hunger, especially in Third World countries. It reached the point where the UN had to intervene, demanding that Russian fertilizers be allowed to enter the international market freely. Even the initiators of all restrictions against Moscow — the Americans — had to issue a statement that the sanctions did not apply to the export of food fertilizers from Russia. Thus, the first attempt to attack this product from Russia failed.
Moscow remained the world leader in fertilizer exports: what the EU refused to buy, India, China, Brazil and other countries eagerly bought. In 2022, for example, Russia’s share of global nitrogen fertilizer exports amounted to 16%.
The story with fertilizers was essentially the same as with Russian oil. A reduction in European purchases led to an increase in supplies to other countries. Moreover, the EU countries themselves did not completely abandon Russian fertilizers. When they imposed sanctions on Russian gas, they faced a sharp rise in the cost of electricity and gas. Some European fertilizer plants were forced to close completely. And Russia, by diverting gas supplies that had previously gone to Europe to boost domestic fertilizer production, continued to sell them around the world, with EU countries buying more and more Russian fertilizer as it became cheaper. Sanctions are sanctions, but when there is an opportunity to buy at a bargain price, European solidarity takes a back seat.
Russian companies trading fertilizers have significantly expanded their distribution networks in Europe and increased exports in 2022–23 compared to the period before the start of the special military operation. According to the newspaper Bild, in Germany alone, during the 2022 and 2023 fertilizer application seasons, the export from Russia increased by 920% compared to before the conflict in Ukraine. For EU farmers, price issues proved to be more crucial than political ones.
European agriculture still depends on cheap Russian fertilizers, the cost of which includes moderate prices for gas and potassium phosphate, which are needed to produce this product. They exist and are mined in Russia. But there is no potash and phosphates in Europe! Nor is there cheap gas, which is needed to produce nitrogen fertilizers. Therefore, attempts to stop the supply of Russian fertilizers, which are cheaper than European ones, have failed.
Then EU agrochemical companies began to push the idea of «import substitution» for both Russian and Belarusian fertilizers.
One of the measures seriously considered by the Europeans to reduce dependence on Russian fertilizers was the use of… manure. And at the same time, using manure and food waste to produce biogas, thus freeing themselves from the «shackles» of Russian energy. The European Commissioner for Agriculture, Christophe Hansen, stated that «the livestock sector can contribute to a circular economy that does not need external supplies and is not dependent on volatile energy prices, unlike, for example, gas». Sounds nice and modern. Sort of — turning waste into profit. Freedom from Russian fertilizers was supposed to be provided by Renure (a product whose name means «recovered nitrogen from manure»). But then Europe ran into a problem with the supposedly life-saving manure. Brussels itself, in its fight against nitrogen emissions, limits the amount of manure that can be used to fertilize fields because it runs off into waterways, increasing nitrogen levels there. In short, manure has failed to save EU agriculture.
There is also concern in Brussels that cheap Russian fertilizer will force EU fertilizer producers to simply shut down, unable to compete with imports. Some large conglomerates are already being forced out of the market; for example, BASF, the world’s largest chemical company, has scaled back its activities in Europe — including fertilizer production — to focus on investments in the U.S. and China, where gas and electricity are cheaper.
By imposing sanctions on Russian gas, the Europeans had to weigh and recalculate everything. And now old Europe faces a dilemma: to abandon Russian fertilizers and focus on its own producers, but then they will become uncompetitive, and most importantly, food prices in Europe will skyrocket. And this is where the Europeans see another threat: the exit of fertilizer producers from the market will not only raise food prices in the EU, but will also lead to lower production. And where will Brussels get the food? Correct: from one of the serious players in the food market — Russia. But this again frightens the Europeans. Without domestic production, Europe will fall into another dependence on imports from Russia…
Something had to be done. And the European Commission has proposed imposing tariffs on imported Russian fertilizers. But again, there is no consensus among all EU members. Some countries are reluctant to vote for tariffs because their farmers would have to pay too much for fertilizer. Others even claim that sanctions are simply impossible at the moment, as Russia controls 30% of the fertilizer market imported by the EU, although its share is only 17% at the end of 2022. And according to Eurostat, European farmers bought 5.7 million tons from Russia in 2024 for a total of 1.9 billion euros.
The European Commission has proposed gradually raising tariffs on Russian fertilizers to avoid hurting its own agriculture. Brussels expects the tariffs to rise from an initial 40 euros per ton to 430 euros over three years, thus weakening the Russian economy and creating food autonomy for the EU. However, as the newspaper Politico writes, imposing tariffs on Russian fertilizers will not help the EU. Russia’s revenues will not decrease significantly, while European agricultural producers will have to tighten their belts even more. Moreover, the farmers’ association Copa-Cogeca, the main agricultural lobby in the EU, has already warned that the new tariffs are likely to drive up costs, and the European Commission’s plan offers no guarantee that domestic fertilizer production will grow fast enough to offset the inevitable shortage.
While the EU was busy fighting Russian fertilizers, the U.S. was urging its farmers to take advantage of the situation by buying more cheap fertilizers, thereby reducing production costs. It is clear that food from the EU cannot compete with American products. And it turns out that Brussels, fearing dependence on Russia, like Kolobok, won’t be able to escape the transatlantic fox. Meanwhile, the new US president has already shown the world that he is fixated on boosting his country’s economy, even if it is at the expense of Europe.