The conflict between Kyiv and Moscow was never purely a military confrontation. Economic levers and behind-the-scenes agreements play no less of a role in it than combat operations.
The recent strike by Ukrainian drones on the “Azot” plant of NAC in Novomoskovsk, Tula Region — a key enterprise of the EuroChem group and one of the largest nitrogen fertiliser producers in Europe — is another vivid example of this.
This marks a new stage in the struggle for control over global fertiliser markets and the fate of the Black Sea Grain Initiative — one of the elements in a complex diplomatic game. In this context, what is happening is not merely military tactics, but part of a strategy aimed at changing the economic and political balance of power.
The fertiliser market as a battlefield
The global fertiliser market is not only an economic domain but also a space where the interests of states, corporations, and global institutions collide. A case in point is a recent Bloomberg publication, which was followed by the Ukrainian drone strike on NAC “Azot.” This dual nature creates a dilemma for the West: sanctions against such companies could destabilise food supply chains, yet their absence allows Russia to use export revenues to fund the war. The Ukrainian drone strike appears as an attempt by Kyiv to disrupt this balance.
Europe, where Russian fertilisers still occupy a significant market share, has found itself at the center of this struggle. Local producers, such as Czech Agrofert and Norway’s Yara, have lost market share for years due to competition with Russian companies. The closure of Lithuania’s Achema plant, unable to withstand price pressure, became a vivid example of the vulnerability of European industry.
In response, the European Commission, supported by the Fertiliser Europe group, proposed introducing tariffs on agricultural imports from Russia and Belarus, including a gradual increase in duties on fertilisers. This step is aimed at strengthening the position of local producers, but at the same time, it has raised concern among farmers. The Copa-Cogeca association has warned that rising fertiliser prices could undermine the competitiveness of European farmers, increase food prices for consumers, and pose a threat to food security. The anticipation of new attacks only adds to market tension, threatening further price hikes and intensifying disputes among European producers, farmers, and policymakers.
The fate of the grain initiative
The Black Sea Grain Initiative, concluded in 2022 with the mediation of Turkey and the UN, became a vital mechanism for exporting Ukrainian grain during wartime. This agreement made it possible to export millions of tons of grain, supporting Ukraine’s economy and mitigating the global food crisis. However, Russia withdrew from the deal in 2023, citing non-fulfillment of conditions, including restrictions on its own fertiliser exports due to problems with payments, logistics, and insurance.
Ukraine, realising that fertilisers and grain are closely linked in this diplomatic game, uses attacks on Russian enterprises to increase pressure on Moscow. These strikes are not only military operations but also a way to demonstrate that Kyiv can inflict damage on sectors Russia uses as levers in negotiations.
At the same time, Russia may retaliate with attacks on Ukrainian ports to destroy grain export infrastructure, which remains not only a source of income for Ukraine but also an important tool of international influence. This mutual escalation turns the grain initiative into a hostage of a broader struggle, where each side seeks to strengthen its position ahead of a possible compromise.
The global context and an uncertain future
The rise in fertiliser prices caused by attacks on Russian plants and European tariffs may affect food costs worldwide, especially in developing countries dependent on imports. Negotiations are complicated not only by mutual attacks but also by geopolitical factors, including the impact of sanctions and changes in global energy markets.
Ukraine is demonstrating its willingness to use all available means to weaken Russia’s position at the negotiating table. However, this escalation could lead to a further hardening of the Russian Federation’s stance. At the same time, Europe — balancing between economic interests and political pressure — finds itself in a difficult situation, where each decision has long-term consequences.
The question is whether Ukraine’s actions can push Russia toward compromise or if they will instead lead to a new wave of escalation in global markets. While drones continue to fly and diplomats search for paths to agreement, there is no answer to this question. But one thing is clear: the struggle over fertilisers and grain is not just a local conflict; it is part of a broader game where economics, diplomacy, and military strategy are interwoven into a complex pattern that will determine the future of the region and the world.
