27th May 2026
Do most of us think about Potash unless you are a farmer but it is worrying Governments and the USA in particular and the affects are global including the UK affecting all of our food prices.
The main reason behind the recent US request for EU countries especially Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine to allow Belarusian fertiliser exports is a mixture of food security concerns, geopolitical strategy and American economic interests.
At the centre of the issue is potash, a key ingredient used in fertilisers. Belarus is one of the world’s largest potash producers through the state company Belaruskali. Before sanctions, Belarus exported huge volumes through the Lithuanian port of Port of Klaipėda to global markets including Brazil, India and China. When western sanctions were imposed after the disputed 2020 Belarus election and then tightened after Belarus supported Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, these exports largely stopped.
The US position appears to have shifted this year after Washington removed some sanctions on Belarusian potash companies following a prisoner-release deal with Minsk. The Trump administration argued that reopening exports could help ease global fertiliser shortages and reduce upward pressure on food prices.
There are several deeper motivations behind this.
First is global food inflation. Fertiliser prices are extremely important because they directly affect agricultural yields and food costs worldwide. The recent Middle East tensions and disruption around the Strait of Hormuz have already caused sharp increases in fertiliser prices globally, particularly for ammonia and nitrogen products. The EU itself recently suspended tariffs on some fertiliser imports because of fears over rising farming costs and food inflation.
Washington likely fears that restricting Belarusian potash too heavily could worsen global food inflation, particularly in developing countries dependent on imported fertilisers. This is not entirely new. Even during earlier Russia sanctions, western governments often carved out exemptions for fertiliser exports because of concerns over food security.
Second is geopolitics. Some reports suggest the US sees sanctions relief as a way to pull Belarus slightly away from complete dependence on Russia and China. Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko became heavily reliant on Moscow after the 2020 protests and the Ukraine war. But Washington may believe limited economic engagement could give Minsk a little more room to manoeuvre independently.
This appears to be part of a broader US strategy under the current administration that is more transactional than ideological: offering targeted sanctions relief in exchange for prisoner releases or diplomatic concessions. The release of around 250 political prisoners earlier this year helped trigger the US easing of restrictions.
Third is direct American commercial interest. Documents obtained by journalists reportedly stated openly that US firms are interested in buying and transporting Belarusian potash once sanctions were lifted. Since Belarus is landlocked, exports would require transit routes through EU countries or Ukraine rather than Russia.
There may also be a strategic supply-chain issue for the United States itself. The US agricultural sector depends heavily on imported potash, with Canada traditionally dominating supply. But recent trade disputes and tariff tensions between Washington and Ottawa have made diversification attractive to some US policymakers and fertiliser buyers. While some online commentary exaggerates this point, it likely forms part of the background calculation.
For the EU, however, this creates a major political dilemma. Countries such as Lithuania and Poland see Belarus not simply as a fertiliser exporter but as a close military ally of Russia and a security threat on the EU’s eastern border. Many eastern European governments fear that allowing potash transit again would hand Minsk billions in hard currency revenue that could indirectly support Russia’s war effort.
That is why the EU is simultaneously moving in the opposite direction by increasing tariffs on Russian and Belarusian fertilisers while trying to diversify supply elsewhere.
So beneath the technical debate over fertiliser exports lies a wider clash of priorities:
the US focus on global commodity prices, diplomacy and commercial access;
the EU eastern states’ focus on regional security and pressure on Russia’s allies;
and the broader global concern that fertiliser shortages could fuel another surge in food inflation worldwide.
The UK Perspective
The UK is affected mostly indirectly rather than through direct trade with Belarus itself. Britain’s actual trade with Belarus is now tiny because of sanctions — total UK-Belarus trade was only about £39 million in the year to Q4 2025.
The real issue for the UK is fertiliser prices, food inflation and farm costs.
Belarus is one of the world’s largest producers of potash, which is a key ingredient in fertilisers used for crops such as wheat, barley and potatoes. When Belarusian exports were heavily sanctioned after 2022, global fertiliser supplies tightened and prices rose sharply. Belarus previously accounted for roughly one-fifth of global potash supply.
That matters to Britain because UK agriculture depends heavily on imported fertiliser. British farmers have already been hit by major fertiliser price increases linked to the Ukraine war and more recent Middle East instability. UK industry data shows fertiliser prices in Britain are still far above pre-crisis levels.
The biggest economic effect for the UK therefore comes through food prices. Fertiliser is one of the main costs in farming, and higher fertiliser prices eventually feed into supermarket prices for bread, vegetables, meat and dairy. UK food supply analysts recently warned that fertiliser inflation could become one of the main routes through which Middle East and geopolitical tensions feed into British inflation.
So from the UK government’s perspective there are two competing pressures.
On one side, Britain politically supports sanctions on Belarus because Minsk supported Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The UK still maintains extensive Belarus sanctions covering potash, transport and trade licences.
On the other side, lower global fertiliser prices would help British farmers and consumers at a time when the UK is already struggling with:
stubborn food inflation,
high energy costs,
pressure on household budgets,
and weak economic growth.
If Belarusian potash returned more fully to global markets, fertiliser prices would likely ease somewhat worldwide. That could reduce pressure on UK farm costs over time and slightly ease food inflation. It would especially help sectors like cereals, vegetables and livestock feed production.
However, there are also political and strategic concerns for Britain.
Many UK and European policymakers fear that allowing Belarus back into major export markets would provide billions in foreign currency revenue to the government of Alexander Lukashenko, which remains closely aligned with Vladimir Putin. Critics argue this could weaken western leverage and indirectly support Russia’s wider war economy.
There is also a broader geopolitical issue emerging. Some analysts believe the US request reflects growing American concern about supply chains and inflation rather than purely Ukraine policy. Britain could end up caught between:
maintaining a united western sanctions front,
and trying to protect its own economy from another round of food and energy inflation.
For ordinary UK households, the practical effect is likely to be gradual rather than dramatic. If Belarusian fertiliser exports remain blocked, food prices may stay structurally higher for longer. If exports resume through EU ports, it could modestly reduce inflation pressures in farming and food over the next 12–18 months — though energy prices and global shipping costs would still remain the dominant drivers.