Do sanctions on Belarusian potash threaten global food security? What sources show

Publication date: 2026-06-04

Claim

Belarusian official sources and Alexander Lukashenko claim that Western sanctions and transit restrictions on Belarusian potash fertilizers threaten global food security and harm countries that need fertilizers.

Verdict

Missing context.

Restrictions on Belarusian potash did affect trade routes and may have added pressure to fertilizer markets, especially after 2021 and 2022. But the claim is misleading if it suggests that these sanctions are the main or only cause of food security risks. World Bank and Food Security Portal data show a wider picture: fertilizer prices also depend on gas and ammonia prices, Chinese export restrictions, tariffs, Russia's war against Ukraine, logistics, demand and new production capacity.

In brief

• Belarus was an important actor in the potash fertilizer market, and export and transit restrictions changed trade flows.

• Belarusian diplomacy cites UN, FAO, WTO, IFPRI and World Bank materials to link fertilizers with food security.

• RFE/RL reported that in 2026 the United States discussed possible Belarusian potash transit routes through Lithuania, Poland or Ukraine after easing part of US financial restrictions on Belaruskali. That shows the issue is not imaginary.

• But the Council of the European Union describes sanctions on Belarus as a response to repression, support for Russia's war against Ukraine and hybrid actions. The potash debate cannot be separated from those reasons.

• Market data do not support a simple conclusion that lifting sanctions alone would solve food security problems.

Why this matters

Fertilizer is often used in Belarusian official and pro-Russian messaging as a moral argument against sanctions. Audiences in Belarus, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and the EU need to separate the real effect of trade restrictions from the political claim that food security risks are caused only by sanctions.

What we checked

We checked three questions:

• Whether Belarus has a real role in the potash fertilizer market.

• Whether independent sources recognize that restrictions and transit bans affected supplies and prices.

• Whether those facts are enough to accept the official claim that Western sanctions directly threaten global food security.

Evidence

1. The Belarusian position starts from a real role in potash

A Belarusian aide-memoire on sanctions and food security argues that before 2022 Belarus held a large share of global potash trade and that restrictions caused lower exports, higher prices and risks for farmers. The document also cites international materials saying that fertilizers matter for yields and food prices.

This part of the argument is not empty. Potash fertilizers matter for agriculture, and a sharp change in supplies from a major exporter can affect the market.

2. Independent sources confirm that restrictions changed the market

RFE/RL reported that US officials proposed discussing Belarusian potash transit through Lithuania, Poland or Ukraine after Washington eased part of its financial restrictions on Belaruskali. According to RFE/RL, the US document referred to a possible easing of global shortages and to a wish to avoid routes through Russia.

This matters: if such routes are being discussed, supply and transit are practical questions. However, RFE/RL also noted that Belaruskali is an important source of hard currency for the Lukashenko government, while Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya warned that this was not the time to ease pressure on Minsk.

3. Price data show several causes, not one

Food Security Portal, using World Bank data, says fertilizer prices remained high and were shaped by trade restrictions, sanctions, input costs and structural supply problems. The same article also points to Chinese export restrictions, ammonia and sulfur costs, gas price movements and new capacity expected to affect prices in 2026 and 2027.

In the Commodity Markets Outlook, the World Bank forecast a rise in the fertilizer price index in 2025 and a decline in 2026 and 2027, while remaining above pre-pandemic levels. That is not a picture where one political factor explains the whole risk.

4. Sanctions have stated political reasons

The Council of the European Union describes sanctions on Belarus as measures in response to human rights violations, support for Russia's war against Ukraine and hybrid actions. This does not settle the debate about how effective sanctions are, but it is important context. In Minsk's public claim, the reasons for sanctions are often left out, while economic effects are highlighted.

5. The phrase about global food security is too broad

The fact that potash supplies matter does not prove that Western sanctions on Belarus alone threaten the world with hunger. Food security depends on war, climate, energy prices, debt, logistics, local conflicts, exchange rates, trade rules and farmers' income.

What remains unknown

• How much lifting restrictions on Belarusian potash would lower prices for farmers in vulnerable countries.

• What volumes could move through Lithuania, Poland or Ukraine without breaking current EU rules and without increasing revenue for the Lukashenko government.

• Whether EU institutions or neighboring states have made new official decisions after reports about US proposals.

• How Russian transit routes would be affected if an alternative route appeared.

Conclusion

The Belarusian claim uses a real fact: potash fertilizers are important, and restrictions on Belarusian exports affected trade flows. But the broader claim that Western sanctions on Belarus by themselves threaten global food security is not proven in that form. A more accurate assessment is that sanctions and transit bans are one factor in fertilizer markets, but not the only factor and not a sufficient explanation for food security risks.

Sources

• Republic of Belarus MFA, aide-memoire on the negative impact of sanctions against Belarusian potash fertilizers on global food security: https://rsa.mfa.gov.by/docs/aide%5Fmemoire%5Faddendum%5Fglobal%5Ffood%5Fsecurity%5Fbelarus.pdf

• RFE/RL, US Asks Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine To Allow Belarusian Fertilizer Exports: https://www.rferl.org/a/belarus-fertilizer-potash-exports-us-sanctions-eu/33762526.html

• Food Security Portal, Fertilizer prices soften but remain constrained by trade policies: https://www.foodsecurityportal.org/node/3765

• World Bank, Commodity Markets Outlook, October 2025: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c579e19c-83a7-4d94-abda-77e4810b4ea4/content

• Council of the European Union, EU sanctions against Belarus: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-against-belarus

Corrections and updates

If new official EU, Lithuanian, Polish, Ukrainian or US decisions on Belarusian potash transit appear, this fact-check should be updated. At publication time, there are no substantive corrections.