The Secret of Ukrainian Independence. Why Is the Government Destroying Rural Communities and Selling Off Land to Big Business on the Way to the European Union?

Do you know the difference between a secret and a mystery? A secret is important information that has been entrusted to you. You can keep it, or you can tell it in secret, such as, for example, the name of the next candidate for the post of minister. Political secrets are hunted, discussed, technologically distracted. But the real secret is what is happening right now in front of everyone's eyes, but no one notices it. Because no one wants to or can't due to their competence. Thus, what is happening now with the Ukrainian land, for which our people pay with their blood, is a great state secret that no one sees. However, this secret has been kept very well by those who have rent from Ukrainian land throughout the years of independence.

Why does this happen? Why is the current government destroying rural communities and the middle class in favor of land latifundists? In whose favor does the law on the circulation of land work? Why is there no unity among farmers, and the communities that seem to be interested in developing small and medium production in the countryside in the context of decentralization are silent? And won't these circumstances "accidentally" become the reason that Ukraine will be forced to wait in line at the door of the European Union for decades to come?

We talked about this with one of the authors of the land reform, the head of the Ukrainian Peasant Union. He is the chairman of the committee on agrarian policy and land relations of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of the 4th convocation, former chairman of the Association of Farmers and Private Landowners of Ukraine (AFPLU), the first farmer (since 1988). His name is Ivan Tomych. He is one of those competent people whose opinions, unfortunately, are not heard by the top "5-6 managers" on whom the president relies and listens. But we knock on the door, and maybe it will be opened...

About the wrong state strategy, disagreement with decentralization and monopolization of the village

— Mr. Ivan Tomych, before I spoke with you, I talked to a very large number of people, including the Acting Minister of Agrarian Policy, Taras Vysotskyi,by the way, — he is the first contender for the position of Minister of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine. And to be honest, I have split consciousness.

The authorities continue to claim that everything is fine with us and we are on our way to Europe, but we still need to work a little, but the farmers say that they are being systematically destroyed in favor of large producers. This is also important in the context of decentralization, because most of our communities are rural (out of 1,469 communities, 624 are rural, and 436 are rural). By the way, it is worth noting that how small businesses will develop there and whether there will be jobs depends on whether they will exist at all and whether a middle class will be born in the village.

— Without a change in the state strategy of agrarian policy, any personnel reshuffles do not mean anything meaningful and important. Since the 90s of the last century, the Association of Farmers and Private Landowners of Ukraine (AFPLU) has posed the question clearly: agrarian policy in Ukraine cannot be any other than the formation of a farming system. But such a policy never existed in Ukraine and does not exist.

There were some unsystematic and short-lived attempts to move in this direction. That is why we have today — and here I will speak directly, as it is — the biggest agrarian monster in the world, which threatens the countryside and national democratic Ukraine. These are agricultural holdings that are dominant in Ukraine, as well as in a number of non-European countries. Today, more than 70% of the best chernozem soils in the world are under the control of global companies. But even in Brazil, where the situation in this matter is also terrible, there is no such concentration of land (up to a million hectares) owned by companies controlled by one business environment and owners, as in Ukraine. This path will lead us nowhere. Such a strategy can only lead our country to empty villages, unemployment and the loss of the last state resource. And this is happening to us right now.

— Why did this happen? I observed how decentralization took place. The reform, which was recognized by international partners as the most successful in Ukraine, had a pool of experts who were its main lobbyists in all ruling teams for the past 20 years. They did not give up, and the window of opportunity did open. Why didn't you manage to carry out a balanced land reform in parallel, so that Ukraine, which is in the top three in the world reserves of chernozem soils, gave the opportunity to develop both small, medium and large? After all, the goal of these reforms is one, namely the development of communities, regions and the country's economy.

— These two reforms generally went in the opposite direction. As a result, the actual land and agrarian policy compared to the decentralized political system (money and powers went to communities) has a completely different meaning. I mean the excessive interference of the oligarchs in this sphere and the state's rejection of the farming system. This is obvious, but every Ukrainian government does not officially recognize this and continues to manipulate numbers, facts and, again, the ignorance of the country's population and the trusting attitude of Europeans towards us. Who, by the way, will never understand how it is possible to lie to officials on behalf of the state.

Moreover, decentralization not only did not affect the structure of agricultural production, but, on the contrary, became a convenient and effective tool for strengthening the influence of big business on government positions. And the reason is that the central issue for the, to put it mildly, not very patriotic elites, which passed through all the years of Ukraine's independence, was not how the communities, regions and economy of the country would develop, but who would be the owner of the Ukrainian land. Do you feel the difference?

— Unfortunately.

— If we go back to the beginning of the 90s, then the socialist-communist political system prevailed and the authorities tried to preserve the collective farm-state farm system. But such a policy predictably led to a crisis: in 1997-1998, 88% of agricultural enterprises were unprofitable. Barter, hopelessness, unsown fields... And in 1999–2000, Kuchma began to take the first forced positive steps. However, unfortunately, they did not become systemic. Already in 2001, political figures had doubts about how to proceed in the agricultural sector. In order to build a long-term state policy, there was not enough competence, and most importantly, political will. The authorities decided to launch a large business in the village. As a result, collective farms in Ukraine were replaced by agricultural holdings.

However, it was a gradual process. At that time, a farm of several thousand hectares seemed too large. I remember how at the end of 2001, the first private, privately leased farms with 10,000 to 12,000 hectares of land appeared. Yes, the late Ivan Stepanovych Pliushch used to say: "Well, look what large farming enterprises have already formed!". But these were small volumes compared to what we have reached today.

— That is, the oligarchic system was formed both in industry and in agriculture. Such was the political will.

— That's right. But it must be said frankly that a significant part of our foreign brothers supported this movement. Western companies that entered Ukraine with their financial, material and technical resources did a lot to develop such a scenario. At the international level, a serious coalition was formed, which worked for the perspective of the formation of just such a structure of the economy of Ukraine. And now we are reaping the benefits.

It is important to understand that at the start of decentralization in 2014, an oligarchic system was already formed, which controlled about 80% of rural areas. And capital, of course, understood very well that it needed to develop further. But in what way? Invest in political projects of local authorities. And in the vast majority, big business financed either the heads of rural united territorial communities or people's deputies, who became the basis of the decision-making system in local communities.

Thus, the political structure in the countryside became not a counterweight, but a tool of the oligarchic system. As, based on this, decentralization itself. But was it possible in such basic conditions to develop entrepreneurship, farming, cooperation in the countryside in a European way? No, this could not be done. Because it did not correspond to the interests of either the politically formed system or the oligarchic system of Ukraine. As a result, our system is formed in principle, as in some European countries, but fulfills the opposite mission. Such is the paradox in our country.

— But in cities under the same conditions, it's a different story. Yes, local government is also controlled by big business. Clans everywhere. The mechanism of state supervision has not yet been included and the law enforcement system has collapsed. When the parliament passes the law on state supervision of acts of local self-government, the situation will somehow be balanced. But cities do not decline, as villages do.

— Because cities are objectively developing, people from villages and small towns go there to live and work. Industrial enterprises create jobs. In addition, one way or another, small business in cities can work. And agriculture and rural communities are a completely different format. Technologies of agricultural holdings replace the need to involve people for processing and harvesting. There is no work, so people go to the cities, and the territories are empty. Yes, the exodus of the population from the villages is a global trend, but if the state does not regulate the process, does not think through the correct regional policy, then there will be a disaster with the lands, and with the economy, and with traditions, etc.

Firstly, today the vast majority of the population of the developed civilized countries of the European Union live in rural areas. State policy there is aimed at the support and development of the territories. A person lives in a remote forest in Austria, and has all the benefits of civilization, as does a person in Vienna. Therefore, people certainly try to live not in megacities, but in rural areas. This fundamentally distinguishes Europe from the former socialist countries.

Secondly, the attention of the state in rural areas is largely focused on the farmer. On the infrastructure that is formed around the farmer: cooperatives, markets, service centers and others. These are all bricks from which rural areas in European countries are built.

Thirdly, the average size of farms in Europe is 17 hectares, in Poland 9 hectares, in Romania 3 hectares in general. And no one is seriously trying to increase the amount of land in the farmer's bank. Because this is the life of the countryside, the life of the country. The more people live in rural areas, the stronger the country's national economy.

And we initially had one collective farm for two or three villages, among which there was no equality. And now we have one oligarch, conditionally, for several districts or even more.

—  So, it is clear why our rural communities are silent. But it is not entirely clear why politicians are silent and do nothing about this issue. Because precisely under the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Volodymyr Hroisman, in parallel with the launch of decentralization, a system program to support farming was adopted. The goal was precisely that before the launch of the land market (and it was planned for 2023) to give the already existing small producers an opportunity to build up their muscles and attract new ones. That is, the state thought about territories and rural communities.

— We worked really closely with the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Volodymyr Hroisman, and I have a positive attitude towards his activities as a Prime Minister from the point of view of the recent history of Ukraine. But I cannot say that he was deeply aware of everything that was happening. He really wanted to carry out the process of decentralization. And to some extent he succeeded. As, for example, Mykhailo Horbachov once managed to introduce democratic tools into the politics of The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Because none of them understood how this tool would be used in the final version.

— Do you want to say that the authors of decentralization also lacked sufficient foresight to understand that this reform is also a mandatory inclusion of antimonopoly and legal mechanisms at the state level? And if they will not fight for it and bring this problem to the public sphere, then nothing will succeed?

— Unfortunately, neither the authors nor the authorities, who opened a window of opportunity for reform, lacked this understanding.

— Why didn't you communicate? Why was it not explained?

— We had little influence on the implementation of state policy at that time. We could not compete with those resources and opportunities, including political ones, that big business had in the parliament. But we communicated with the Ministry of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine. The Concept of the development of farms and cooperatives in Ukraine in 2017–2023 was developed. And in the end, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Volodymyr Groysman, heard the peasants. The concept was adopted in 2017 and played a positive role in the process of stopping the destruction of farms. The development was not very successful then, but we did stop the rapid decline.

Moreover, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Volodymyr Groysman went to meet a small producer in the village, without having any support from the one who sat in the first cabinet of the state, which at that time was occupied by Petro Poroshenko. In the parliament, he also did not have his political strength, that is, there was no stable political support in order to do something serious and greatly change the situation. Therefore, it was then possible to make only separate elements regarding the development of farming. But they were so meager that they quickly dissolved against the background of the global influence of big business.

— And in 2019, a new government came in, and the concept of supporting small farms canceled altogether?

—  Canceled – this is carefully said. This concept is completely destroyed!

About the manipulation of statistics, the role of latifundists in the economy and the principles of a balanced model for joining the European Union

— Already in the second year of being in power, the team of the acting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy lobbied for a law on land circulation. Everyone remembers the protests of the peasants under the walls of the government and the parliament, which, however, no one heard. But for the sake of justice, we must admit that not only among politicians, but also in the expert environment, there are people who are sure that for a breakthrough in the economy, everything must be given to the market. Let the market regulate everything, they say, the strongest will survive. By the way, the Acting Minister of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine, Mr. Taras Vysotskyi, says that over the past 20 years, the structure of the agricultural sector in Ukraine has not changed globally: 10% are small producers, 65% are medium and 25% are large. "And we always tell our partners that we need to find a solution, how we will join the European Union with this structure." As if small and medium farms, according to the official version, there is a majority.

—  You know, I have known Taras Vysotskyi for a long time and treat him well. But he is a representative of big business. How can he, against the will of his masters, carry out some statist agrarian policy, especially not even being a minister, especially not having his political power in the parliament? There is no way he can do that. Therefore, there are zero complaints about him. Although it should be noted that he juggles information very skillfully, implementing the tasks set before him.

Statistics of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine is a separate topic altogether. Today, all the data of the sector is presented in such a way that in general no one can understand what we have and what it means for the country compared to the same European Union.

— But I myself, to be honest, got confused in the numbers. According to the Ministry of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine, 50,126 farms are registered in Ukraine. Statistically, 19,665 of them are active (not including temporarily occupied and front-line territories). And out of 19 thousand operating enterprises, according to the same ministry, 12 (!) thousand cultivate up to one hundred hectares. But 12,000 out of 19,000 is definitely not 10% of the small ones, as the authorities believe, right?

— We really have approximately 51,000 legal entities registered in the field of agriculture. Of these persons, 19,000 are employed, 12,000 of whom own up to 100 hectares. But at the same time, the authorities call all producers farms — both those with 10 hectares and those with hundreds of thousands of hectares. This is nonsense. In addition, the authorities take not only those who have a certificate of registration. The government adds personal peasant farms and artificially created individual entrepreneurs to the statistics, manipulating the numbers in any direction. Therefore, it is useless to understand the official figures.

— But still. If officially 12 thousand out of 19 thousand are small businesses, then who are the remaining 6 thousand? This is important because when the government gives out aid, farmers say they get nothing. So, maybe these 6 thousand people get it? How many large and medium-sized farms are hidden in this figure?

—  Let's go in from the other side. In the official structure, allegedly 25% are agricultural holdings, which, according to our data, own 60-70% of the land. How did it happen?! The fact is that the principle of "Russian matryoshka" is simply used. Agricultural holdings have many subsidiaries of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 thousand hectares per "person". These are often the so-called medium producers, whom the authorities call the backbone of the industry.

— That is, producers of 10,000 hectares or more are an environment that can potentially come under the influence of agricultural holdings?

—Yes. And if 25% of large farms are added to 65% of so-called medium-sized farms, then 90% of the land bank is obtained. But in this 90% there is, of course, a part of those who have less than 10 thousand hectares. And here you will get approximately the balance of the numbers I'm talking about. That is, it will be possible to see that 60-70% of the land is controlled by latifundists that is, by people who own an extremely large amount of land. Whereas 12,000 farms (up to 100 hectares) out of 19,000 in operation have 7–8% of land in Ukraine. This is a real miracle and you can't say anything more! However, they clearly indicate the real strategy of the state for the development of agriculture.

Therefore, when the authorities say that farming is an important sector of the economy in Ukraine, it is a cynical lie. Because, having 7–8% of the land at one's disposal, it is impossible to seriously influence either economic, political, or social processes in the country. Here is the answer to why the media does not talk about this problem and why there is no lobbying for the interests of the middle class in our society.

— And Europe knows about it.

— Of course. And the Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians are now clearly saying: "Ivan, explain to your authorities that they will never be in the European Union with the oligarchic structure that you have. And why so? Because if Ukraine joins the European Union, it immediately kills 15 million farms in Europe. These 15 million, who have up to 100 million people, including voters, in their environment. And they will never allow this, no matter how the government changes and no matter how your government and your oligarchs try to buy ours."

— At the same time, Ukraine is already among the top ten global exporters of agricultural products. And many doubt that our agricultural sector now needs to be reduced to craft production in agriculture, which is what farming Europe expects from us. Farmers will never in their lives allow to give eggs for export.

— If we take the agricultural products produced in Ukraine by both agricultural holdings and farmers, and compare them with the same Poland, then the Poles produce 3.5 times more per hectare than Ukraine. At the same time, I will not compare land resources, natural resources and all other factors that we have 10 out of 10 points. But only these indicators indicate that this is a myth and a cynical lie.

— Do you want to say that they produce more with the efforts of farmers than we do with the efforts of our large enterprises?

— That's right.

— But is it possible not to kill the already born competitive big farm holdings and let small and medium-sized ones fully develop? So that it would not happen that only one of them would survive, but it would be possible to create such conditions that large, medium farms and large farm holdings would function well and efficiently.

— It sounds cynical or strange, but a farmer and an agricultural holding can complement each other. This will be possible if the state agricultural policy is built on this principle. If we take the structure of Ukrainian exports, 80% are grain and oil crops. If we take the production of these crops, agricultural holdings account for about 70–80% of the total production.

However, now let's take labor-intensive cultures. It is worth noting that 90% of potato production in Ukraine is owned by farmers and private farms. Vegetables make up 90%, fruits make up more than 95%, and milk makes up about 70%. Therefore, if we take the entire food basket, the government's policy should be aimed at labor-intensive products and primarily orient the production of farms to the domestic market.

A cucumber today costs UAH 70! But cucumber and all other products can be much cheaper if you increase commodity production. If we help small farms to create infrastructure, cooperation, packaging, packaging, and transportation, they will provide Ukrainians with much cheaper production of labor-intensive products across the entire spectrum.

There is a large area of ​​opportunity here, and there is no need to compete in how much sunflower we will grow and how much we will sell. With this approach, we can have cars moving in parallel that will not interfere with each other. I said this at the beginning of the land reform, that we should not wage a war of destruction, it would be better to find a compromise. But the authorities moved away from finding a balance of interests at all levels, and, of course, the predator behaved like a predator.

— Still, to which foreign markets should the predator be directed, so that he could hunt in peace, without devouring his own people and without annoying Europe?

— Ukraine had traditional markets for oilseeds and grains in the Middle East, Arab countries and China. It was a stable and proven way of selling products. And there were no conflicts here. But the war changed everything. Because these countries are not among those who are our allies. And when the situation with the infrastructure changed critically, the ports began to be blocked, then our products objectively had to go somewhere. Europe became this gap for large companies. This is what frightened and economically depressed European farmers.

However, there are still many global markets for the sale of products of agricultural holdings, and the state should deal with this. As for the European market, it is primarily the standards and the share of products that are lacking in the European markets. Here there is a need for some labor-intensive crops that may eventually be on the European market. But this should happen gradually so as not to collapse the partner market. Yes, it is always a compromise and diversification of risks for both parties.

— Is it true that now there are export restrictions for small farms? If you don't have a certain amount of turnover, you don't have the right to participate in exports?

— Farms up to 500 hectares, especially up to 100 hectares, do not enter the foreign market with any products at all. Because they do not have the infrastructure of storage, transportation, packaging, and management, which means the opportunity to work in global markets.

Moreover, you know that small producers, compared to agricultural holdings, receive sales prices that are 40–50% lower. The scheme, which the state created with its own hands, can be deciphered for a long time, but the essence is the same: today a farmer of up to 100 hectares sells wheat of the 3rd grade for about UAH 5.5 thousand. At the same time, a large company, I am not even talking about an agricultural holding, sells wheat for UAH 9 thousand and even more. And this is economic murder.

— Taras Vysotskyi, the candidate for the post of minister of agricultural policy, told me for a long time about the current programs and the crazy numbers of support for small and medium-sized producers. And if you don't have a long memory, you could believe that everything is really okay with us. However, in February 2023, Order No. 223 was published signed by ex-minister Mykola Solskyi (who is currently testifying to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU)) "On Approval of Criteria for Identifying Enterprises That Are Important to the National Economy in the Field of Agriculture in a Special Period." So, we are talking about enterprises that cultivate land on an area of ​​at least 1,000 hectares (not so long ago the bar was lowered to 500 hectares).

At the same time, we remember that 12,000 out of 19,000 operating enterprises are farms that cultivate up to 100 hectares. In fact, this is an official recognition that the state is systematically destroying small businesses.

— Yes, this is one of the key tools. Therefore, talk about some support is a bluff. For example, the soft lending program "Affordable loans 5-7-9%", which the ministry talks about. Of these 12,000 operating farms, from 2020 to today, an average of 3 (!) percent of farms have used loans.

Regarding state support. On average, 10–15% of farms received it over these years. It was different - for a cow, for a goat, for a hectare, for equipment, and for a garden. But 85-90% of enterprises all these difficult years, including the war years, are out of state support.

When a 70-year-old farmer with children and grandchildren sits at the computer at night, trying to register to receive help from the state, and at four in the morning he is taken away by an ambulance, what is this? An instrument of European support policy or manipulation and bullying? The support of 100 euros per hectare, with a gradual increase, provided by international parterres, should be guaranteed to the farmer for many years. And not as a gift from heaven, but as a permanent subsidy to the account. This has been happening in Europe for decades. Without deterioration and manipulation.

Of course, I would also give you the results of the state tax policy for farmers, the price policy, which we have already touched on a little in order to state our global "successes": from 48,000 active farms in 2009, Ukraine has dropped to 12,000 in 2024. And war is not the reason for this.

— And where is your voice that the country could hear? Is there unity among farmers at all?

—There is none.

— Why is that so??

— Everything according to the classics: divide and conquer. When I became a farmer and public activist, in addition to the Association of Farmers and Private Landowners in Ukraine, there was another organization — the Council of Collective Farms. We fought with the collective farm system, they fought with us. The situations were different, but the bottom line is that two organizations represented opposing ideologies. Everything was transparent and clear.

Now there are more than 300 public organizations of various types. These are all bubbles, clubs or groups that perform someone's tasks. Including the tasks of the authorities. Such a variety of public organizations actually killed the real public movements that existed in the countryside.

As a result of this, division, passivity, conformism, and the desire to wrest something for oneself by agreeing with the authorities arise. And then you have to keep silent while paying the debts. In other words, the already weak public movement was divided. There was a situational association at the time of the struggle against the introduction of land into circulation. However, our influence is minimal and the authorities demonstratively ignored farmers. At the same time, accusing us of slowing down the development of the market economy. And now the authorities are applauding because they know: no one will organize anything anymore and will not even seriously declare anything against something or demonstrate. And because of these applauses, we are killing the future.

— The long-term moratorium on the sale of land — was it a benefit for the country or not? And if we opened the market in the 90s, when the land reform started?

— At the beginning of the land reform, the authorities deliberately did not want to form a land market that would ensure the kind of development of agriculture that exists in Poland and other European countries. Everything was done so that the land did not become the basis of the peasant's life, and the peasant did not become a full-fledged owner of his land.

During independence, more than 10 million hectares of Ukrainian land of various ownership (state, communal and other) were sold from hand to hand, caught in the corruption system, and I do not believe that this land will ever be certified. But the land shares received by the peasants are certified and have a personified owner. And this circumstance did not make it possible to take this land from them. That is why the farming movement and other public and political movements advocated the extension of the moratorium, not because the moratorium was a good thing, but to prevent trouble. But the flywheel has already started. The land market, hastily opened by the current government, is only a tool in the hands of big business, which has a tremendous influence on this government.

— "The land market is not active at all. People don't want to sell their plots of land and that's okay. Because they understand the value of land. This is our last resource. In addition to the fact that Ukrainians really have a connection with the land at the DNA level, people understand that the land can consistently bring income every year." Apparently, Mr. Vysotsky, the author of this quote, also understands everything, but will not do anything. Because there is no political will in the state.

Who would you personally appeal to if you were trying to explain the depth of the problem?

— Today, there really isn't a person who could personally solve this issue. When the collective farm system fell into crisis in 1997–1998, our target was Ukrainian President Kuchma. We turned to him. And for a while it worked. Today, unfortunately, there is no such possibility. The authorities are completely deaf. The state did not respond even to hundreds of official appeals by farmers to suspend the sale of land during martial law. Yes, the people understand the value of land, but the authorities and big business have other values.

Therefore, of course, I would appeal to our European neighbors, who, as part of the negotiations on Ukraine's accession to the European Union, should play an important role in the development strategy of our agricultural sector and rural communities. But most importantly, of course, I would appeal to the public and people who are protecting Ukraine today. You cannot give your life for your land and not see that it is taken away from you by your own state. It is not about freedom, but about the ignorance of society and patriotic elites.

Read this article in Ukrainian and russian.