That doesn't have anything to do with subsidies, and at most indirectly depends on unrelated parts of protectionist agricultural policy i.e. tariffs. Then how the EU is anyhow responsible for predatory industries in Argentina? And how the global markets would fix any of that if only relieved from the cancer of EU subsidies?
Just because they don't bear the full responsibility doesn't mean they don't bear any responsibility. If the EU participates in a damaging market, it really doesn't matter if they are contributing to the supply-side or demand-side, since they have some ability to mitigate the damage regardless. In the end it doesn't even matter who's responsible, only what the outcome is.
This is pure rethoric on your side and not addressing actual stated question: how thigs would go better without subsidies. This is such a leaping sledge of hand at first, then a misleading argument (not that part of EU policy) and then difussing the argument into such generalities. You see a bad outcome and can't really tell if it would be better or worse without subsidies. You don't even bother arguing the point.
By the same token I could argue that all people die so medicines are suspicious or overusing vitamin C is the culprit. There is no concieveable argument except one demanding politicians be omniscient and rational policies blamed because every policy ultimately leads to death, as people die, thus markets should sort things out.