The European Union is weighing a path to reconnect a subsidiary of the Agricultural Bank of Russia to the SWIFT network in order to keep the grain agreement alive. This is the takeaway reported by Reuters, which cites a source familiar with the discussions. The grain accord is set to expire on July 17, and EU officials are continuing to assess a solution that would allow Rosselkhozbank’s subsidiary to rejoin SWIFT without reopening the entire system for the bank itself.
Russia has previously linked the renewal of the grain deal to the bank’s direct reinstatement on SWIFT, presenting it as a condition for extending the agreement. EU officials, however, are exploring a more limited path that would permit a subsidiary to participate while avoiding a broader reentry for the parent institution. This approach would aim to maintain the flow of grain exports while mitigating broader Russia related financial risks.
Sources within the agency indicate that the EU does not intend to restore the bank through a direct reentry, yet there could be room for an exception if the subsidiary operates under a carefully defined framework. The distinction between a full restoration for Rosselkhozbank and a targeted exception for the subsidiary is a focal point of ongoing diplomacy and legal analysis, as Europe seeks to balance humanitarian supply with sanctions policy.
Earlier in the month the Financial Times reported that Rosselkhozbank had begun steps to establish a subsidiary with the aim of reconnecting to SWIFT and thereby preserving the grain deal. Yet the EU has not released concrete mechanisms or a formal blueprint for how such a structure would function within current sanctions regimes, leaving negotiations in a cautious, exploratory phase.
During a briefing at the Russian Foreign Ministry, officials described the concept of creating a branch or affiliate of Rosselkhozbank that could link to SWIFT as a feasible option within the framework of the grain agreement. The remarks conveyed a sense that this pathway could be navigated with the right approvals, even as it would require meticulous regulatory scrutiny and international cooperation. The aim remains to maintain uninterrupted grain shipments while respecting the broader sanctions architecture that European and allied authorities have built up over time.
From Moscow’s perspective, the willingness to extend the grain deal has hinged on nearly any mechanism that could reestablish a channel for the bank to rejoin the global financial messaging system. The Kremlin has viewed SWIFT access as a lever to unlock the deal and ensure continued export capacity for Ukrainian and other grain markets, a priority that continues to shape the diplomatic conversation with Brussels and other capitals.
In this delicate balance, the EU is seeking a solution that preserves the operational realities of the grain market while avoiding a precedent that could complicate sanctions enforcement. The discussions touch on technical questions about how a subsidiary would be structured, how it would be governed, and what safeguards would be required to prevent evasion or circumvention of restrictions. Analysts warn that any arrangement would need to demonstrate clear transparency and robust oversight to earn the confidence of Western allies and the broader international community.
As the July deadline approaches, diplomats are engaged in discreet conversations aimed at testing the viability of this approach and identifying any legal or practical obstacles that may arise. The outcome could influence not only the fate of the current grain agreement but also the broader set of financial and trade instruments used to manage Russia’s participation in international markets. The conversations underscore the complexity of keeping humanitarian supply chains intact while maintaining the integrity of sanctions regimes that have been built over time by the EU, the United States, and partners around the world. Reuters notes that the discussions are ongoing and that no final decision has been announced. The path forward remains contingent on a careful assessment of risk, feasibility, and political will on both sides of the negotiating table.