The Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, stated that the Russia–UN memorandum, which obliges the world organization to ease restrictions on the export of Russian fertilizers and agricultural products to global markets, has not been honored. He delivered this assessment during a United Nations Security Council discussion focused on the humanitarian situation in Ukraine. Nebenzya argued that Western powers overlooked the pact and did not even reference it in the draft Security Council texts concerning the issue, insisting that the agreement has seen little to no implementation on the ground. The remarks underscore Moscow’s portrayal of a stalled process in international food and fertilizer flows, a matter that remains central to discussions about global food security and the stability of grain and fertilizer markets. This framing is part of a broader Russian narrative that credits the UN with a role in coordinating relief and export corridors while accusing Western states of obstructing meaningful progress through political footwork and selective emphasis on language rather than tangible actions. The Kremlin’s position emphasizes that, despite formal obligations, practical steps have failed to materialize in a way that would meaningfully facilitate shipments and reduce the price pressures faced by importing countries. The dialogue at the Security Council thus centered on accountability, the interpretation of the memorandum’s status, and the real-world impact on farmers, exporters, and vulnerable populations who depend on reliable access to agricultural inputs and staple goods. The exchange highlighted the disconnect between official commitments and the lived realities of producers who rely on predictable, timely deliveries to sustain harvests and maintain price stability in international markets. The Russian delegation pointed to ongoing disruptions, arguing that the absence of progress in delivering fertilizer and foodstuffs undermines global efforts to stabilize food prices and prevent shortages that could affect millions of people across continents. The discussion also touched on the need for transparent reporting and verifiable compliance mechanisms to ensure that commitments translate into measurable improvements for exporters and buyers alike. In this context, Nebenzya’s remarks were framed as part of a continuing effort to press for concrete steps and to remind the council that words must be matched by results. Analysts watching the session noted that the debate reflected a broader pattern in which competing narratives compete for influence over how the world views the efficiency and fairness of international arrangements around food security and trade. In parallel developments, Maria Zakharova, the former spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, announced the extension of the grain agreement by Moscow for a period of 60 days, signaling a cautious approach to maintaining the status quo while testing the pace and quality of subsequent negotiations. This extension, described as a measured continuation rather than a long-term renewal, is consistent with a strategy that seeks to preserve leverage while awaiting clearer progress on the supply routes and pricing terms that affect both Russian exporters and partner countries. The decision adds another layer to the ongoing conversation about how long such arrangements should endure and under what conditions they would be renewed or adjusted in response to evolving market dynamics and geopolitical considerations. Sergey Vershinin, Deputy Foreign Minister, clarified that the choice to extend the grain deal for 60 days instead of a longer horizon was made in Moscow due to perceived stagnation in the delivery of Russian foodstuffs and fertilizers. He noted that the shorter time frame was intended to maintain pressure on all parties to advance concrete measures, including transportation arrangements, payment terms, and verification procedures that would enable a steadier flow of supplies to international markets. This stance underscores a consistent pattern of linking the vitality of global food security to the pace of diplomatic progress, while also highlighting the practical need for ongoing assessment and adjustment of agreements to reflect changing conditions on the ground. Observers point out that while temporary extensions may offer a stopgap, they can also create cycles of uncertainty for farmers, traders, and governments that rely on predictable imports for budgeting and planning. The layered statements from Nebenzya, Zakharova, and Vershinin together paint a portrait of a fragile balance between keeping dialogue open and extracting tangible concessions that would translate into real shipments, lower costs, and improved stability in world markets. They reflect a broader geopolitical dynamic where explanations about intent and commitments must be tested against observable results in the supply chain and the international market environment. As the Security Council continues to evaluate humanitarian needs and the resilience of agricultural supply chains, the questions at the heart of this debate remain: How can assurances be converted into reliable delivery? What mechanisms are in place to monitor compliance and to prevent backsliding in export and import arrangements? And how should the international community measure progress when political rhetoric sometimes outpaces practical action? These questions drive ongoing negotiations and influence the steering of future discussions about food security, fertilizer availability, and the equitable distribution of essential commodities across regions that depend on the stability of global markets. The interplay between official protocols and on-the-ground realities continues to shape how policymakers, traders, and farmers understand and respond to the evolving landscape of international agricultural trade. The overall thrust of the current exchanges suggests a clear demand for verifiable improvements that can be trusted by all participants and observers, with a focus on sustaining livelihoods and avoiding sharp price shocks that could ripple across economies. The international community remains vigilant for signs that commitments will translate into measurable, positive outcomes for the world’s farmers and consumers alike. [TASS] [An additional attribution would follow the same pattern in continued updates].
Previous remarks indicate that Moscow views the grain agreement as a tool for safeguarding national economic interests while engaging in diplomacy that keeps supply lines open under uncertain conditions. The ongoing dialogue signals a willingness to adjust course as negotiations progress, yet the emphasis remains on achieving concrete results that can be verified and felt by those closest to the markets and the fields. The weight of these discussions lies in balancing strategic aims with the practical needs of ordinary people who rely on affordable food and fertilizer to sustain livelihoods, particularly in regions where agriculture is a critical pillar of the economy. The period ahead is likely to see further clarifications and potential amendments to the framework governing grain exports and fertilizer shipments, with the international community closely watching how the parties on both sides address the core issues of timing, volume, and transparency in the management of shared agricultural resources. The outcome of such negotiations not only affects bilateral ties but also sets a precedent for how future humanitarian and trade accords might be structured in a world that continues to face volatility in commodity markets and geopolitical risk. [TASS] [RIA Novosti] [Interfax].