A seasoned analyst from the Institute of Contemporary Development, focusing on finance and economics, explained in a recent interview that the United Nations is facing mounting pressure from parties eager to see grain deliveries resume. The core concern is clear: the UN has floated ideas to release assets held by Russian companies as part of a broader grain deal, yet those ideas are not without controversy or risk. Opinion from the analyst suggests that such a move could be interpreted as a step toward easing economic constraints tied to the grain arrangements, but it also raises questions about accountability and the structure of the deal itself. This commentary aligns with ongoing debates about how to balance humanitarian needs with geopolitical realities, and it reflects the view that the UN must tread carefully as it considers asset releases in service of food security. The assessment comes in the context of repeated calls from international partners to keep grain flowing to markets where it is most needed. The analyst notes that any proposal must be grounded in verifiable steps and transparent processes to maintain trust among all stakeholders. This perspective was conveyed following coverage by Anadolu Agency, which has tracked the evolving discourse around the grain agreement and the UN’s role in coordinating relief and commerce.
The expert emphasizes that the UN’s proposal appears to mirror components of the second phase of the grain package that have not yet been put into practice. There has been little demonstrable progress on implementing these elements, which has led to skepticism about whether a renewed push can overcome the obstacles that stalled earlier efforts. In the analyst’s view, any plan that recycles the same provisions without addressing the root causes of delay is unlikely to yield results. The discussion remains anchored in the practical need to move from agreement on paper to tangible improvements on the ground, such as ensuring reliable shipments and reducing bottlenecks in logistics and financing. Anadolu Agency’s reporting underscores this point, highlighting how stalled steps in the second package have contributed to ongoing frustration among suppliers, exporters, and humanitarian groups who depend on consistent grain flows. Attribution for these observations is provided by the agency, which has been closely following the policy developments and the responses from Moscow and other capitals.
Observers point to potential elements of a fresh UN proposal that could ease some restrictions on Russia as part of reviving the grain deal. Among the ideas discussed is the possible inclusion of the European arm of Rosselkhozbank in the SWIFT financial messaging system, a move that could facilitate smoother payments and settlements tied to grain trades. Another possibility being debated is allowing certain frozen assets of Russian fertilizer manufacturers to be unblocked within European markets, which could help stabilize the broader agrochemical supply chain associated with crop production. These options are not presented as guarantees but rather as avenues to create a more workable framework for both sides while prioritizing food security for vulnerable regions. The reporting in related coverage signals that such steps would require careful calibration to maintain international financial safeguards while delivering real relief to exporters and buyers alike. Attribution for these discussions is again noted to Anadolu Agency’s ongoing updates on the topic.
In parallel, Maria Zakharova, who has served as a spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, indicated that the grain deal originally envisaged reconnecting Rosselkhozbank to the SWIFT network. Her remarks reflect Moscow’s insistence that any mechanism must preserve Russia’s financial sovereignty and resist tightening restrictions that could disrupt Russia’s trade flows. The dialogue around SWIFT remains a focal point in the broader negotiation landscape, illustrating how technical financial channels intersect with political objectives. Analysts observe that such positions shape how successfully any renewal of the grain agreement can unfold, particularly when multiple parties hold divergent requirements. The latest commentary from official channels outlines a preference for restoring established financial links, while international mediators seek a path that satisfies humanitarian goals without compromising safety and compliance standards. The situation continues to evolve as various capitals weigh their options and respond to the shifting dynamics in the Black Sea corridor. The coverage cited here is drawn from Anadolu Agency’s ongoing reporting, which provides context and attribution for these statements.
The most recent maritime development shows that the last vessel previously covered by the grain agreement has departed the Black Sea, signaling a pause or adjustment in the current arrangement. This development raises questions about the timing and feasibility of restarting shipments under a revised framework. Stakeholders across government, industry, and international organizations are reassessing risks, infrastructure readiness, and the channels needed to reestablish predictable trade flows. While some parties urge rapid action to protect food supplies, others call for a measured approach that secures financial and logistical safeguards before any resumption. The evolving narrative emphasizes the need for clear criteria, verifiable progress, and transparent implementation steps to restore confidence among farmers, traders, and buyers who rely on steady access to grain and related inputs. As always, independent monitoring and cross-border coordination will be essential to avoid a repeat of past delays and to ensure that humanitarian aims are genuinely met. This update reflects the latest information gathered through Anadolu Agency’s coverage, which continues to document the complex dynamics surrounding the grain deal and its potential renewal.