The overall trajectory of Russia’s grain export policy and the related sanctions dialogue was the focus of a Security Council briefing, with statements attributed to Moscow’s permanent representative and other senior officials.
According to discussions reported by TASS, the Russian Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, indicated that the entire chain of agricultural export operations must be withdrawn from Western sanctions within a 60‑day window. He framed the issue as a prerequisite for any further steps and suggested that the next moves would depend on concrete progress in addressing the concerns Russia has outlined. He warned that if Washington, Brussels and London are genuinely interested in maintaining food exports from Ukraine by sea, then the next two months would be decisive for their own interests, noting that the outcome would show whether the UN Secretary‑General’s “package concept” could operate within the Istanbul arrangements.
Nebenzya clarified that Moscow had informed Turkey and Ukraine of its position, indicating no objection to extending the grain agreement for 60 days after March 18, that is, until May 18. He pressed a central question for Moscow: why has the grain deal shifted from a humanitarian instrument to a commercial enterprise, and what is the impact on global food prices, which he characterized as controversial. In his view, the poorest nations did not receive a proportionate share of supplies, and the figures cited in the room did not reflect reality, with estimates showing only a very small slice reaching those countries.
From the Russian perspective, Western states had publicly rejected the agreement between Russia and the UN Secretariat, avoiding direct mention of it in Security Council materials. He asserted that the commitments by the world organization to lift restrictions on Russian fertilizers and agricultural products had not been fulfilled, even in the slightest.
In response, UN Assistant Secretary‑General for Humanitarian Affairs Martin Griffiths stated that the UN continues to work toward resolving issues with Russian payment systems as part of the grain deal. He acknowledged significant progress while noting that obstacles remain, particularly concerning payment infrastructures, and emphasized that UN efforts in this area would persist.
Ukraine’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Serhiy Kislytsya, noted that Kyiv has proposed expanding the grain agreement to include ports in the Mykolaiv region, with options to make the arrangement indefinite or extend it by up to 120 days under the existing terms. On March 17, UN Secretary‑General spokesman Stéphane Dujarric expressed hope that the grain agreement would endure beyond its expiration date, which had been set for March 18. He added that the UN would strive to maintain and implement the agreement, though he did not specify whether the extension would cover an additional 60 days.
Finnish President Sauli Niinistö indicated that Turkey supported extending the agreement beyond the initial period and suggested that this extension could be longer than 60 days. Niinistö spoke ahead of talks with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and said there was optimism about achieving a longer extension.
Earlier remarks from Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Vershinin recalled that the grain agreement encompassed permission for ammonia exports via Ukraine. He referenced the broader framework known as the Black Sea Initiative and the related Russia–UN Memorandum of Understanding on restoring normal Russian agricultural exports, as part of the ongoing discussions. He argued that Russia’s future position would depend on real progress across several areas, including the supply of Russian products, payment arrangements, logistics, insurance, and the resolution of financial activities connected to the export process. The ammonia pipeline from Togliatti to Odessa and related issues for private sector and state budgets were highlighted as critical factors in the negotiations.
The ammonia supply thread remained a point of contention in negotiations over the grain deal. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy had stated his position on ammonia exports, tying any possible transfers to prisoner exchanges. The Russian side, through the Kremlin, questioned that stance, and media outlets later reported that a large prisoner exchange occurred in the midst of renewed tensions, with hundreds of soldiers exchanged between the two sides. The exchange included fighters from the Azov regiment, which is prohibited in Russia, and a Ukrainian politician was among those transferred. This sequence of events underscored the broader sensitivities surrounding the grain deal and related cross‑border commerce as the parties sought to balance humanitarian needs with strategic interests.