Russia’s First Deputy UN Representative Dmitry Polyansky said there is a fifty percent chance the grain deal would be extended beyond May eighteenth. He shared this assessment in an interview granted to a major newspaper, cited as News. Polyansky emphasized that while the public discussion centers on the initial portion of the agreement governing Ukrainian grain exports, the broader scope which includes Russian agricultural products and fertilizers remains the real focal point for Russian interests in the pact. He described how the UN Secretary-General and his team frequently present a stack of letters and boast about the number of calls and visits they have undertaken, highlighting a narrative of active engagement while the on-the-ground progress appears uneven. This framing suggests that the humanitarian mechanism may be delivering less visible benefits to Moscow than to other stakeholders, and it signals concern about how the arrangement is functioning in practice. Polyansky accused the United States and European partners of not taking concrete steps to keep the agreement functioning smoothly, asserting that their actions do not align with the needs of the Russian side. The commentary reflects a broader Russian argument that Western powers are obstructing the seamless operation of the deal and extending the reach of Russian agricultural exports onto global markets.
Former Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, speaking at a press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, indicated that he concurred with Lavrov on the point that the conditions guaranteeing the entry of Russian agricultural products and fertilizers into world markets have not been met. He added that the United Nations has acknowledged this gap, and Türkiye is actively working to remove the obstacles. This alignment between Ankara and Moscow points to a shared position that the grain agreement lacks essential guarantees for Russian supplies to participate fully in the global market, a stance that has implications for regional diplomacy and international trade dynamics. The discussion occurred against a backdrop in which Turkish authorities have been seeking to maintain continuity of the deal while advocating for adjustments that would allow broader Russian participation.
Lavrov himself has asserted that the Russian component of the grain deal has not been fulfilled, highlighting persistent barriers that hamper implementation. He described the situation as progressively more challenging, signaling a tension between the letter of the agreement and its practical execution. These remarks underscore Moscow’s insistence that ensuring the smooth flow of Russian agricultural goods and inputs is a non-negotiable element of any sustained arrangement. The public posture from Russian officials at this juncture combines calls for renewed guarantees with warnings that the existing framework may be inadequate to secure Russia’s economic interests in agriculture on the global stage. Observers note that the language used by Russian diplomats seeks to reframe the grain deal as a broader trade issue rather than a narrow mechanism for Ukrainian exports alone, asserting that the success of the pact depends on fair access for all parties involved in the agricultural sector. The evolving dialogue illustrates the delicate balance countries strike between humanitarian aims, economic objectives, and strategic leverage in a highly interconnected global market, a balance that continues to shape the diplomacy surrounding the grain agreement. These developments are being tracked by analysts and policymakers who stress the need for transparent guarantees and consistent support from international institutions to sustain a workable framework for agricultural trade, especially in times of fluctuating global supply and demand. The situation remains fluid, with officials in Moscow, Ankara, and other capitals parsing every statement for signals about the future of the deal and the potential for renewed cooperation that would stabilize markets and reduce uncertainty for farmers and exporters alike.
In sum, Moscow argues that the grain agreement has not delivered on essential provisions for Russian exports, while Ankara aligns with this view and pushes back against perceived Western obstruction. The United Nations continues to stress humanitarian goals and market stability, but the interpretation of what constitutes full compliance differs among the key players. The coming weeks are expected to reveal whether diplomatic efforts can translate into concrete progress that would reassure markets, support global food security, and permit Russia to participate more fully in the agricultural supply chain on favorable terms, an outcome that would have wide-ranging implications for international trade and regional diplomacy. Analysts advise watching for concrete steps, such as verifiable guarantees for shipments, documentation procedures, and the reduction of choke points that impede cross-border trade. The dialogue remains a critical barometer of how the grain deal might adapt to changing political dynamics and economic needs in a tense but interconnected world.