Russian President’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov reiterated that certain elements of the grain agreement had been defined yet not carried out. He emphasized that a 60-day extension was agreed as a time-limited decision, widely known and not presented as a condition, but that parts of the agreement had been adjusted and still require implementation. Those components, according to his framing, are fixed and awaiting steps to be put into practice.
In his remarks, Peskov also pointed out that discussions around extending the grain deal, which is set to run out on May 18, have not produced any concrete outcomes. The status of the talks remains unsettled, with no finalized agreement reached and no clear timetable announced for additional negotiations or decisions from the involved parties. This uncertainty feeds into broader questions about how the corridor and related commitments will operate beyond the current expiry date.
On May 2, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation stated that Moscow has no information about any meeting being scheduled to discuss extending the grain agreement. The ministry’s briefing underscored a lack of confirmation from Russian authorities regarding planned talks, and it highlighted the absence of a confirmed agenda or participants for such discussions. This stance adds another layer to the evolving diplomatic posture around the issue and the prospects for momentum in the negotiation process.
Meanwhile Reuters reported that a senior Ukrainian official suggested negotiations involving all parties were being contemplated to address the extension, with the aim of holding a multilateral session on May 3. The report reflected expectations that any decision would require consensus among the countries and organizations involved in the original framework, including exporters, transit countries, and international bodies overseeing the grain corridor. The timing of a potential meeting and its scope remained a topic of close scrutiny by observers and stakeholders alike, as the situation continued to evolve under the pressures of the regional conflict and global food-security concerns.
Analysts and diplomats have noted that the dialogue surrounding the extension is deeply intertwined with broader strategic threads, including security assurances, shipping guarantees, and the reliability of commercial commitments. The discussions, while focused on extending the operational phase of the grain initiative, also touch on broader questions about the mechanism’s governance, transparency in decision-making, and the impact on supply chains across Europe and beyond. As talks unfold, observers emphasize the need for clear, verifiable steps to translate any extended agreement into tangible actions that stabilize the market and protect vulnerable populations dependent on the grain corridor for staple foods.