G7 loan from Russian assets not ‘substitute for full confiscation,’ experts say
This material is based on our event “Frozen Russian assets: how to confiscate in favor of Ukraine”.
Origin: The Kyiv Independent.
The event, which discussed ways to confiscate Russian assets in favor of Ukraine, was hosted by the Center for Economic Strategy (CES) in coordination with the International Center for Ukrainian Victory and KI Insights. KI Insights is an analytical unit backed by the Kyiv Independent.
Kyiv suited up with international lawyers in the first weeks of the full-scale invasion in the hopes of seizing the assets quickly. But Ukraine has struggled to convince its allies to move on the issue of fully confiscating the frozen assets amid political debates.
The G7 agreement is a cohesive step forward after two years fraught with disputes between Ukraine’s allies. Lobbying from opponents as well as disagreements over what the money should be used for held up decision-making while Ukraine struggled to cover its fiscal deficit and the cost of damages rose.
France, Germany, Japan, and Italy are particularly resistant to the idea of full confiscation due to legal ramifications and a fear of catastrophic fallout in financial markets, according to the Financial Times.
Opponents warn that Moscow could seize Western assets located in Russia following threats from Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Western companies are also worried that they will lose their business ventures and investments in Russia, according to Timothy Ash, a senior strategist at BlueBay Asset Management.
Panelists asserted the importance of overcoming legal hurdles to secure the full worth of the assets. They also dismissed the concerns of hesitant EU members that Russia’s sovereign immunity could result in Moscow seeking legal action after the war.
It is “well-established” in international law that assets can be legally confiscated from Russia and used to credit debts owed to Ukraine for damage, said Mykola Yurlov, deputy director of the International Cooperation and Representation Department in the Justice Ministry.
The potential economic risks of investors fleeing Europe have failed to materialize, he said. He noted that reports from the European Central Bank show a strengthening positioning for foreign investment despite ongoing debates around confiscation.
That leaves the main roadblock a “political fear of action,” by European countries, Yurlov said. He warned that the consequences of inaction could be far more disastrous than the potential effects of confiscation.
“The fear of not taking action would be the collapse of Ukraine, and our defeat in the war and then potential further encroachment of Russia,” he said.
This political fear has fallen over time, noted Bohdan Karnaukh, an analyst with the Institute of Legislative Ideas, a Ukrainian think-tank that since 2022 has been tracking global shifts in attitudes regarding the confiscation of Russian assets.
In addition to the recently announced G7 step, Karnaukh pointed to U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who previously raised significant legal risks about confiscation, but has since changed her stance and is calling on partners to embrace this approach.
Backing a loan with frozen assets is an “extremely positive” signal for future confiscation, said Roman Sulzhyk, a financier and member of the supervisory board of CES.
He believes that the assets will stay frozen until they are eventually confiscated and legally handed to Ukraine as reparations.
“Even if (Russian forces) collapse the front today or (former President Donald) Trump comes to power and they force (Ukraine) to sign some shameful peace agreement … they will not be able to unfreeze these assets until the people who loaned the $50 billion are actually paid (back),” he said.