ILI experts explained why the EU’s promises to confiscate Russian assets have remained mere slogans – and how this could be changed

Four years ago, international partners promised Ukraine that Russia would pay for the war. However, instead of decisive action, this period has brought compromises and partial solutions. This is stated in an article by the Institute of Legislative Ideas published in European Pravda.

“For four years, the main focus has been on Russia’s frozen sovereign assets, estimated at around $300 billion. After the full-scale invasion, it seemed that their confiscation was only a matter of time. However, it later became clear that there would be no direct confiscation. Instead, a compromise was chosen – channeling not the assets themselves, but the proceeds generated from them to support Ukraine,” ILI experts noted.

They emphasized that over these four years, the West has moved from promises of full confiscation to providing loans financed by its own taxpayers. As long as Russia’s sovereign assets remain unconfiscated, the stability of Ukraine’s funding remains at risk, and the issue of full compensation for damages continues to be postponed.

“This means that work on creating a legal mechanism for their recovery must continue – regardless of the complexity of the process and the positions of individual states,” the analysts stressed.

In their view, while attention has focused on Russia’s sovereign assets, the issue of recovering private assets has remained secondary. ILI believes the problem lies not only in legislation and the complexity of its application, but also in active resistance from sanctioned individuals.

“These amounts are smaller than those related to the assets of the Russian central bank – estimated at over $50 billion. However, there is an advantage: decisions regarding these funds are made by the individual states where the assets are frozen. They do not pose systemic risks to global financial stability and cannot be blocked by a single country,” the experts explained.

According to them, even where legislation allows for confiscation, the process is slow and has so far produced no results. To date, there has not been a single case of full confiscation of frozen private assets followed by their transfer to Ukraine.

“The question is not whether confiscation is legally possible. The question is whether there is sufficient political will to find the appropriate mechanisms and see these cases through to completion. Unlike international partners, in Ukraine the mechanism for recovering assets from sanctioned individuals is actually functioning,” the ILI publication concludes.