On August 27, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged against confiscating frozen Russian assets, arguing they should remain a “negotiating tool” for a future settlement of the war. He stated that these funds could eventually support Ukraine’s reconstruction, but insisted that seizing them now would deprive the West of critical leverage over the Kremlin. His remarks, immediately reignited divisions among allies on how to handle more than $300 billion in frozen Russian reserves held in the United States and Europe.
Kyiv demands reparations, not bargaining chips
Ukraine and several Eastern European states have consistently pressed for the immediate confiscation of Russian funds to finance reconstruction. For Kyiv, keeping assets frozen but untouched risks normalizing impunity: the Kremlin has already violated international norms, and failing to move from freezing to confiscation undermines the credibility of international law. Ukrainian officials argue that while their country spends billions daily on defense and absorbs relentless Russian strikes, Western hesitation appears cynical—allowing Moscow’s wealth to sit idle in banks while Ukrainians pay in lives.
Concerns about Western credibility
Bessent’s position reflects longstanding hesitation in Washington and Brussels, where legal risks and fears of destabilizing the financial system dominate the debate. Yet critics warn that leaving assets untouched signals weakness. If aggressors can wage war without losing access to their reserves, other authoritarian states may conclude they can act with impunity. Confiscation, opponents of the White House stance argue, would deliver the necessary message: aggression has a price, and it will be paid without compromise.
Europe explores alternative mechanisms
The European Union is already working on mechanisms to channel profits generated by frozen assets into Ukrainian recovery funds. Analysts stress that if Washington refrains from decisive measures, it could erode its leadership role within the coalition of allies. While Brussels positions itself as a driver of collective response, Washington risks being perceived as a brake on effective action. Critics dismiss the idea that Russian assets could someday serve as leverage in negotiations, pointing out that Moscow shows no intention of pursuing peace and is preparing for prolonged conflict.
A question of values, not accounting
For Kyiv and its supporters, this is not a technical financial dispute but a moral question. Every dollar confiscated from Russian assets could rebuild a city, hospital, or school destroyed by the war. Conversely, leaving the money untouched in Western banks amounts to disregarding the suffering of Ukraine’s victims. To many observers, the US decision to preserve the assets for possible future talks places the aggressor’s interests above the rights of those who endured invasion and destruction.
