Addressing the Objections
Common Objections — and Why They Don't Hold
Critics of asset transfer have raised a series of legal, financial, and geopolitical objections. Each is addressed below on its merits.
Response
Immediate rebuilding of critical infrastructure is crucial to keep Ukraine's economy running and for its defense. Ukraine will not be able to rebuild if it no longer exists.
Response
Russia has violated two legal obligations: the aggression itself, and the duty to pay reparations. A country is only owed protection for its property when it is abiding by international law. Transferring Russian assets to an international compensation fund is causing Russia to comply with its obligation to compensate Ukraine.
Response
Precedent for transferring state assets in response to an unjust war already exists. Under these unique and historic conditions, we are forced to reinforce precedent — either by action or inaction.
Response
We must set a good precedent to protect the international rules-based order, to hold the aggressor accountable, and to support victims. Continued delay to repurpose Russia's funds will encourage further crimes of aggression and undermine the geopolitical order.
Response
The US and Canada have already enacted legislation allowing them to seize assets. Lawmakers in other jurisdictions can follow their example in legislating those mechanisms.
Response
Russia does not count on getting its assets back — it only doesn't want them to go to Ukraine. Repurposing will not undermine a diplomatic solution.
Response
The profits amount to approximately €3 billion per year. Reconstruction alone is estimated at $588 billion. The profits are far insufficient to keep Ukraine afloat, much less to rebuild and deliver reparations to victims of the war.
Response
There are no legal or practical advantages to collateralising the frozen Russian assets as opposed to directly transferring them. At the same time, doing so would raise a significantly smaller amount of funds than would be available to Ukraine via direct transfer.
Response
Western countries host 90+ percent of the world's central bank reserves. There are simply no other viable reserve currencies for countries to invest their reserves. Any negative effects would have already resulted from freezing the assets more than four years ago.
Response
Russia is already seizing assets from G7 investors and is likely to continue even in the absence of the West transferring Russia's frozen reserves. The companies that continue to operate in Russia make the business decision to do so with full knowledge of the risks, and contribute to the Russian war machine with their taxes.