Make Russia Pay

Appearance

Overview: Using Frozen Russian Sovereign Assets for Ukraine’s Recovery ​

Summary:

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has led to the freezing of over $300 billion in Russian sovereign assets.

The central question: Can these assets be lawfully seized and transferred to support Ukraine’s defense, reconstruction, and recovery—and how?

This page provides a clear overview of:

  • The context of frozen Russian assets
  • The legal basis for seizing and transferring them
  • The need for using these assets for Ukraine
  • Where key jurisdictions currently stand
  • Where the global debate stands now

Table of Contents ​

  1. Context: What Are Frozen Russian Sovereign Assets?
  2. Legal Basis: How Could Seizure and Transfer Be Lawful?
  3. Why These Assets Are Needed
  4. Where Key Jurisdictions Stand
  5. The Policy Debate: Where Things Stand Now
  6. The Bottom Line

Context: What Are Frozen Russian Sovereign Assets? ​

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the G7, European Union, and other partner countries froze Russian state-owned assets held in their financial systems.

These frozen sovereign assets include:

  • Central Bank of Russia reserves held abroad
  • Funds of Russian state-owned enterprises
  • Certain government accounts, deposits, and securities

This freeze is part of a broader sanctions regime designed to limit Russia’s ability to finance its war.

These assets are immobilized, but not yet used. The core policy question is whether and how a freeze can become seizure, transfer, or use of the assets to Ukraine.

A growing body of international law scholarship and state practice supports using Russia’s frozen sovereign assets for Ukraine. The legal case rests on several pillars.

Countermeasures ​

Under the law of state responsibility, injured states may adopt proportionate countermeasures in response to an internationally wrongful act.

  • Russia continues to violate fundamental norms (aggression, war crimes, destruction of civilian infrastructure).
  • Russia refuses to pay reparations or cease its unlawful conduct.

Repurposing frozen assets can be viewed as a collective, third-party countermeasure until Russia complies with its obligations.

Reparations for an Unlawful War ​

Customary international law requires the responsible state to:

  1. Cease the unlawful act
  2. Provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition
  3. Make full reparations for injuries caused

Transfer of frozen assets helps advance Ukraine’s right to reparations in the absence of any voluntary payment by Russia.

Domestic Legislative Authority ​

International principles must be implemented through domestic law.

Many states have the ability to authorize seizure and transfer of sovereign assets.

  • Domestic statutes can:
    • Define the scope of assets covered
    • Specify beneficiaries and uses (e.g., reconstruction, humanitarian relief, military support)
    • Build in safeguards and **oversight.

Some countries already have such legislation, while others can create it - if they so choose.

Precedents ​

There is relevant state practice involving the assets of Iraq, Libya, Iran, among others.

In these cases, state or regime assets were redirected for:

  • Compensation
  • Humanitarian relief
  • Stabilization and reconstruction

While each situation is different, these examples show that re-purposing sovereign assets in response to serious breaches of international law is not unprecedented.

Why These Assets Are Needed ​

Ukraine is facing overlapping crises:

  • Reconstruction needs exceeding $500 billion, and rising
  • Ongoing fiscal strain from defending against Russia’s attacks
  • Massive damage to housing, energy, transport, and key infrastructure
  • Russia’s refusal to engage in any meaningful reparations process

This creates a significant justice and funding gap.

Using frozen Russian sovereign assets:

  • Ensures the aggressor pays, not Ukrainian citizens or foreign taxpayers
  • Provides sustainable, predictable funding for reconstruction and resilience
  • Signals that wars of conquest have real financial and legal consequences
  • Strengthens the rules-based international order and the norm against aggression

Strategic & moral imperative:

This is not just about financing. It is about accountability, deterrence, and credibility of international law.

Where Key Jurisdictions Stand ​

The policy and legal landscape varies across jurisdictions. Below is a high-level snapshot:

JurisdictionStatus / TrendKey Points
United StatesStrong legal authority enactedREPO Act enables seizure and transfer of Russian sovereign assets.
European UnionActive debate / partial measuresUsing windfall profits; full seizure still under legal and political debate.
United KingdomActive debate / partial measuresSupportive rhetoric; exploring specific legal tools for seizure.
CanadaStrong legal authority enactedFirst to legislate seizure of foreign sovereign assets (2022).
JapanCautious; open to coordinationSupportive of Ukraine, wary of financial-system implications.
Others (AU, CH, etc.)Cautious or limited progressLegal and political debates. ongoing.

United States ​

  • Status: Strong legal authority enacted
  • Key instrument: REPO Act (2024)
  • Effect: Gives the U.S. executive branch explicit power to seize Russian sovereign assets under U.S. jurisdiction and transfer them to Ukraine.
  • Current status: Not yet implemented; U.S. is making efforts to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine; unclear how frozen assets will factor into this calculus.

European Union ​

  • Status: Active debate, partial implementation
  • Role: Largest holder of frozen Russian sovereign assets (estimated 200 billion euros), primarily at Euroclear (Belgium).
  • Current measures:
    • Political agreement to use windfall profits (interest and income generated by immobilized assets) for Ukraine.
  • Debate:
    • 'Reparations loan' using the frozen assets as collateral, rather than full seizure/transfer
    • Safeguarding financial stability and markets
    • Securing consensus among key European stakeholders

United Kingdom ​

  • Status: Active debate, supportive rhetoric
  • Position: Publicly in favor of making Russia pay via its assets
  • Work in progress: Seeking alignment with broader G7/EU efforts

Canada ​

  • Status: Strong legal authority enacted
  • Key step: In 2022, Canada became the first country to adopt legislation specifically enabling the seizure of foreign sovereign assets, including Russian assets.
  • Challenge: Moving from legal authority to large-scale implementation; amending the original law to align with domestic sovereign immunity laws.

Japan ​

  • Status: Cautious but engaged
  • Role: G7 member with significant financial-sector influence; holds second-most amount of frozen assets after Europe.
  • Approach: Supports sanctions and aid to Ukraine, but remains cautious about asset repurposing iniatiaves. Open to collective G7 decisions.

The Policy Debate: Where Things Stand Now ​

Emerging Consensus ​

Across many governments, experts, and advocates, several points of broad agreement are emerging:

  1. Russia must pay for the harm it caused.
  2. Frozen sovereign assets are the most realistic and just source of funding.
  3. Coordinated action is essential.

Key Points of Ongoing Debate ​

Despite growing consensus, many common myths and misunderstandings persist. For a comprehensive analysis of each of these key points of debates, see here, and here.

  • International law: Despite many legal experts argueing that seizure as a countermeasure is lawful in this exceptional context, superficial understanding of the "legal constraints" still persist and are often levied as an excuse for lack of stronger action.

  • Financial stability: Persistent misconceptions that asset seizure will cause capital flight or instability in the financial markets. Many analyses have been conducted to disprove these points. For more information, see here.

  • Precedent anxiety: Policymakers worry about how similar tools might be used in future conflicts or by other states. For an analysis as to why asset seizure instead sets a positive precedent, see here.

  • Domestic politics: Governments may support the idea in principle, but lack the political will to move quickly.

Movement ​

The discussion is increasingly shifting from “if” to “how and when.”

  • The U.S. REPO Act has set a new benchmark for legal authority.
  • The EU’s windfall-profit mechanism and the ERA Loan scheme are clear steps beyond simple freezing.
  • Legal scholarship is steadily converging around the idea that repurposing assets is lawful and necessary in this exceptional case.
  • Public and political pressure is growing to ensure that Russia, not taxpayers, foots the bill.

The Bottom Line ​

Frozen Russian sovereign assets represent a historic opportunity to:

  • Enforce accountability for aggression
  • Uphold the rules-based international order
  • Provide sustainable funding for Ukraine’s recovery and resilience
  • Ensure that Russia, not Ukrainian citizens or foreign taxpayers, pays for the destruction it caused

Make Putin Pay exists to track these developments, clarify the legal and policy options, and push for concrete, lawful mechanisms to ensure the aggressor pays for its war.