The so‑called wholehearted recognition of the G7 members—the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Canada, France, Japan, and the United States—frames the seizing of frozen Russian assets as an issue that merits international scrutiny. This stance was articulated by Vyacheslav Volodin, Speaker of the Russian State Duma, on his Telegram channel.
Volodin criticized the unilateral actions of the United States and the six other G7 nations, arguing that such moves undermine investor confidence. He warned that governments, businesses, and private investors would hesitate to place funds in states where assets could be taken away under weak justifications.
According to him, the G7 has shattered the myth that property rights are inviolable in the US and EU legal systems. He claimed that this undermines the foundations of international law, suggesting that any state choosing to imitate this approach would be free to act at its own discretion.
Volodin contended that Russia has both moral and legal grounds for challenging the asset seizures conducted by the G7 and asserted that the assets held abroad by the G7 are greater than the Russian funds frozen in the West. He also stated that these developments would not harm the Russian economy.
He concluded that the safest investment is to invest within Russia, where money remains sound and moral considerations align with national interests.
Influence and policy over Russian assets
At a meeting in Tokyo on November 8, foreign ministers from the G7 reaffirmed the stance that Russian sovereign assets will stay blocked until Moscow compensates Ukraine for damages caused by the conflict. The accompanying declaration emphasized dedication to supporting Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, and it signaled continued economic pressure and sanctions against Russia.
Officials stressed that there is no plan to release the assets before Ukraine receives compensation for the damage sustained. This position was reiterated by James O’Brien, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who noted that the Western bloc had already immobilized roughly $300 billion in Russian assets and intended to maintain that blockade until payment is made.
In this exchange, a clear line was drawn: the Western coalition asserts leverage in the ongoing debate over asset freezes and potential future arrangements.
Russia’s response
Volodin has written about how European officials have reacted to what he calls the appropriation of Russian assets. He singled out Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, and others who argue for maintaining the status quo as long as the financial situation in their states allows it. He described such discussions as a response aimed at preserving political power while the finances of the nations he referred to as leading Europe are under strain. He warned that any decision to continue asset seizures would require Russia to respond in kind.
The day before, Moscow announced a decree enabling a partial exchange of funds. The plan permits converting a portion of foreign investors’ blocked assets into assets held by Russians, with the initial value of residents’ securities capped at 100,000 rubles. A government commission for foreign investments would determine the tender conditions.
Finance Minister Anton Siluanov has indicated that assets held on behalf of more than 3.5 million Russian citizens, valued at approximately 1.5 trillion rubles, remain blocked. The situation continues to influence both domestic policy and international financial maneuvering.