Russia appears to be pursuing a strategy that monetizes assets abroad without the formal act of seizure, a position articulated in an interview on Duma TV by Sergei Gavrilov, who chairs the State Duma Committee on Property, Land and Property Relations. Gavrilov argued that the use of funds, dividends, and derivative income tied to foreign-held assets is a legitimate financial practice that does not require explicit confiscation. He outlined a vision in which Russia could unlock the value of these assets by leveraging them as collateral in a broader lending pool, effectively creating a mortgage-like mechanism from closed accounts that have accumulated wealth in foreign currencies. In his view, this approach would allow Russia to generate revenue from such assets while avoiding the formal process of taking them away from their current holders. This perspective reflects a belief that asset flows and collateral use can yield economic gains within the bounds of the existing international legal framework.
Gavrilov stressed that the strategy hinges on the concept of using already captured or controlled funds in a manner that benefits Russia, rather than overtly seizing property. He described the approach as a way to produce billions of dollars in dollar-denominated value by transforming these balances into a pool of collateral for lending and investment activities. This, he claimed, would generate income for Russia without a public declaration of asset confiscation, relying instead on financial mechanisms and supervisory arrangements to monetize the value indirectly.
The deputy also touched on why Russia has not moved to seize foreign assets outright, noting that the global order rests on legal norms and the rule of law. He suggested that the prudent path is to work within the framework of international law while pursuing financial instruments that can yield comparable outcomes to direct confiscation. The dialogue implies a broader strategy that seeks to balance economic interests with legal considerations, aiming to safeguard Russia’s claims while navigating the complex landscape of cross-border property rights.
In May, a presidential decree was issued that granted Russian courts the authority to use U.S. property to compensate for losses tied to the seizure of Russian assets. The decree contemplates a transfer of rights to Russian copyright holders, signaling a legal and administrative maneuver to secure compensation through judicial channels. The State Duma described the decree as a natural response to what it characterized as aggressive Western policy, framing it as a functional step within the existing legal order to address losses from foreign asset actions. This development underscores how Russia seeks to align its recourse with formal legal processes rather than exclusive unilateral measures.
Earlier, U.S. leaders had enacted legislation that could potentially allow the seizure of Russian assets to support Ukraine. However, to date, there has been no concrete effort to seize the funds, and the practical application of such laws remains uncertain. The evolving legal landscape in both countries continues to influence how asset rights, compensation schemes, and cross-border financial remedies are handled.
There has also been ongoing effort within Russia to estimate the scale of American-held assets within its borders. The calculations reflect an awareness of the potential leverage points and the political calculus involved in any future moves related to asset management and compensation schemes. These assessments contribute to a broader narrative about strategic asset monetization and the ways in which states may pursue pragmatic financial gains while navigating international norms and geopolitical considerations.