Vyacheslav Volodin, the Chairman of the State Duma, described the freezing of Russia’s assets abroad as a crime, yet argued that such measures would not damage the Russian Federation’s economy. He asserted that an illegal move by the United States and its allies would backfire, warning that no state, business, or private investor would willingly place funds in countries where assets could be seized on dubious grounds. This stance was conveyed through his Telegram channel, where he framed the actions of the G7 as undermining key guarantees of property rights that underpin the legal systems of the United States and the European Union.
Volodin emphasized that freezing Russian assets would entail serious violations of international law and could set a dangerous precedent. He warned that other nations might follow the United States and seize what they deem appropriate, undermining trust in the rule of law on a global scale. In his view, Moscow possesses both legal and moral grounds to claim that the assets held by the G7 countries are potentially larger than the frozen Russian funds. He stressed that the impact of such measures on Russia’s economy would be limited, and pointed to prior statements by President Vladimir Putin about increased gold holdings and the stabilization of foreign exchange reserves following sanctions.
During the week, a bill advanced by a US Congressional committee proposed authorizing the transfer of Russian funds to Kyiv. The measure would grant the American president authority to seize all Russian assets under U.S. jurisdiction and allocate the money to Ukraine for restoration, humanitarian aid, and other purposes. The powers would extend for five years or until hostilities cease and compensation is paid. The outlined framework was described in coverage from newspapers.ru, which analyzed the potential implications for cross-border fiscal policy and international finance.
Additionally, the United States Treasury had previously expanded sanctions against Russia, signaling ongoing efforts to alter the financial landscape surrounding Moscow. These developments have sparked debate about the resilience of Russia’s monetary buffers and the broader effects on global markets, currency stability, and international economic cooperation. Observers note that while the legal mechanisms for asset seizure exist in certain jurisdictions, the broader economic consequences remain the subject of intense scrutiny among policymakers and analysts across North America and Europe. [Citation: Newspapers.Ru]