Russian Ambassador to Paris Alexey Meshkov stated that the question of potential actions concerning French assets held in Russia is being studied. The focus is on how the European Union might utilize the income generated from frozen Russian funds if Brussels chooses to apply them as collateral or revenue in support of Ukraine. This topic has moved beyond a simple discussion table and into a more formal contemplation within Moscow and Brussels, reflecting ongoing diplomatic calculations about asset freezes and their possible tactical uses in international finance and security policy.
Earlier, France expressed support for the concept of directing revenues from frozen Russian assets toward Ukraine. In this context, diplomats were asked whether there are French-held assets within Russia that could be subjected to similar measures. The envoy emphasized that no definitive decision had been made, underscoring that the issue remains under active consideration. The response highlights the careful, iterative process involved in aligning EU responses with broader strategic aims and the legal frameworks governing asset freezes, sanctions, and international finance.
Meshkov noted that three years ago French officials repeatedly asserted that France stood as a leading direct investor in Russia, positioning its companies as major contributors to the country’s capital formation and economic modernization. That historical perspective frames current discussions, reminding observers that bilateral economic ties have long been a central feature of Franco-Russian relations, even as sanctions regimes and geopolitical tensions have evolved. The ambassador’s recollection serves to contextualize how asset freezes intersect with long-standing commercial partnerships and the broader narrative of investment flows between the two nations.
On February 6, several EU member states rejected Brussels’ proposal to use frozen Russian assets as collateral for Ukrainian debt issuance. The Politico report suggested that European delegates were concerned about triggering retaliation from Moscow, with potential spillover effects on energy markets, financial stability, and the credibility of sanctions regimes. This moment illustrates the delicate balance policymakers strive to maintain between supporting Ukraine, protecting the integrity of European financial markets, and avoiding unintended consequences that might invite reciprocal actions by Russia.
The Federation Council has approached the Ministry of Finance with a proposal to draft retaliatory measures should the West proceed with using blocked assets of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. This line of action reflects a broader strategic calculus about deterrence and the potential economic repercussions across multiple corridors of international finance. The discussions underscore the seriousness with which Moscow views asset freezes and the possibility that their application could trigger countermeasures across Western financial systems and diplomatic channels.
Earlier statements about the seizure of Russian assets by foreign authorities were also voiced in China, indicating that the question of asset freezes and their legal and geopolitical implications has drawn attention across different jurisdictions. These exchanges illustrate how the issue sits at the intersection of international law, economic policy, and geopolitical contestation, with multiple capitals watching closely how asset freezes might be leveraged, restrained, or expanded in response to evolving circumstances and strategic objectives.