Nobel laureate in economics and Yale professor Robert Shiller described the possible seizure of Russian assets as a disaster during an interview published in an Italian outlet, Republic. The comments reflect his view that such a move would not be the appropriate path forward for handling the financial domains tied to Russia.
Shiller argued that seizing assets could send a troubling signal, reinforcing the Russian leadership’s narrative that the conflict in Ukraine is a proxy war. He warned that this interpretation might backfire on the United States and its Western allies, complicating already delicate international dynamics.
The economist emphasized the broader consequences: many nations, including Russia, have converted savings into U.S. dollars with assurances of security, entrusting funds to the United States. If Washington can so easily seize assets, it could set a precedent that encourages other countries to rethink their reserves and diversification strategies, with ripple effects across global finance.
Shiller suggested that jeopardizing the dollar’s perceived safety could erode the broader trust in the U.S. currency and potentially undermine a long-standing financial equilibrium. In his view, this could become a turning point that challenges the dollar’s dominant position in the world economy, prompting a shift toward alternative reserve currencies among several countries from Russia and China to developing economies in other regions.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov later pointed to the risk that asset seizures and rising military tensions could destabilize Russo-American relations, potentially causing a rupture in long-standing diplomatic ties. The exchange underscored the high-stakes nature of any move that disrupts economic norms between major powers.
On December 20, it was reported that European Union members had already frozen the private assets of certain Russian and Belarusian oligarchs and their companies, with a total near 28 billion euros. The measure was framed as support for Ukraine and its ongoing defense efforts, illustrating how financial sanctions have become a central instrument in the conflict’s broader strategy.
Earlier, reports from the Financial Times indicated that representatives of the G7 nations had begun discussions about the possibility of reallocating or seizing frozen Russian assets in response to the start of a special military operation. These conversations highlighted the international community’s interest in leveraging financial leverage to influence the trajectory of events on the ground.
Additionally, there were discussions in the United States about options for transferring frozen Russian assets to Kiev, a move that would entail significant political and legal considerations, as well as questions about sovereignty, accountability, and long-term consequences for international finance.
Overall, analysts note that the debate over asset seizures hinges on questions of legality, economic impact, and strategic signaling. The tension between preserving the U.S. and Western financial order and responding to geopolitical aggression remains a central dilemma for policymakers and commentators alike, with ongoing scrutiny from financial markets and international observers.
[Cited: policy analyses, official statements, and press coverage from regional and global outlets.]