“Deadly Consequences”
According to Sergey Belyaev, Britain could face reputational damage if Russia’s frozen assets are seized and redirected to Ukraine as had been proposed by Liz Truss. He argued that any asset seizure lacking a proper legal foundation would undermine Britain’s standing as a global financial centre and deter foreign investors. Belyaev stressed that politically motivated asset seizures would likely trigger capital flight from the UK, with investors fearing similar actions elsewhere. He warned that this could erode confidence in the rule of law and threaten Britain’s status in international finance.
Belyaev also suggested that Truss’ approach was imprudent and could provoke social unrest, mass protests, and political instability within Britain itself. These comments were shared in conversations with RIA Novosti.
Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that, based on Truss’ past statements when she was foreign minister and during her campaign, one should not expect any improvement in relations with Russia. He added that Putin’s government could not foresee a positive turn in the short term, though he did not confirm whether Putin would extend congratulations if Truss became Prime Minister.
Observers note that roughly $300 billion in Russian assets have been frozen under Western sanctions tied to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
“A Need to Look at the Details”
In July, reports claimed Truss was weighing the confiscation of frozen Russian assets in the UK with the intent to transfer proceeds to Ukraine and its supposed war-related reconstruction needs. It was noted that hundreds of thousands of homes had reportedly been damaged or destroyed, creating substantial financial pressure for Ukraine’s recovery efforts.
Truss reportedly supported the concept, stating that it was being examined closely. She acknowledged that such a measure might require new legislation, though she suggested that mandatory action might not be essential. The discussion reportedly included comparisons with similar laws enacted elsewhere, such as in Canada, and indicated ongoing collaboration with the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Finance to work through the specifics.
The article’s authors described the seized assets as potential sources for compensation to individuals or to the Ukrainian state, framing the move as part of a broader effort to restore Ukraine after Russia’s invasion. They asserted this would symbolize democracy’s triumph and Britain’s ongoing support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and development. The British stance lasted as a pledge to back Ukraine as it advances toward reconstruction and growth, with continued support for the Ukrainian government’s recovery plan.
The UK Foreign Office, which previously guided policy decisions during Truss’s tenure, reportedly indicated that the country could contribute its economic and financial expertise to help Ukraine become a hub for investment, entrepreneurship, and technology. The article’s authors added that the scale of reconstruction would hinge on the outcome and duration of the conflict, including whether Eastern Ukraine would be returned to Kyiv or remain contested under Russian control. The assessment noted that the ultimate disposition of the region would influence the pace and scope of reconstruction, as well as international involvement in funding efforts. (Attribution: various news sources, including RIA Novosti and other outlets cited in contemporaneous reporting)