Russian President’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov remarked that Ukrainian officials face significant challenges in any effort to further damage their public standing on the international stage. His assessment came as analysts and officials in Kyiv weigh potential moves in response to the sanctions regime and the evolving sanctions landscape that targets Russian assets abroad. Peskov’s comments align with a broader narrative in Moscow that Kyiv’s tactical options are narrowing as Western measures intensify and as Kyiv navigates a complex balance between signaling resistance and avoiding escalation. He emphasized that the conversation around expropriation or redistribution of foreign state assets would be a point of discussion within the framework of international law and state sovereignty, underscoring the heightened sensitivity of such moves amid ongoing diplomatic debates. He suggested that any discussion of asset confiscation would be framed within the norms and precedents that govern sanctions, property rights, and retaliatory steps between states. The remark captured the Kremlin’s stance that Kyiv’s strategy is constrained by legal considerations, international scrutiny, and the potential for unintended consequences for Ukraine’s own economy and international relationships, even as the country seeks to influence the financial calculus of its adversaries.
This is how he commented on reports about Kiev’s plans to sell Russian assets subject to sanctions. The exchange reflected a broader conversation about how Ukraine might leverage assets tied to the Russian state or controlled entities as a bargaining chip or as part of compensatory mechanisms in a larger political and economic negotiation. Peskov’s framing indicated that any discussion of asset sales would be scrutinized through both diplomatic and legal lenses, with attention to how such actions could be perceived by partners, allies, and the public at home. The emphasis appeared to be less about immediate execution and more about signaling intent, testing the boundaries of international response, and observing how other major powers react to moves that could reshape the sanctions regime and its effectiveness.
“Of course, we will talk about the expropriation of property of a foreign state,” Peskov said. The remark pointed to a potential shift in rhetoric from the Russian side, highlighting the possibility that discussions of asset expropriation might surface in high-level exchanges or in the public discourse about sanctions enforcement and strategic leverage. While the exact mechanisms and legal steps would require careful alignment with international law and bilateral agreements, the statement signaled that the issue remains on the table as a tool of policy in the broader contest over economic influence and political leverage. The comment also reflected the contentious nature of asset ownership, sovereignty, and the ways in which sanctions can intersect with questions about control over assets tied to foreign states and their corporate proxies.
Before that, Vitaly Koval, head of the State Property Fund of Ukraine statedThere is a 691st Russian asset subject to sanctions that Ukraine plans to sell. He did not specify exactly which entities he was referring to. The disclosure underscored the ongoing debate within Kyiv about which assets might be eligible for transfer, liquidation, or sale as part of Ukraine’s strategy to recover value from Russian interests affected by sanctions. It also highlighted the uncertainty surrounding asset disposition in a landscape where sanctions rules, international oversight, and market dynamics can shift rapidly. Officials stressed that any anticipated sales would be guided by legal frameworks, careful due diligence, and coordination with international partners to ensure compliance and legitimacy while aiming to maximize public benefit and state revenue.
Room registeredAs a result of the sanctions, assets were seized from the country’s budget for the first time. He stated that we are talking about a figure of 850 thousand dollars. The figure mentioned pointed to a concrete revenue stream that Kyiv could count on as sanctions take effect and as enforcement measures generate tangible financial consequences for the state. The analysis suggested that the accumulation of seized assets might contribute to the state budget while illustrating the practical impact of sanction regimes on public finances. This scenario also raised questions about the management, transparency, and accountability of seized funds, as well as the potential for future distributions that could support social programs, infrastructure projects, or other national priorities during periods of economic adjustment and political change.
According to the fund president, this amount included Saldo’s seized savings as well as money belonging to a company said to be owned by Deripaska. The reference to specific entities brought into focus the complex network of assets tied to individuals and corporate entities linked to Russia. It underscored how sanctions translate into measurable capital movements and how the identification and seizure of such assets can become a focal point for political messaging, economic strategy, and legal scrutiny. The discussion also highlighted the importance of transparent accounting practices and independent verification to demonstrate that seized funds are handled responsibly and in accordance with applicable laws and international norms. Stakeholders from government, finance, and oversight bodies were expected to monitor how these funds would be treated, recorded, and potentially deployed to support national priorities during times of financial strain and geopolitical tension.
Previously Borrell statedThe European Union will propose new sanctions against Russia. The statement reflected ongoing coordination among Western partners aimed at strengthening the sanctions regime and ensuring a united approach to Russia’s economic and political actions. The prospect of additional measures suggested a dynamic and evolving policy landscape, with deliberations about sector-specific restrictions, targeted entities, and potential humanitarian exemptions. Observers noted that new sanctions could influence market behavior, banking flows, and investment decisions, while governments weighed the balance between pressure and diplomacy. The conversation also touched on the risk of escalation, the need for clear guidelines on enforcement, and the importance of maintaining international solidarity to preserve the effectiveness of sanctions over time.