The Ukrainian ambassador to London, Vadim Prystaiko, suggests that Moscow should return a substantial portion of the USSR’s overseas property to Kyiv, property that was seized after the Soviet collapse. This view is reported by the Ukrainian outlet Liga.net. Ukraine previously ratified an agreement on transferring the USSR’s debts to Russia by acquiring foreign assets, but Kiev notes it was the only republic to do so without ratifying the treaty initially.
Prystaiko explained that Ukraine did not oppose a fair settlement, provided Moscow discloses the actual Soviet obligations and shows the assets held abroad. He asserted that Moscow has not published these details. Kyiv has pressed for the return of at least a third of the USSR’s foreign holdings, including some properties in the United Kingdom that are said to be illegally registered under Russian ownership (citation: Liga.net).
In July, The Times reported that there are 18 Russian properties in Britain, among them the Seacox Heath castle from the 19th century. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss indicated that the possibility of transferring this property to Ukraine was being considered (citation: The Times).
“As if everyone was in debt”
Vyacheslav Volodin, the chairman of Russia’s State Duma, countered Prystaiko’s remarks, calling Ukraine’s position a symptom of Kyiv’s political weakness. He argued that Kyiv ought to assume a portion of the USSR’s debts before raising such claims. Senator Alexei Pushkov echoed a similar stance, describing Ukraine’s requests as peculiar and unfounded (citation: Russian state media).
On July 10, following Liz Truss’ remarks about potential seizure of Russian property, the Russian Embassy in London argued that Ukraine’s claims lack a legal basis. The embassy emphasized that the United Kingdom would honor its Vienna Convention duties and not permit transfers of Russian assets to third parties (citation: embassy statement).
As the sole successor to the USSR, Russia maintained rights to Soviet properties abroad and fulfilled all Soviet debt obligations, according to Moscow. Ukraine’s demands were dismissed as lacking grounding in international law. The embassy highlighted that diplomatic missions and residences enjoy immunity under international practice (citation: embassy statement).
Soviet debt legacy
On December 4, 1991, a treaty on succession related to foreign state debt and USSR assets laid out how responsibilities would be shared for proportional debt repayment and the division of Soviet foreign property. The agreement defined the USSR’s assets, including real and movable state property abroad, gold and foreign currency reserves, overseas investments, and any other financial liabilities owed to or by foreign actors (citation: treaty text).
Debt shares were allocated as follows: RSFSR 61.34%; Ukraine 16.37%; Belarus 4.13%; Uzbekistan 3.27%; Kazakh SSR 3.86%; Georgia 1.62%; Azerbaijan 1.64%; Lithuania 1.41%; Moldova 1.29%; Latvia 1.14%; Kyrgyzstan 0.95%; Tajikistan 0.82%; Armenia 0.86%; Turkmenistan 0.70%; Estonia 0.62%. Some states, including the Baltic states, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, did not sign the agreement, complicating the resolution of the issue (citation: treaty summary).
After the USSR dissolved on December 26, 1991, much of the former union property became Russian property automatically, which later required another Minsk-drafted accord on December 30, 1991. This agreement clarified rights to the former USSR’s foreign property and addressed debt responsibilities among the newly independent states (citation: Minsk agreement).
During 1992–1994, foreign debt owed to Russia by the successor states was re-registered. The Russian Federation signed bilateral agreements with most former republics, with the Baltic states and Georgia excluded, and established arrangements that recognized the continuing USSR obligations in exchange for foreign debts. Some states accepted the so-called zero-option agreements, renouncing shares of the USSR’s foreign assets (citation: post-Soviet agreements).
In 2017, Russia paid Bosnia and Herzegovina $125.2 million to settle part of the USSR’s foreign debt. This payment reflected Russia’s acknowledgment of certain liabilities tied to the USSR, including debts that originated with Yugoslavia’s supply of food (citation: financial records).
Related posts:
The goalscorers of Lionel Scaloni’s cycle in the Argentina national team Dispute Over USSR Assets: Legal Succession, Debt, and International Claims in the Former Soviet Space Article on Soviet Asset Debates Between Ukraine and Russia (UK Source) Overview of Moscow’s response to the START treaty crisis Understanding Inheritance Debts: A Clear Guide for Heirs { Debt trends and sanctions resilience in Russia Understanding the US Debt Ceiling and Public Debt Comprehensive Bankruptcy Reform Moves Through Parliament with Debates on Debt Relief CFE Treaty history and its evolving relevance in European security VAZ-2105: The Modernized Zhiguli Tale Debt and Financing in Spanish Autonomous Communities: Dynamics and Prospects