Andrew Allard '25
Editor-in-Chief
For more than two years, Russia’s Central Bank has been blocked from accessing billions of dollars worth of overseas assets. The United States has been pushing for Ukrainian allies to seize these Russian assets. The recently passed REPO for Ukrainians Act authorizes the President to transfer the frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. But allies in the European Union remain leery about the proposal.
Lee Buchheit speaks to a packed crowd in Brown Hall.
Photo credit: Jennifer Song '27
A debate has emerged among the G7 over what to do with Russia’s frozen assets and whether international law permits them to transfer some of the assets to Ukraine. Proponents of the seizure say that the frozen Russian assets can be used as a down payment for war reparations that Russia will likely owe to Ukraine. Proponents note that the U.N. General Assembly has already ordered Russia to pay reparations.
Lee Buchheit, an international expert in sovereign debt and honorary professor at the University of Edinburgh Law School, spoke about the frozen Russian assets issue before a packed room of students and faculty. Buchheit explained that seizing the Russian assets could force Russia to negotiate a withdrawal.
“For so long as Putin believes that the Western democracies will grow fatigued with financing Ukraine . . . he believes that Father Time is a Russian ally. He need only wait us out. . . . But if we seize these assets, put them into a safe pair of hands, like the World Bank, such that they would fund Ukraine for years to come, all of a sudden, it punctures that belief of Putin. . . . And with that reality, he might just come to the settlement table earlier than he otherwise would.”
Some EU countries remain concerned about the legal and political implications of seizing the frozen assets. But by Buchheit’s telling, the American proposal should be an easy yes. “To my mind, this is not a particularly close call, legally, politically, or morally,” said Buchheit.
Buchheit explained that EU countries have expressed four concerns about seizing Russia’s overseas assets. Chief among them is concern for the reputation of the Euro, a concern Buchheit referred to as the “mythical Saudi Arabian finance minister problem.”
“The euro as a currency is only twenty-five years old. And the Europeans in those twenty-five years have always been walking on eggshells about doing anything that might frighten foreigners from holding euros,” Buchheit explained. If European countries seized Russia’s assets, it may send alarming signals to other countries holding Euros.
Buchheit dismissed this concern, noting that the United States, Japan, and the EU have agreed to work in lockstep, only seizing Russia’s assets if all of them agree to take that measure. “Well, if they all seize at the same time, the Saudi finance minister has got a problem. Where the heck are you going to put your money if you can't put it into US dollars, euros, sterling, [or] Japanese yen?”
The second concern expressed by the EU is that Putin may retaliate against Western investors if Russia’s assets are seized. But Buchheit explained that Russia has already locked up foreign investments by imposing restrictions on selling Russian investments. “If you haven't had your investment seized in Russia, it means you haven't asked for it back yet,” Buchheit said.
International law experts have noted a third concern: seizing the Russian assets may violate international law, and the action would open a “Pandora’s box.” If the United States and its allies seize Russia’s assets, it would create a precedent that any country can seize another country’s assets, even over simple policy disagreements.
Buchheit acknowledged that the action would set a new precedent, but he expressed concern that the alternative is much worse. “What comes out of this will be one or the other of two precedents. Precedent 1: You may invade your neighbor in violation of every norm of international law and the U.N. Charter. You may cause enormous destruction, but you will do so in the sure and certain knowledge that your external assets will be treated as sacrosanct and no adverse action will be taken against them. . . . The second option is, if you brutally invade your neighbor in violation of every norm of international law, you do so at the hazard of perhaps seeing your external assets frozen and used to recompense the victims of your aggression. It's got to be one or the other.”
Buchheit finished by noting that the outcome of the U.S. presidential election may make the Russian asset issue all the more urgent. Buchheit expressed doubt that Trump could resolve the war in a single day, as he has claimed, and speculated that if elected, Trump may pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to negotiate an unfavorable settlement. Buchheit suggested that using Russia’s assets to finance the Ukrainian war effort would alleviate the burden on American taxpayers, possibly de-politicizing support for Ukraine.
---
tya2us@virginia.edu