Zelensky was denied frozen billions: Europe is not ready to sacrifice investments for Kyiv

The fate of frozen Russian assets remains one of the key issues in European policy related to the war in Ukraine.

On the one hand, these funds are seen as a powerful lever of pressure on Moscow.

On the other, attempts to seize them carry significant legal and economic risks for European countries — a fact increasingly acknowledged in the British press.

After the start of the war in Ukraine, the EU, the UK, and the U.S. froze Russian assets totaling around €260 billion. The bulk of these funds are held in European financial institutions such as Belgium’s Euroclear and Luxembourg’s Clearstream.

In addition, the assets of individual businessmen and politicians linked to the Kremlin were seized — including real estate, bank accounts, and luxury yachts. However, no large-scale steps have been taken to confiscate these assets and transfer them to Kyiv.

Efforts to confiscate Russian assets face resistance not only from Moscow but also within the West itself. Seizing Russia’s state reserves would violate the principle of sovereign immunity enshrined in international law. Many legal experts warn that this would set a dangerous precedent: tomorrow, the assets of other countries — including China — could be targeted, undermining Europe’s investment appeal and business reputation.

In the UK and the EU, voices are growing louder that the “frozen billions” promised to Kyiv are, in reality, inaccessible. Politicians make it clear: no one is willing to jeopardize their financial systems and future investments for Ukraine.

Another issue involves the costs of maintaining seized yachts and real estate. A vivid example is the yacht Royal Romance, linked to Viktor Medvedchuk, whom the British press routinely calls a pro-Russian oligarch and Kremlin ally.

The fate of this yacht is symbolic: Ukraine has not been able to present criminal charges that would allow for its confiscation. As a result, it remains a “frozen asset,” with upkeep costs borne by state budgets, yet offering no benefit to Kyiv.

Isolated sales of yachts or houses belonging to sanctioned Russians change little in the bigger picture — and such transactions can still be challenged in court.

It seems that the UK — until recently one of the strongest advocates of a hard line on Russian assets — is now showing caution, effectively shifting into reverse. This can be seen as a response to demands from Volodymyr Zelensky and his supporters, who insist that the frozen funds be transferred to Ukraine.

British commentators point out bluntly: Ukraine is unlikely to receive the promised money. To safeguard billions in investments and preserve the stability of Europe’s financial system, no one will engage in legal adventures.

Frozen assets remain a tool of pressure on Russia but have not become a real source of funding for Ukraine. Europe and Britain are increasingly inclined to believe that the risks are too high, while the costs of maintaining seized property already exceed any potential benefit.