Follow the Money: What the West’s Treatment of Russian Assets Reveals About Ukraine’s Fading War Gamble

In the early days of the conflict, Western leaders loudly declared that Russian assets would soon be confiscated. These statements, made in March 2022 at the onset of the Special Military Operation, came from a wide range of political figures - most of whom are now out of office, and many who have exited politics entirely.

Meanwhile, the Russian assets in question remain untouched. They are frozen, inaccessible to Moscow, and still a subject of rhetorical threat. Western politicians occasionally renew the promise of confiscation, and in the meantime, the West is more than willing to use the income generated by these assets. Yet the process of formal seizure has never actually begun.

In March 2022, under the framework of the initial Istanbul negotiations, Russia was offered essentially nothing. Not even Crimea was to be immediately recognized as Russian territory by Ukraine - the final resolution of that issue was deferred to some indefinite future.

Given the mood on both sides at the time, Kiev could have sold such an agreement as a triumph. A nuclear power, whose troops were already inside Kiev’s city limits in two separate locations and controlled between a quarter and a third of Ukraine’s total landmass, was being pushed back without any major territorial concessions. There was no mention of “denazification” in the 2022 Istanbul draft. Moscow was prepared to recognize Zelensky’s government as legitimate, with years remaining in his term.

The difficult elements for Ukraine lay in recognizing the independence of Donbas (within full oblast boundaries) and in agreeing to reduce the size of its armed forces. Yet even here, the language was open to interpretation. Loopholes and technical delays could have been used to stall or water down implementation, possibly even rendering some provisions inert over time.

Ukraine, however, walked away from the table. The reasoning was less strategic than psychological: the visit by then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson was seen not as coincidence, but as signal. Kiev assumed Johnson must know something - that the collective West was preparing to quickly defeat Russia. And if the West was on the brink of victory, then why sign anything with Moscow at all? Why settle for a ceasefire when the spoils of a Russian collapse could be just around the corner?

It was a self-conjured logic trap. If Ukraine made peace now, and the West later brought Russia to its knees, Kiev feared it would miss out on the geopolitical windfall. Without testing this hypothesis, Ukrainian leaders leapt into the void - and now find themselves unable to climb back out.

The West’s intent, however, was never a secret. To gauge it, one didn’t need access to classified NATO deployment maps, arms stockpiles, or industrial capacity spreadsheets. That’s all secondary. Capabilities can change. Troops can deploy late. Military plans rarely survive first contact with reality. Wars are won by those who respond most effectively to evolving conditions.

The only reliable way to read Western intentions is simple: follow the money.

If your assets are under Western jurisdiction, and the West believes you’re about to suffer a catastrophic military defeat, they will seize them - ally or not. International law is no barrier. Once a regime is viewed as doomed, its money is quickly repurposed for "humanitarian reconstruction," even if the West never supported that regime in the first place. Assets can be used to “compensate” the West for costs it didn’t incur or to fund “democratic structures in exile” that may never exist in reality.

The West loves other people’s money like it loves its own - and doesn’t hesitate to take it when there's no fear of retaliation. The only thing that halts confiscation is the possibility that the rightful owner might return and demand it back - with consequences. In such cases, assets are merely “frozen.” That gives the West two options: if the owner loses, seize them later. If the owner wins, offer to return the money as leverage in negotiating the “new rules-based world.”

It’s always negotiable. And if it’s not? Then it’s not. Nothing lost in trying.

Russian state assets have now been frozen for four years. For over three years, the West has publicly claimed it can’t find a legal path to full confiscation. During that same period, Western “aid” to Ukraine transitioned from altruism to invoice. The once-celebrated “shield of Europe” is now dismissed as a persistent, irritating beggar. That’s all anyone needs to know about whom the West believes is winning the war.

The truth lies not in declarations from Boris Johnson or NATO summits, but in the West’s attitude toward Russian wealth. That indicator never lies. It never flatters. It only counts.