Europe refuses a US plan to put unfrozen Russian assets under Washington’s control

US negotiators proposed unfreezing some Russian sovereign assets and placing them under Washington’s control, and European representatives rejected the plan, Meduza reported, citing the Financial Times⁴. The FT reported that the United States floated unfreezing some Russian assets in order to restart Ukraine peace talks, and said the president’s envoys hoped the proposal would help do so¹.

The proposal was put by the special envoy Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner during talks that involved Ukrainian and European officials, the Kyiv Post reported, and European representatives rejected the idea². Anadolu reported that the two men presented several possible mechanisms for releasing the assets, citing the FT⁵. Meduza said the talks took place in Miami on 9 October⁴, and Raw Story reported that senior Ukrainian and European officials flew to Miami on 9 October to meet the two negotiators in a bid to revive the peace process⁶.

Why it matters to investors

Immobilised Russian sovereign assets are the largest pool of frozen reserves in the system, and the question of who administers them is a question about the status of reserves held in Western jurisdictions generally. Moving them into a vehicle controlled by one government, rather than leaving them where they were frozen, is the part European capitals objected to^2,4.

The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said frozen Russian assets must stay in Europe, the Straits Times reported, which also noted the FT’s account that European delegates rebuffed the plan³. That is a direct statement of jurisdiction rather than of policy on Ukraine, and it is the point on which any later version of the proposal will turn³.

What to watch

How the proposal was received is itself a signal. Raw Story reported that US allies were described as floored and blindsided at the meeting on the Russia plan⁶. Anadolu’s account that several mechanisms were presented suggests the structure, rather than the principle, may be revisited⁵.

Three things will indicate whether this advances. The first is whether Washington returns with a mechanism that leaves the assets in European custody, the condition Merz set out³. The second is whether Ukrainian and European officials attend another round after being blindsided at the last one^2,6. The third is whether the assets question stays tied to restarting peace talks, which is the purpose the FT reported the envoys had in mind¹.