US Proposes Unfreezing Russian Assets to Revive Ukraine Peace Talks, Report Says

The United States has reportedly proposed that European countries unfreeze a portion of Russian sovereign assets immobilised after Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and transfer the funds into a special-purpose financial vehicle overseen by Washington. The proposal, reported by the Financial Times on October 14, 2026, was presented during discussions in Miami involving US negotiators and officials from Ukraine, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Union and NATO. European delegates reportedly rejected the idea.

The proposal adds another point of disagreement to diplomatic efforts aimed at restarting negotiations to end the war. Western countries froze approximately €260 billion in Russian sovereign assets in 2022, with most held in the European Union. While some proceeds generated by these assets have been used to support Ukraine, the principal remains subject to restrictions and legal disputes. The latest proposal would change how at least some of the funds are handled, but the precise amount, legal mechanism and spending arrangements remain unclear. Reuters reported that it could not independently verify the Financial Times report.

Key Takeaways

• The US has reportedly proposed unfreezing some Russian sovereign assets to help revive Ukraine peace negotiations.
• The proposal would transfer the funds into a special-purpose financial vehicle overseen by Washington.
• US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner reportedly presented the idea during discussions in Miami.
• European delegates reportedly rejected the proposal, citing concerns over control of the assets and the possibility of funds being returned to Russia.
• Western countries immobilised approximately €260 billion in Russian sovereign assets following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
• Ukraine has already received financial support backed by extraordinary revenues generated by immobilised Russian assets, but the underlying principal remains a separate issue.
• The reported proposal has not been adopted as an agreed policy or peace settlement.

What Is the US Proposal on Russian Frozen Assets?

According to the Financial Times, US representatives proposed that European governments release some of the Russian sovereign assets currently immobilised under sanctions and move them into a special-purpose financial vehicle supervised by Washington.

The discussions reportedly took place in Miami during meetings involving US President Donald Trump’s negotiators and officials representing Ukraine and several European governments and institutions. Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, were reported to have presented possible mechanisms for releasing the funds.

A special-purpose financial vehicle is a separate legal or financial structure established for a defined purpose. Depending on its design, it can be used to hold, manage or allocate funds under specified rules.

In this case, the proposed structure could potentially provide a mechanism for managing some Russian assets as part of a broader peace arrangement. However, the report does not establish the final amount that would be released, the conditions governing the money or whether the funds would ultimately be used for reconstruction, investment or another purpose.

A US official told the Financial Times that the use of Russian assets had been discussed as part of a comprehensive peace agreement. The official also said that the mechanisms for releasing the funds and determining how they would be spent were still under discussion.

The distinction is important: the reported proposal represents an idea being discussed in diplomatic negotiations, not a completed transaction or a formal decision by European governments.

Why Were Russian Sovereign Assets Frozen?

Western governments imposed extensive financial sanctions on Russia after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. These measures included immobilising Russian central bank reserves held in Western financial jurisdictions.

The restrictions were intended to limit Russia’s access to assets held abroad and increase the financial pressure associated with the invasion. The immobilised assets include sovereign funds, rather than simply money belonging to individual Russian citizens or private companies.

Western governments and institutions subsequently debated how the funds could be used to support Ukraine, including its defence, public finances and reconstruction.

Approximately €260 billion in Russian sovereign assets was immobilised by Western allies, according to the Financial Times report. The European Union holds the largest share, with more than €210 billion of Russian central bank assets immobilised within its jurisdiction, according to the European Commission.

The funds have become a central issue in discussions about who should pay for the damage caused by the war. Ukraine and several of its partners have argued that Russia should bear the financial cost of reconstruction, while legal and financial institutions have raised questions about the lawful use of sovereign assets.

The latest US proposal would reopen this debate by suggesting that at least some of the underlying assets could be released through a new financial arrangement.

Why European Officials Reportedly Rejected the Proposal

European delegates reportedly opposed the US plan during the Miami discussions. According to the Financial Times, officials were unwilling to surrender control over the assets or accept an arrangement that could return any of the funds to Moscow.

The objections reflect both legal questions and disagreements over the objectives of sanctions.

European governments have maintained that Russian sovereign assets should remain immobilised until Russia ends its war of aggression against Ukraine and addresses the damage caused. The European Council has also linked the future status of the assets to the question of reparations.

Unfreezing the underlying principal would therefore represent a significant policy change. It could require new legal arrangements and agreement among the governments responsible for maintaining the restrictions.

Within the European Union, decisions affecting the common sanctions framework and the immobilisation of Russian assets involve complex legal and political requirements. The EU has also had to consider the interests of countries hosting major financial institutions that hold the assets.

Belgium is particularly important because Euroclear, a Brussels-based securities depository, holds a substantial share of the immobilised Russian funds. Any proposal that changes the legal status of these assets could create financial, litigation and operational risks for the institutions involved.

The European response also reflects a difference in diplomatic approach. Some European governments have favoured keeping the assets available as leverage for Russian reparations, while the reported US proposal would explore a different mechanism as part of peace negotiations.

The Financial Times report does not indicate that European governments have agreed to change their existing position.

How the Assets Have Already Been Used to Support Ukraine

The debate over unfreezing Russian assets should be distinguished from the existing arrangements that use extraordinary revenues generated by the immobilised funds.

The European Union and other G7 partners have developed mechanisms that direct certain extraordinary profits associated with these assets towards supporting Ukraine. These arrangements have been designed to use revenues without generally transferring ownership of the underlying Russian sovereign principal.

Under the G7’s Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration initiative, partners arranged a €45 billion loan for Ukraine backed by future extraordinary revenues generated by immobilised Russian sovereign assets. The EU contributed €18.1 billion to the scheme, which was channelled to Ukraine in tranches during 2025, according to the European Commission.

These arrangements differ from a proposal to unfreeze the assets themselves. Using extraordinary revenues does not automatically mean that the underlying principal has been confiscated or returned to its original owner.

The distinction is legally and financially significant because the principal represents the original sovereign reserves, while the revenues arise from the management of those immobilised assets.

The latest US proposal would raise a different set of questions about the legal ownership, control and allocation of the principal. It would also require agreement on how the money could be handled without undermining existing sanctions arrangements.

Could the Proposal Help Revive Ukraine Peace Talks?

The reported initiative is part of broader diplomatic efforts to restart negotiations between Russia and Ukraine after earlier attempts failed to produce a lasting settlement.

The use of frozen Russian assets has become an important bargaining issue because the funds are substantial and their eventual disposition could affect the financial terms of any peace agreement.

A financial mechanism involving the assets could potentially form part of a broader settlement covering reconstruction, financial obligations or other economic arrangements. However, the available reporting does not establish that such a settlement has been negotiated or accepted by the parties.

The proposal also faces a fundamental challenge: Russia, Ukraine, the United States and European governments do not necessarily share the same objectives for the assets.

Ukraine has argued that Russian resources should help pay for the destruction caused by the invasion. European governments have also committed to keeping the assets immobilised until Russia ends its aggression and compensates Ukraine for the damage.

Moscow, meanwhile, has demanded the return of its frozen assets. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov was quoted by Russian state media as saying Russia would pursue legal action and other measures to recover the funds.

The US proposal therefore involves more than deciding where to hold the money. It raises questions about the conditions under which the assets could be released, who would control the resulting financial vehicle and what guarantees would be required from Russia and Ukraine.

Without agreement on these points, the proposal is unlikely to translate directly into an operational arrangement.

The Legal and Financial Risks of Unfreezing Russian Assets

Sovereign assets are subject to a different legal framework from ordinary private investments. Governments and financial institutions must consider sanctions law, sovereign immunity, property rights and the legal authority required to release or transfer the funds.

The European Union has developed measures to use extraordinary revenues associated with immobilised Russian assets, but the use of the principal remains more contentious.

A new US-supervised financial vehicle would need a clearly defined legal structure. Questions would include which jurisdictions would govern the vehicle, who would exercise control, whether the funds could be transferred or invested, and how potential disputes would be resolved.

There are also financial stability considerations. Institutions holding the assets could face litigation or claims from Russia if the funds were released, transferred or used under a disputed arrangement.

European governments would also need to consider the consequences for the credibility of sanctions and the protection of sovereign reserves held in international financial centres.

These concerns do not automatically make a proposal impossible, but they mean that any arrangement would require careful legal analysis and agreement among the relevant governments and institutions.

The reported US plan remains at the discussion stage, and its feasibility cannot be assessed fully without the final legal and financial terms.

What the Proposal Means for Ukraine’s Reconstruction Funding

Ukraine faces substantial reconstruction needs after years of war, including damage to housing, energy infrastructure, transport networks and industrial facilities.

Frozen Russian assets have been discussed as a potential source of support because of their scale. Ukrainian officials and several European governments have argued that Russia should contribute to the cost of rebuilding the country.

The existing G7 loan arrangement, which relies on extraordinary revenues generated by immobilised assets, provides one mechanism for delivering financial support without directly transferring the underlying principal.

A proposal to release some of the principal could create additional options, but the outcome would depend on the amount involved and the conditions attached to its use.

The Financial Times reported that Washington had asked Kyiv to submit a plan explaining how funds from any source would be spent and to work with the World Bank on reforms intended to strengthen accountability and combat corruption.

Such requirements would matter if a future arrangement involved large sums for reconstruction or other public spending. Transparent allocation, monitoring and auditing could help establish how the money was used and reduce the risk of misuse.

However, the report does not confirm that the funds have been allocated to Ukraine or that a specific reconstruction programme has been approved under the proposal.

The Bigger Picture

The reported US proposal highlights how frozen sovereign assets have become part of the wider diplomatic and financial debate surrounding the war in Ukraine. The funds are significant enough to influence discussions about reconstruction, sanctions and the economic terms of a possible settlement, but their legal status makes them difficult to use. The disagreement between Washington and European representatives also illustrates that countries supporting Ukraine can differ over how financial pressure on Russia should be maintained and how a negotiated settlement might be structured.

For now, the proposal remains unconfirmed as an agreed policy. European governments have reportedly rejected the initial idea, and any change would require further negotiations, legal analysis and agreement among the relevant parties. The eventual treatment of the assets will depend on the terms of a broader settlement, the positions of the EU member states and the willingness of Russia and Ukraine to accept any proposed financial arrangement.

What Happens Next?

The next steps will depend on whether Washington revises its proposal and whether European governments are willing to consider an alternative structure for the immobilised assets. Any new plan would need to clarify how much money could be released, who would control it, what safeguards would apply and how the arrangement would relate to existing sanctions and reparations commitments. Ukraine’s proposed spending framework and the role of the World Bank could also become important if a financial mechanism advances.

Until an official agreement is announced, the reported initiative should not be treated as a decision to lift sanctions or return Russian reserves. The broader peace process will continue to depend on negotiations over security, territory, political commitments and the financial consequences of the war. The future of the assets is one element of that process, rather than a standalone resolution to the conflict.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What has the US proposed regarding Russian frozen assets?

The US has reportedly proposed that European countries unfreeze some Russian sovereign assets and transfer them to a special-purpose financial vehicle overseen by Washington as part of efforts to revive Ukraine peace negotiations.

2. How much Russian money has been frozen by Western countries?

Approximately €260 billion in Russian sovereign assets was immobilised by Western allies after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. More than €210 billion is held within the European Union, according to the European Commission.

3. Why did European officials reportedly reject the US proposal?

European delegates reportedly opposed giving up control over the assets or returning any portion to Russia. The proposal also raises legal questions about sanctions, sovereign assets and the commitments linking the funds to potential Russian reparations.

4. Have the frozen Russian assets already been given to Ukraine?

The underlying principal has generally remained immobilised. However, extraordinary revenues generated by the assets have been used to support financing arrangements for Ukraine, including the G7’s €45 billion loan initiative. These arrangements are distinct from releasing the principal itself.

Sources

• Reuters via MarketScreener: FT reporting on the proposed Russian-assets plan, October 14, 2026