Has Ukraine used every opportunity to recover Russia's frozen funds, and why are Poland and Lithuania playing into the aggressor's hands?

Public figure Mykhailo Shnaider has called for a broad public discussion on the use of international legal mechanisms to recover funds from the Russian Federation, and has posed the question of whether Ukraine has truly already used every opportunity to obtain resources from the aggressor state before talking about raising taxes, additional budget levies, or strengthening mobilization measures.

He wrote about this in his publication.

In Shnaider's view, Ukrainian society is regularly told today about the need to seek new resources to finance defense and keep the state functioning under wartime conditions. Citizens constantly hear about budget deficits, shortages of funds, staffing problems, and the need to make ever more difficult decisions. It is precisely on these grounds that the authorities justify the need for additional budget revenues, the revision of certain reservation (mobilization-deferment) mechanisms, and other measures aimed at ensuring the state's resilience amid full-scale war.

However, the author believes that alongside these discussions society has the right to pose a different question. "We have a path that does not involve raising taxes or tightening mobilization, which is already not going smoothly. But are they ready to hear this in Europe and in Kyiv?" Shnaider notes. According to him, before talking about new financial burdens for citizens or additional mobilization decisions, the state must answer whether it has truly already used every opportunity to obtain resources from the aggressor country.

In his conviction, in recent years Ukrainians constantly hear about the lack of money and the need for new restrictions, yet they far less often see the same energy applied to recovering Russian assets or using international legal mechanisms that could potentially secure an inflow of funds from the Russian Federation. That is why he poses a series of questions that, in his view, concern many citizens today.

"Why does the state constantly seek new resources inside the country, while society sees almost none of the same persistence on the issue of recovering Russian assets? Why do the authorities talk about raising taxes, but talk far less often about fulfilling international agreements and mechanisms that could potentially allow funds to be obtained from the aggressor state? And, most importantly — why is the bill for the war presented to Ukrainians again and again?" Shnaider writes.

The author devotes separate attention to the international dimension of the problem. In his view, some of the questions arise not only for the Ukrainian authorities, but also for certain European Union states and international institutions that traditionally present themselves as defenders of the principles of the rule of law, human rights, and the strict fulfillment of international treaties.

"It is precisely they who have spoken for decades about the rule of law. It is precisely they who teach the world the principles of protecting human rights. It is precisely they who stress the need to fulfill international agreements. But if international agreements are signed and ratified, then why, in certain cases, do they fail to work properly when it comes to Russia's responsibility?" he notes.

According to Shnaider, particular concern is raised by situations in which individual court proceedings cannot move to consideration on the merits for years, even though they could potentially establish important legal precedents regarding the responsibility of the Russian Federation and the recovery of its assets.

"If there is a right to a fair trial, then why can certain cases fail to reach consideration on the merits for years? Why do proceedings that could potentially create important legal precedents regarding the recovery of Russian assets remain stuck at procedural stages for years? And does this match the principles of access to justice and the rule of law that the European Union itself considers fundamental?" the author asks.

Shnaider notes that this topic has lately been heard more and more in the European information space as well. As an example, he cites a discussion on Latvian television during which the question was raised of the reasons for the delays in cases linked to the responsibility of the Russian Federation. According to him, in the course of the discussion, suggestions were increasingly voiced that one factor might be an unwillingness to create legal precedents in cases where Russia is the defendant.

In the author's conviction, society has the right to receive answers to such questions, because this is not only about individual court proceedings. It is, in his words, about trust in international law and its ability to work when the victims of aggression need it most.

Separately, Shnaider draws attention to one of the court cases which, according to the party to the proceedings, has already faced a de facto denial of admission to full consideration on the merits four times. At the same time, higher judicial instances have repeatedly sent the materials back for fresh review, pointing to the need to apply international treaties and special legal norms.

It is important, the author emphasizes, that this concerns the enforcement of a ruling by the Pechersk District Court of the city of Kyiv that is not connected with matters of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation. Accordingly, as the party to the proceedings claims, the Russian Federation's state immunity does not apply to it, and the ruling itself, by its legal nature, is subject to recognition and enforcement in accordance with the international treaties and legal norms in force. That is why, Shnaider believes, the key question lies not in the absence of legal mechanisms, but in their actual application.

According to him, higher judicial instances have already repeatedly confirmed the need to continue hearing the case, yet instead of moving forward, the process returns to its starting point every time. "If the rulings of lower instances have been repeatedly overturned by higher courts, then a logical question arises: does the problem lie in the absence of legal mechanisms, or in an unwillingness to use the mechanisms that already exist?" the author notes.

Particular significance is added to the case, in Shnaider's view, by one further circumstance. According to the participants in the process, the plaintiff has declared before a notary his readiness to transfer to Ukraine all funds obtained as a result of the recovery of penalty sanctions under the court ruling. By the estimates of the party to the proceedings, the potential scale of such sanctions already exceeds one trillion US dollars.

If these estimates are well-founded, the author notes, then this is not just another legal dispute. It is about a potential resource that could in the future be used to finance defense, support servicemen, the families of the fallen, the production of weapons, and the country's postwar reconstruction. That is why he finds it strange that this topic has still not become the subject of broad public and political discussion.

"Why has the topic of fulfilling international agreements not become one of the key priorities of the state? Why do Ukrainians hear every day about the shortage of funds, yet hear almost nothing about concrete results in the fight to enforce the international legal mechanisms that already exist? Why is society regularly told about the need for new financial decisions, but told far less often what exactly has been done to make the aggressor pay for the damage it has caused?" Shnaider writes.

He also stresses that the paradox of the situation is that Russia itself actively uses international legal instruments to protect its own interests. According to him, the Russian Federation seeks out legal mechanisms, files lawsuits, appeals rulings, and uses international institutions wherever it considers this advantageous to itself. Against this backdrop, the author believes, the question of how effectively those who are supposed to defend Ukraine's interests are acting becomes especially acute.

According to Shnaider, applicants have for years appealed to various state bodies, but often run into formal replies and references to future international mechanisms that for now remain a subject of discussion. "While some act, others discuss procedures for years," he notes.

Summing up, Shnaider stresses that Ukraine today is asking for no privileges, no special treatment, and no new international treaties. In his conviction, the state has the right to demand the fulfillment of the international obligations that already exist.

"If there is even a potential possibility of making the aggressor pay for the damage it has caused, Ukrainians have the right to demand that this possibility be used to the fullest. Before they are once again told that they must pay more, give up more, and sacrifice more," Shnaider concluded.