Russia has seized around $50 billion of assets as its wartime economy comes under pressure
The analysis found that Russian authorities have seized 102 private assets over the past three years. They spanned a variety of industries, and some were resold to owners including the state.
Targets included foreign and domestic companies, such as Danish brewer Carlsberg and French food giant Danone. The Kremlin has cited reasons ranging from corruption to extremism to justify the asset seizures.
In 2024, Russia's federal budget received 132 billion rubles from property sales, per Russian news outlet Interfax. Roughly a quarter of that total came from the sale of Rolf, the country's largest car dealership. The company was previously owned by the family of a Kremlin critic now living in exile.
Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said in March that the government aims to raise at least 100 billion rubles from sales of seized assets this year.
The aggressive asset seizures come as signs emerge that Russia's post-invasion economic resilience may be faltering as sweeping Western sanctions take hold. A recent S&P Global survey showed a sharp contraction in manufacturing activity in June.
Just last month, Russia's economy minister, Maxim Reshetnikov, warned that the country was "on the brink" of a recession.
Russia's GDP grew 1.4% in the first quarter of the year from a year ago, according to Rosstat, the country's official statistics service. This is a steep slowdown from the 4.5% growth it posted in the fourth quarter of last year. In 2024, Russia's economy grew 4.3% for the full year.
In January, a prominent Swedish economist said Russia could run out of liquid reserves as soon as this fall.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
24 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Canada's Best Companies of 2025
C anadian brands like lululemon and Aritzia have become increasingly commonplace to U.S. and global consumers. To assess which companies are helping Canada carve out a place in the global market, a new TIME and Statista study ranked the top Canadian companies based on metrics like sustainability transparency, positive employee reviews, and continuous revenue growth in the last three years where complete financial data were available. Out of the 125 companies ranked on the list, the industries most represented are resource generation, infrastructure, and utilities—all of which are likely to see business disruptions in 2025 due to tariffs and geopolitical tensions. Outside of the large legacy industries in Canada like natural resources, automotives, forestry, and agriculture, digital tech and IT companies have been steadily growing, and two Canadian cities rank in the top ten tech talent markets, according to a CBRE report. Notably, analysts and legal experts predict that digital services will be largely resistant to tariffs. Companies like Shopify (no. 6 on the list), which is capitalizing on the booming creator economy to compete with Amazon, and TELUS (no. 7), which plans to launch a sovereign AI factory in Canada, lead the charge. They're followed by older companies like Thomson Reuters (no. 22) and Blackberry (no. 80), both of which have had to evolve their approach to technology. Thomson Reuters, which today calls itself a content-driven technology company, was formed in 2008 from the merger of Canada-based Thomson Corp and London-based Reuters Group. It's now focused on three main business segments: technology for lawyers including the research and analytics tool Westlaw, software for tax and accounting purposes, and the Reuters newswire service. During its shift from content provider to content-driven tech, it also started exploring generative AI initiatives in its law and tax products starting late 2022. Importantly, 'we have the underlying content and expertise…to ensure that the AI output is very accurate,' says Steve Hasker, CEO of Thomson Reuters. The company won a major lawsuit in February against Ross Intelligence, which scraped its Westlaw platform's legal summaries to train a competing AI product. The ruling, which protected proprietary content within the Westlaw platform, could make original data more valuable and set a precedent for what is 'fair use' for AI models. As a media tech conglomerate, it's figured out how to make money off of AI as well as good quality human-generated content by licensing factual, bias-free news generated by Reuters to foundation model providers. 'It is a unique, proprietary content source that's very expensive to generate, and Reuters needs to be paid for that,' Hasker says. BlackBerry, often still associated with its once-iconic tactile keyboard phone, made the pivot from handset to software around seven years ago. Its business is organized into two categories: software in cars, and secure communications for enterprises and governments. The software, which the company initially acquired to use in the BlackBerry phones, now controls fundamental features in cars from Stellantis, BMW, and Mercedes, including their safety, autonomous driving, and infotainment systems. It also underlies robots roaming in warehouses, as well as medical and surgical equipment, says John de Boer, senior director of government affairs and public policy at BlackBerry. The company has additionally developed a software platform certified by the Canadian government and the NSA called BlackBerry critical events management platform that can help government bodies communicate with personnel or respond to disasters like wildfires. 'There's a whole bunch of verticals that are increasingly becoming software defined,' de Boer says. 'We're one of the only companies that guarantee data sovereignty in many of our products.' The company raised its earnings forecast due to cybersecurity demands in June following a surprisingly profitable 2024. But Canadian companies that make physical products, especially those that are frequently exported, may see some challenges to growth in the coming years. 'The roller coaster ride of tariffs has created an unprecedented uncertainty that we've seen, and that itself is really paralyzing decision makers, particularly business investment,' says Tony Stillo, director of Canada Economics at Oxford Economics. Most Canadian businesses are heavily tied to the U.S., says Stillo. 'When we went to this free trade agreement with the U.S. in the late 80s, we built an integrated North American production system.' Auto part maker Magna (no. 14) and fuel distributor Parkland Corp (no. 20) are some of the Canadian companies most exposed to U.S. tariffs, according to BNN Bloomberg. Other companies on this list include fertilizer maker Nutrien (no. 69), natural gas operator TC Energy (no. 71), dairy company Saputo (no. 87), and aerospace manufacturer Bombardier (no. 11). Firms that are USMCA-compliant, part of a specific agreement around material origins, are somewhat buffered against the impact of tariffs. In a first-quarter 2025 report, Magna told investors that 75% to 80% of their parts crossing the border were USMCA-compliant, which puts their tariff impact estimate at about $250 million. The company said that it is working on increasing USMCA compliance to mitigate tariff impacts, but that may require design modifications. Another auto company, Linamar (no. 33), told shareholders in April that it expects minimal impacts from tariffs since virtually all of their parts are compliant. —Charlotte Hu See the full list below.
San Francisco Chronicle
38 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Simply Good Foods: Fiscal Q3 Earnings Snapshot
DENVER (AP) — DENVER (AP) — The Simply Good Foods Co. (SMPL) on Thursday reported fiscal third-quarter earnings of $41.1 million. On a per-share basis, the Denver-based company said it had net income of 40 cents. Earnings, adjusted for one-time gains and costs, came to 51 cents per share. The results met Wall Street expectations. The average estimate of five analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research was also for earnings of 51 cents per share. The nutritional foods company posted revenue of $381 million in the period, which topped Street forecasts. Six analysts surveyed by Zacks expected $380.1 million. _____
Newsweek
44 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Humanitarian Aid Became a Weapon of War
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. At its best, humanitarian aid is a lifeline—keeping civilians alive in war zones, famine-struck regions, and disaster zones. But what happens when that aid, instead of alleviating suffering, ends up prolonging it? Recent history shows that humanitarian assistance, as currently structured by the United Nations and many Western organizations, is too often hijacked by the very actors responsible for the crises it seeks to resolve. Aid, to borrow from Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, has become a continuation of war by other means. This is not an isolated failure. From Syria to Somalia, Yemen to Gaza, aid diversion is now routine—and too often enabled by the very institutions tasked with preventing it. U.N. agencies and the World Food Program (WFP), in particular, have tolerated systematic abuse of aid pipelines. Worse still, they have consistently downplayed or concealed the extent of the problem, even when their own internal reports document extensive diversion, fraud, and abuse. A Palestinian man walks back through the Netzarim corridor in central Gaza carrying aid parcels received from a U.S.-based aid distribution point set up by the privately-run Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) on June 26, 2025. A Palestinian man walks back through the Netzarim corridor in central Gaza carrying aid parcels received from a U.S.-based aid distribution point set up by the privately-run Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) on June 26, 2025. MOIZ SALHI/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images In Syria, the U.N. allowed the Assad regime to dictate where aid could be delivered—channeling supplies to loyalist areas while blocking opposition zones. In Ethiopia, aid was centralized and diverted to support government troops. A senior aid worker admitted, "It was a perfect environment for aid diversion, and we created it." In Sudan, the regime withheld travel permits to block aid from reaching opposition-held areas. In Somalia, the WFP subcontracted militias to transport aid, enriching warlords who skimmed off profits and allowed only a fraction of supplies to reach refugee camps. Inside those camps, local "gatekeepers" ruled through violence and abuse, delivering what remained to favored groups. In Yemen, the WFP publicly claimed only 1 percent of aid was lost in Houthi-controlled areas. Internal data showed that in Sana'a alone, 60 percent of intended recipients never received anything. In Gaza, the relationship between UNRWA and Hamas has become so symbiotic that 49 percent of UNRWA employees were tied to Hamas. These are not accidental lapses. They are part of a systemic pattern in which oppressive regimes, armed militias, and terrorist organizations use aid strategically—and are quietly accommodated by humanitarian organizations, rather than confronted. The justifications for these arrangements vary, but the logic is always the same: flawed aid is better than no aid. Humanitarian workers—many idealistic and committed—fear that sounding the alarm will end operations altogether. Yet this silence only ensures that the aid continues to empower the very actors responsible for mass suffering. What's especially alarming is how little has changed, despite repeated failures. The mechanisms of diversion have evolved, becoming more sophisticated—employment schemes, militias establishing NGO fronts, financial transfers, inflated contracts—but the U.N. response remains the same: brief suspensions, minor reshuffling, and a return to business as usual. Even when diversion is acknowledged, it is rarely punished. This reflects a deeper contradiction in the humanitarian model itself. The principle of "humanity"—delivering aid no matter what—often overrides the principles of neutrality, independence, and impartiality. But aid is a resource like any other, and in war zones, resources mean leverage, power, and control. The more desperate the population, the more valuable the aid becomes to local power brokers. In reality, most humanitarian operations now maintain covert accommodations with these power brokers. The question is no longer whether diversion exists, but whom it benefits. All too often, the answer is: those perpetuating the conflict. This must change. A principled humanitarian response today requires three things: the willingness to secure distribution through transparent partners (including governments capable of oversight), the readiness to halt aid when diversion persists, and the courage to publicly acknowledge when existing models have failed. Most of all, a principled humanitarian model requires confronting the economic and institutional incentives—within the U.N. and its partner ecosystem—that favor cover-up over accountability. As British academic Alex de Waal has noted, humanitarian aid has become entangled in what he calls an "iron triangle" of Western farmers, shippers, and NGOs whose incentives reward high-profile relief and quick fixes, not long-term prevention or reform. As budgets shrink and donor patience wears thin, humanitarian organizations face an inflection point. To remain credible, they must acknowledge the scale of the problem and abandon the fiction that principled aid delivery is currently the norm. A principled humanitarian model cannot survive by empowering tyrants and terrorists. To serve humanity, aid must cease serving tyranny and terror. Professor Netta Barak-Corren is the Haim H. Cohn chair in human rights, faculty of law, and member of the Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Dr. Jonathan Boxman is a health sciences and quantitative science independent researcher. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
