!["One of the big developments in the World Economic Forum this year is that now this is a topic which is being talked [about] as a realistic possibility," Bill Browder said.](https://gdb.rferl.org/1e1e4cab-d44e-4049-a9e6-9b8c712c5dcc_cx0_cy10_cw0_w250_r1_s.jpg)
U.S.-born British financier and political activist Bill Browder is perhaps best-known for his lobbying for the United States' Global Magnitsky Act, a sanctions list targeting Russian officials responsible for the death of Russian tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in 2009 in a Moscow prison and foreign officials around the world for human rights abuses.
Browder has called himself the "No. 1 enemy" of Russian President Vladimir Putin and has campaigned for years to freeze Russian assets in the West. Now, he is among the loudest advocates of the transfer of Russian funds held in Western banks to Ukraine.
In an interview with RFE/RL's Georgian Service during last month's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Browder spelled out why such a decision could not only help Ukraine rebuild from Russia's ongoing invasion, but also fund weapons purchases, lightening the load for the West amid concerns of "Ukraine fatigue."
RFE/RL: What were the focus of and main takeaways from the recently concluded World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland?
Bill Browder: From my perspective, you know, the focus [at Davos] was on the war in Ukraine. For me, the most important [topic] was the confiscation of the Russian Central Bank reserves, which have been frozen since the beginning of the war. As we all know, the financing of the war has come under strain in recent months from the EU and the U.S., and so it's put a lot of focus on what other sources of funding there are. And, of course, the $350 billion of frozen Russian Central Bank reserves could potentially be another source of funding.
And, for me, one of the big developments in the World Economic Forum this year is that now this is a topic which is being talked [about] as a realistic possibility. The British Foreign Secretary David Cameron has openly supported it. A number of other foreign ministers from European countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania also support it. The United States is now warming up to it. And it's a very different conversation than I had a year ago at Davos over the same topic.
RFE/RL: So there appears more of an appetite. But in practical terms, how do you see that happening, the seizing of Russian assets? What would be the step-by-step approach?
Browder: The most important thing is that it [be] done in unison by all the major allied countries. You can't have one country doing it and another country not doing it, because there's a big fear that, let's say that if the U.S. were to do it by itself, then the U.S. dollar will be a less attractive currency than the euro, for example. And therefore, you have to have all the countries do it together. And different countries are working at different speeds in order to come up with a political consensus, legal justification, etc. And so I think that probably the single most important issue is just getting everybody active at the same time.... But I suspect that we're going to see a lot more open discussion about this at the G7 (Group of Seven).
The other thing which I should point out is that the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian president are now talking about this. In the past, you had [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskiy talking about tanks, and then long-range missiles, and then F-16s, and he was basically narrowing his requests to military equipment. Now that we're in this potential financial squeeze, and that has a very dramatic effect on weapons, this is now becoming the regular talking point of the president, of the Ukrainian foreign minister, and various other ministers.
You can't reconstruct Ukraine if they've lost the war.
And then there's a final point, which is that the previous discussions had been around this money being used for reconstruction. And reconstruction, of course, is a very optimistic thought. You can't reconstruct Ukraine if they've lost the war. And so there's now a much greater sense of urgency, first of all, but of using this money towards the defense of Ukraine, because you can't reconstruct a country that can't defend itself. And so it's all moving in a sort of a logical direction.
I don't think it's going to be resolved in the next weeks or months. But I think that as the U.S. election approaches, [ex-President and potential Republican nominee] Donald Trump has talked about cutting off funding for Ukraine. This is what I would describe as potentially "Donald Trump insurance," if it can be put in place before the U.S. presidential election [on November 5].... And it's a much more attractive proposition for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to pay than for the taxpayer to pay. Of course, taxpayers have been paying, and I would say willingly paying, because this is an existential war, not just for Ukraine, but for the rest of the world. But there's no logical reason why Putin should not be paying for it.
RFE/RL: The proposal sounds so enticing. What are the arguments of those naysayers who oppose seizing these Russian assets?
Browder: Well, the first argument is that there is no legal precedent to doing this. And we would be playing by the same set of lawless rules that Putin plays with. That argument, first of all, is not correct. There is historic precedent. The United States did this after World War II with German Nazi assets. And the United States did this after Iraq invaded Kuwait and froze and confiscated Iraqi assets. The only difference between this and those situations is that the war is not over yet. And the war probably won't be over for a long time to come.
Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine
RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.
The argument that there is no legal basis for doing this is also incorrect. One side of the story is that Russia's assets are protected by sovereign immunity and you can't touch them. However, the other side of the argument is that Ukraine's well-being is protected by something called the law on countermeasures. If a country inflicts monetary damage on another country, then the country that's inflicted the damage can be liable for economic damages through the law on countermeasures. And when you have a situation where two laws are in conflict with one another, generally what you have to do is then you have to create some kind of clarity about that. And so that's why there's legislative change that's needed in the United States, in the EU, and other places to make it clear that there can be no legal claims afterwards because the law on countermeasures trumps the law on sovereign immunity.
The second argument is that people would abandon the euro or the U.S. dollar if Europe did this, or the U.S. did this. However, it's kind of hard to imagine a scenario where, if the U.S does this, Europe does this, the UK does this, Japan does this, Canada does this, how anyone abandons all those currencies, because there's nothing left. Those are the liquid reserve currencies of the world. You can't have countries like China and Saudi Arabia, keeping their money in Iranian rials or Argentinian pesos; they have to keep their money in a reserve currency. And so that's kind of a false argument, as well.
The third argument is that if the West confiscates Russian Central Bank reserves, then Russia will confiscate Western assets. That's also a false argument, because the Bank of England isn't keeping rubles on deposit in the Bank of Russia; nor is the [U.S.] Federal Reserve. And then if you move over from sovereign reserves into corporate reserves, yes, there are corporate investments in Russia, but Russia has already started expropriating those investments long before this has ever happened.
For example, [South Korean-based automaker] Hyundai had a $3 billion plant expropriated in St. Petersburg. [Danish-based beverage giant] Carlsberg had their brewing facilities expropriated. German utilities and gas companies have had their assets expropriated. And so it's kind of nonsense to say that that's a risk. And furthermore, even if they haven't been expropriated, those people who took the risk of investing in Russia shouldn't be hijacking the national security of the West, of Europe, because we're worried about their profitability.
RFE/RL: You say there is growing support for this, but at the same time there is growing "Ukraine fatigue," as it's been dubbed in the West. How do these two interact with each other?
Browder: First of all, I would say that this solves that problem because people don't have to be so tired of funding Ukraine, because someone else will fund it. But I would also point out that in my meetings in Davos with leaders, the former foreign secretaries or the foreign ministers or for people in the State Department, there is no official fatigue. There's no fatigue at the government level. There is fatigue at the population level; there's some public-interest fatigue just because a war going on for two years doesn't generate the same amount of emotion. But, at the government level and the closer you get to Ukraine, the more they're conscious of this. If you're sitting in Lithuania, you know, you may lose your country if you don't do everything you possibly can to help Ukraine. At the moment, they're defending the rest of Europe.
The Tavberidze Interviews
Since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Vazha Tavberidze of RFE/RL's Georgian Service has been interviewing diplomats, military experts, and academics who hold a wide spectrum of opinions about the war's course, causes, and effects. To read all of his interviews, click here.
RFE/RL: So, given all that, how would you assess this last Davos summit? Was it a win or a failure for Ukraine?
Browder: Well, from my perspective, it's been a big win. I think the frozen [Russian] Central Bank reserves are probably one of the most important things out there. And frankly, I was surprised that it took the Ukrainians this long to elevate that to the top of the agenda because, you know, money is what makes the world go round; money is what protects; money buys weapons; and money is very crucial.
And this is a very easy point to make. I don't think anyone really, if you talk to the average person in any country would say, "Who should pay for this, Russia or us?" They'll say, "Well, let's get Russia to pay for it." I don't think anyone would object. The ones who object in Western countries are the bureaucrats, the ones that just don't want to do something new, because doing something new is scary. But at the end of the day, financial necessity will force this to happen.
RFE/RL: So, you're convinced that this is some sort of foregone conclusion, that it is inevitable?
Browder: I think this is the same thing as tanks, and long-range missiles, and F-16 [U.S.-designed fighter jets]. When we first started talking about them as if they could never happen, and then people sort of slowly warmed up to it. And then eventually it happened. I don't see how this cannot happen, frankly.
RFE/RL: Speaking of Western aid to Ukraine, be it military equipment or funds: When the West says they will be with Ukraine "as long as it takes," how long is that really?
Browder: Well, sadly, I think it's going to take a very long time. I know how Vladimir Putin behaves, and he's a man who's not going to give up. And I know the danger to the Ukrainians of losing, which is total catastrophe, and they're not going to give up. And so I suspect this is going to go on for a while.
Europe has to support Ukraine, because if Europe doesn't support Ukraine, we're going to end up with a much bigger land war.
Having said that, the Ukrainians have a great ability to fight, even with limited resources. And I think if you give them the resources to fight, that they could definitely take care of the Russians. And we're seeing a lot of that. I mean, there is no more risk from the Black Sea Fleet. A year ago, we were worrying about, you know, world food shortages because of the [Russian naval blockade against] shipping grain out of Ukraine. That's no longer the case. The Ukrainians are shooting all sorts of sophisticated [Russian] aircraft out of the sky.
RFE/RL: I don't really doubt the Russian tenacity, or the Ukrainians' willingness to defend their land. My question was mostly about the Western willingness and Western resolve to stay in the fight.
Browder: Well, I think that at the end of the day, in Europe in particular, it's not even a question of "if." I mean, Europe has to support Ukraine, because if Europe doesn't support Ukraine, we're going to end up with a much bigger land war. And I think that the people in most defense ministries and most governments understand that.
RFE/RL: Speaking of Putin, whom you just mentioned: You are often dubbed as Putin's nemesis, and you call yourself Putin's No. 1 enemy. And if he's known for not being something, it's not being forgiving and lenient toward his enemies. And I'm asking this question with, you know, the least possible cynicism: How come you are still with us? How lucky have you been?
Browder: For many years they tried to get me back to Russia, in order to torture and kill me in their own prison. They wanted to use their Interpol and extradition requests, and arrest warrants, and surveillance, and so on. And I was able to successfully evade that. They haven't tried, so far, to shoot me; they might still do that. You know, I can't tell you that that's not going to happen. And so you just have to go through life.
But the one thing I can say is that I'm not changing my approach towards Russia out of fear. That's what everybody else does. And that's why Putin is able to get away with it. And I'm not going to do that. And I'm not going to do that because they've killed Sergei Magnitsky, my lawyer, and tried to cover up his murder, and I just won't accept that. And so far, since Sergei was murdered in 2009 -- it's now 2024, and I'm still alive.
RFE/RL: Your personal security and safety, is it something you need to be consciously aware of at all times?
Browder: Well, you can't be totally vigilant every minute of every day, for every year for 15 years. You know, it's like living in a war zone. You figure out when the bombs are coming in, you go to the shelter. I know when the bombs were coming in, and I go to the proverbial shelter. And it takes a lot of effort. I have spent a lot of money, I have a lot of lawyers, I have a lot of professionals in other areas, assisting me. And it has taken a lot of energy. But, you know, I've expanded the energy and I haven't in any way made any mistakes.
RFE/RL: How high a target of Putin's do you think you are? To put it bluntly, do you think you are on his "hit list"?
Browder: Well, I think that I am high on that list. But there are other people that are higher now. And I think Zelenskiy is higher; I think [imprisoned Russian opposition leader Aleksei] Navalny is higher. I think there are quite a few people that are higher on his list. But this is very much like [Indian-born British-American novelist] Salman Rushdie and the fatwa that was issued. (Editor's note: In 1989, Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a decree, or fatwa, asserting that pious Muslims should kill Rushdie. Rushdie was gravely injured in a knife attack at a book fair in New York state in August 2023.) Once it's sort of in the system, it doesn't really matter what Putin's mind is. Putin's mind, you know, is on the war. They've issued a decree, which is to kill Bill Browder. It's a Kremlin fatwa, it's in the system, and it's not going away, and I have to live with that.
RFE/RL: How about Putin? Do you see fate catching up with him? Will he face justice?
Browder: I think that Putin's big, big risk is not any individual but the collective individuals of Russia. You know, he has basically robbed everybody of financial resources for 23 years now, going on 24 years. He's now robbing many, many young men, hundreds of thousands of young men of their lives. You know, women have lost their husbands; children have lost their fathers; mothers have lost their sons.
And in the meantime, the entire economy of Russia has collapsed. They claim everything's going swimmingly well, but that's just not true. It's a mess. I see images of the heating systems breaking down all across Russia. They have like, no heat, no hot water in all sorts of places, because they have reallocated all the money for maintenance to the war.
RFE/RL: So, you don't believe the Russian economy has endured the sanctions and they'll have enough money to fund this war?
Browder: That is Putin's spin specifically designed for Western policymakers. They say, "Well, if sanctions aren't working, maybe we don't need to do any more sanctions." It's not true. Oil and gas revenue -- which is their main revenue -- has gone down by 24 percent between this year and last year. Their Central Bank reserves: $350 billion is frozen; the oligarchs' money is frozen. They can't get access to the capital markets. Almost every Western country has fled Russia. A million able-bodied, able-minded young man have fled the country. That's not a good situation.
RFE/RL: This got me thinking: What would be a fitting punishment for Putin, in your eyes?
Browder: Well, I think that the Russian people can design that when they finally get good enough guts. Let's let the Russian people figure out what to do with Putin. I'm sure they have some good ideas.
RFE/RL: Finally, why did it take so long for so much of the world to see Putin as you do, as a crook and a murderer?
Browder: Well, I think that there is huge economic interest basically in not acknowledging the truth. In Britain, there was a huge amount of money sloshing around from oligarchs, and everybody wanted a piece of that. In Germany, the entire industry was running off of cheap Russian gas. It's just greed, pure, narrow greed. And you had the economic entities dictating defense and foreign policy in a very destructive way. And that's what has led to this situation.
