STORY: Lavrov Cries "Theft" — As Moscow Puts on a Show With the Victims’ Money

The EU Extends Its Sanctions for a Full Year

On June 24, 2026—and this is no coincidence—the European Union decided for the first time to extend its sanctions against Russia for a full year, abandoning the previous six-month cycle. This decision, reported by NewsUkraine RBC, sends a clear signal: the EU is not yielding to Russian pressure, is not divided by economic fatigue, and views sanctions as a long-term tool, not as a temporary crisis management measure.

The annual extension, rather than a six-month one, is technically significant. It narrows the diplomatic window of opportunity for Moscow to exploit renewal periods to sow discord among member states. It is a direct response to Russian attempts to divide Europe on the issue of Ukraine.

The G7’s Unity Despite Pressure

Beyond the EU, the G7 maintains remarkable unity on the issue of frozen Russian assets. Despite pressure from certain financial circles concerned about the long-term legal implications, G7 governments have stood firm: frozen Russian assets will remain frozen until Russia pays reparations to Ukraine. This condition, as things stand, amounts to an indefinite freeze.

This stance has significant economic implications. The $300 billion in frozen Russian assets generate several billion in annual interest. Over ten years, this represents a substantial financial resource to support Ukraine’s reconstruction—and a continuing economic punishment for Moscow.

Europe is extending sanctions for a full year, the G7 is maintaining the asset freeze, and Lavrov is delivering a speech at the Primakov Forum. This asymmetry—between coordinated Western action and impotent Russian rhetoric—says it all about who is truly in control of the economic situation in this war.

A precedent that will rewrite the rules

The use of frozen sovereign assets to finance the Ukrainian resistance does indeed set a precedent in international law. Lavrov is correct on this specific point: what the G7 and the EU are doing has no direct equivalent in the recent history of international financial relations. But a precedent is not necessarily a bad thing—it can lay the foundation for a new, fairer norm.

The emerging norm is this: a state that massively violates international law by attacking a sovereign neighbor exposes its assets held in Western financial systems to compensatory use. This is not theft—it is state liability. Legal scholars will debate the details for decades. But the principle is legitimate.

Opponents are watching and learning

China, which holds hundreds of billions in assets within Western financial systems, is watching closely. If Beijing were ever to cross the red line of military intervention in Taiwan, the precedent of frozen Russian assets would immediately become relevant. This is one reason why China is following these developments with particular attention, and why it is bolstering its gold reserves and seeking to internationalize the yuan—to reduce its exposure to the Western financial system.

Iran and North Korea, which operate largely outside the Western financial system, are less exposed. But the precedent has a deterrent value beyond the assets themselves: it signals that the West is prepared to use economic power as a strategic defensive weapon.

China is watching Moscow lose access to its 300 billion and drawing its own conclusions. This may be the most underestimated contribution of the war in Ukraine to global international security: it has shown the entire world that the West can and will use its financial power as a deterrent. Not perfectly, not without internal debates—but it does so.

The Primakov Forum: A Bubble for the Nostalgic

The Primakov Readings are a microcosm that reveals the current state of Russian diplomacy. Named in honor of Yevgeny Primakov, the former intelligence chief and foreign minister who formulated the doctrine of a multipolar world as a counterweight to American hegemony, this forum brings together voices supportive of the Russian narrative—whether they be Russian, Chinese, or carefully selected representatives of the “Global South.”

In this echo chamber, Lavrov’s speech was predictable: outrage over frozen assets, accusations of “Western financial colonialism,” and calls for a new system of global governance. The problem is that this rhetoric, however well-rehearsed it may be, does not change the reality on the ground—neither militarily, economically, nor diplomatically.

The Growing Isolation of Russian Diplomacy

Despite Lavrov’s efforts to portray Russia as the champion of the “Global South” against a neocolonialist West, the diplomatic reality is less flattering. The vast majority of the world’s nations have voted in favor of UN resolutions condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Countries that refuse to impose sanctions on Russia generally do so out of immediate economic self-interest, not because they subscribe to Moscow’s arguments.

The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, signed by 36 states in May 2026 with the Netherlands as the host country, illustrates Russia’s growing isolation within the international legal framework. Lavrov may cry foul—but others are working to indict him for the crime of aggression.

There is something pathetic about Lavrov’s trajectory—one of the most skilled diplomats of his generation, reduced to crying “theft” in a forum of like-minded advocates, while his G7 counterparts extend sanctions and international judges prepare the case files. This is no longer diplomacy. It is rhetorical capitulation.

When Anti-Western Sentiment Serves Moscow’s Interests

One of the central themes of Lavrov’s speech at the Primakov Readings was his appeal to the “Global South”—that constellation of nations that refuse to take sides in the Russia-Ukraine war. Behind this rhetoric of Third World solidarity lie very concrete economic realities: China buys Russian oil at discounted prices, India imports Russian fertilizers and hydrocarbons, and several African countries remain dependent on Russian wheat and weapons. This isn’t ideology—it’s self-interest.

Russia’s manipulation of these economic interests is calculated and deliberate. Moscow offers oil and gas at rock-bottom prices, weapons without political strings attached, and a rhetoric of “respect for sovereignty” that resonates in capitals that have endured decades of Western condescension. But this strategy has its limits: the countries benefiting from Russian discounts today know full well that Russia is an increasingly unreliable supplier in the long term.

Lavrov markets anti-Western sentiment as if it were an ideal. In reality, it is a business proposition. China does not support Russia out of conviction—it is taking advantage of a desperate energy supplier. India is not anti-Western—it is pragmatic. Confusing short-term interests with strategic alignment is the fundamental flaw in the Russian narrative about the “Global South.”

From Confiscation to Ukraine’s Reconstruction

The mechanism for mobilizing frozen Russian assets—totaling approximately $300 billion, the vast majority of which is tied up in Europe via Euroclear—is more nuanced than Lavrov portrays it. The G7 countries and the EU did not simply “take” this money: they established a legal framework allowing the interest generated by these assets to be used to finance Ukraine. The $45.5 billion already transferred comes largely from this interest, supplemented by loans secured by the assets themselves.

This mechanism was carefully designed to withstand legal challenges—and it is holding up. Russian attempts to challenge these transfers in international courts have so far failed or are still pending. The financial mechanism is working. And Lavrov, despite his outcries, cannot stop it by decree.

It is almost comical to see Lavrov invoking international law to defend Russian assets while his armies violate international law in Ukraine on a daily basis. Moscow’s selective respect for the law is so obvious that it no longer even requires comment—it speaks for itself.

Sanctions Are Holding Up Better Than Expected

In 2022, some economists predicted that Western sanctions against Russia would quickly collapse under pressure from the diverging economic interests of G7 members and the EU. As of June 2026, it is clear that these predictions were wrong. The EU has just approved, for the first time, a one-year extension (instead of the usual six months) of its sanctions against Russia—a sign of remarkable durability and political cohesion amid internal European tensions.

The economic effects are mounting: Russia faces persistent inflation, high interest rates that are stifling investment, a labor shortage exacerbated by military losses, and a growing dependence on China that is gradually transforming Moscow into a satellite economy of Beijing. This is not the immediate collapse some had hoped for—but it is a structural deterioration that deepens with each passing quarter.

Sanctions are not an instant miracle. They are constant pressure that builds up, wears down, and constrains. Russia may survive the sanctions for a year, two years, five years. But with each passing year, the cost rises, options dwindle, and dependence on Beijing intensifies. Lavrov is shouting. Time is working against him.

The money will go to Ukraine no matter what

The 45 billion euros already transferred to Ukraine from the proceeds of frozen Russian assets will not be returned. The assets themselves will remain frozen until Russia pays reparations—which, as things stand, is not on the agenda. Lavrov can cry “theft” in as many forums as he likes: the financial machinery is in motion, and it will not stop under pressure from indignant rhetoric.

Justice takes time, but it is moving forward

Lavrov’s outcry reveals a deeper truth about the state of Russia in 2026: Moscow is losing not only on the military front, but also on the economic, legal, and diplomatic fronts. The mobilization of frozen assets, the extension of sanctions, and the establishment of the Special Tribunal—these are pieces of a puzzle that is slowly but surely taking shape, outlining an international reckoning for the crime of aggression. This is not theft. It is the beginning of justice.

Lavrov is a brilliant orator in a system that has lost the war for reality. The 45 billion transferred to Ukraine from frozen Russian assets speaks louder than any speech at the Primakov Readings. Economic, legal, and military reality cannot be negotiated with words—even well-crafted ones, even when delivered by a seasoned diplomat.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist