Russia will collapse — who will pay reparations to Ukraine and is it possible to divide the debt between regions?

Google Title: Russia will collapse — who will pay Ukraine hundreds of billions in reparations?

What will happen to Russian reparations if the Russian Federation ceases to exist in its current form? Who will rebuild the destroyed Ukrainian cities, pay compensation to the families of the deceased, and return the cost of destroyed infrastructure if several new states emerge in place of Russia?

This question was raised by Andrey Volna in an author’s column (ukr.), published on July 31, 2026, on the OBOZ-UA website. He suggests calculating now the percentage of each Russian region’s participation in the war against Ukraine so that in the event of Russia’s collapse, future states cannot refuse reparations obligations.

The idea addresses a real legal issue. Russia may indeed try to evade responsibility not only by dragging out negotiations but also through a change in political regime, state structure, or the country’s name.

However, the proposed principle of regional distribution raises serious questions. NAnews — Israel News examines who should actually pay Ukraine and why the aggressor’s debts should primarily follow its assets.

What Andrey Volna proposed

The author of the column considers a scenario in which the Russian Federation disintegrates, and separate states appear on its territory — hypothetical Moscovia, Ural Republic, free Kuban, independent Buryatia, or Udmurtia.

Each such entity, according to his assumption, may claim that it is not responsible for the war:

• the region was allegedly subordinate to Moscow;
• the population allegedly did not support the aggression;
• decisions were made by the federal bureaucracy;
• oligarchs, military leadership, or the former Kremlin should pay;
• the new state does not consider itself a successor to the Russian Federation.

To avoid such a scenario, Volna proposes determining each Russian region’s contribution to the war.

A possible formula could consider transfers to the federal budget, the number of people sent to the front, the location of military facilities, command posts, weapons factories, design bureaus, and other elements of the Russian military system.

All of Russia’s responsibility would be accepted as 100%, after which each region would be assigned its own share of future reparations. These percentages would then be proposed to be agreed upon with representatives of Russian regions in exile and fixed at the European or international level.

The problem is correctly posed: the cessation of the Russian Federation’s existence should not mean the cessation of its obligations. But the proposed method of debt distribution may lead to new injustices.

Why counting mobilized people is a bad idea

The number of people sent by a region to the Russian army cannot automatically be considered an indicator of the population’s responsibility in that region.

Poor and national regions of Russia were disproportionately used by Moscow as a source of contractors and mobilized personnel. For many residents, the army became one of the few ways to earn a stable income. The Russian authorities deliberately sought to reduce the social consequences of the war for Moscow and St. Petersburg by shifting a significant portion of the losses to the periphery.

If the share of reparations is calculated by the number of servicemen, an absurd situation may arise: a poor region will owe more precisely because Moscow took more people from there for the war.

This does not mean the absence of personal responsibility for participants in Russian crimes. Servicemen, commanders, officials, propagandists, enterprise leaders, and organizers of aggression must answer for their actions.

But reparations are primarily the responsibility of the state, not a form of collective punishment for every resident of a specific region or republic.

How much Russia already owes Ukraine

A joint assessment by the Ukrainian government, the World Bank, the European Commission, and the UN shows the scale of destruction as of December 31, 2025.

The direct physical damage to Ukraine exceeded $195 billion. The total economic losses are estimated at approximately $667 billion, and the needs for recovery and reconstruction over the next decade are nearly $588 billion.

At the same time, $588 billion is not the final sum of Russian reparations. This is an estimate of the necessary recovery expenses.

The full bill may include significantly more:

• compensation to the families of the deceased;
• payments to the wounded and those who lost their health;
• compensation for destroyed and looted property;
• business losses and lost profits;
• damage to energy and the environment;
• expenses related to forced relocation;
• destruction of cultural heritage;
• moral damage;
• long-term consequences for children and families;
• demining expenses;
• restoration of territories after Russian occupation.

International principles of state responsibility provide for the obligation of full compensation for both material and moral damage. Forms of reparation may include restitution, financial compensation, and other ways to satisfy the claims of the affected party.

The damage registry is already operational

The international compensation mechanism is not being created from scratch.

A Damage Registry, caused by the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, operates in The Hague. As of July 17, 2026, it has received over 170,000 claims for harm, losses, and damage.

The claims concern the death and disappearance of loved ones, forced relocation, destroyed housing, damaged infrastructure, destroyed assets, and other consequences of Russian aggression.

The Registry itself does not pay money. Its task is to accept, systematize, and record claims.

The next step should be the International Claims Commission for Ukraine. It will study the claims, establish their validity, and determine the amount of compensation due.

The convention to establish the commission was opened for signature in December 2025. The commission will be able to start full-fledged work after the document is ratified by at least 25 participants and funding is secured. In June 2026, representatives of more than 50 countries and the European Union participated in the first meeting of the preparatory committee.

The last and most complex element should be the compensation fund — the source of real payments to the victims.

The main source of reparations already exists

About 210 billion euros of the Russian Central Bank’s assets are blocked in the European Union.

Currently, the EU mainly uses not the principal amount itself, but the extraordinary income generated from these assets. According to current European rules, 95% of such income is directed to servicing the credit mechanism for Ukraine’s assistance, and 5% to the European Peace Fund. In December 2025, the EU also prohibited returning the blocked reserves to the Russian Central Bank.

These funds are of fundamental importance. If Russia remains, they may become part of a future reparations mechanism. If Russia collapses, its foreign state assets should still not disappear.

That is why the fair principle should be:

who inherits Russian assets, inherits Russian obligations.

How to fairly divide the Russian debt

It is more appropriate to link reparations not to the number of mobilized from a specific region, but to the part of Russian state property and economic potential that the new state will receive.

Distribution may consider:

• state enterprises;
• oil and gas fields;
• export terminals;
• railways and pipelines;
• gold and currency reserves and financial assets;
• federal real estate;
• shares in state corporations;
• military property;
• tax base;
• population and economic power;
• Russian assets abroad.

The state that retains Moscow, the Kremlin, the main part of federal departments, diplomatic missions, state corporations, external reserves, and Russia’s international status is most likely to be considered the main successor of the Russian Federation.

It should bear the main part of the reparations responsibility.

If individual territories become independent, their obligations may be determined proportionally to the Russian assets, resources, and state property they receive.

What international law says about the dissolution of states

There is currently no automatic formula for the dissolution of Russia.

The UN International Law Commission has developed principles of state succession concerning responsibility for internationally wrongful acts.

One of the key principles is that succession itself does not change which state is attributed the previously committed wrongful act.

If the predecessor state continues to exist after the separation of parts of its territories, the injured party retains the right to make claims against it. Separate agreements with successor states are also possible.

If the state completely ceases to exist, a political and international legal agreement on the distribution of responsibility will be required. Territorial connection, benefits received by successors, fair proportions, and other circumstances may be considered.

This is not yet a ready mandatory scheme, but a direction in which international law is developing.

The collapse of Russia should not become a loophole

Ukraine cannot build its entire strategy solely on the expectation of the Russian Federation’s collapse. Such a scenario is possible but not guaranteed.

Russia may remain within its current borders, become more federalized, lose certain territories, or split into several states. The reparations mechanism should work in each of these scenarios.

Therefore, several principles need to be internationally established now:

1. A change in the Russian regime does not terminate the state’s obligations.
2. Changing the country’s name does not nullify its debts.
3. The separation of regions does not deprive Ukraine of the right to demand full compensation.
4. Russian state assets abroad should remain blocked until reparations are paid.
5. Successor states receive not only property and natural resources but also the corresponding share of obligations.
6. The main responsibility is placed on the state recognized as the international successor of the Russian Federation.

Why this is important for Israel

The issue concerns not only Ukraine.

If an aggressor can avoid responsibility simply by changing the state structure or name, it will create a dangerous international precedent. Any country that starts a war could later claim that the crimes were committed by the previous regime, former federation, or no longer existing authority.

For Israel, which constantly faces issues of state responsibility, terrorist structures, and their sponsors, such a precedent is also dangerous.

The international security system makes sense only when responsibility cannot be canceled by administrative renaming, formal dissolution, or changing political labels.

Reparations are not revenge

Russian reparations should not be seen as revenge against the population.

Their purpose is to restore justice and help specific victims:

• families of the deceased;
• the wounded;
• children who lost their parents;
• people left without housing;
• to the owners of destroyed businesses;
• to cities with destroyed infrastructure;
• to communities that have experienced occupation and Russian terror.

First and foremost, funds should be directed towards housing, treatment, rehabilitation, restoration of energy, hospitals, schools, roads, and communal infrastructure.

After that, on major state projects and the long-term recovery of the country.

Main conclusion of NANews

Andrey Volna correctly formulated the problem: the breakup of Russia may complicate the collection of reparations if new states start shifting responsibility onto each other.

But preemptively dividing the Russian debt among regions based on the number of soldiers, taxes, or arms factories would be too simplistic a solution.

A fair principle should be different: Russian debts follow Russian assets.

Whoever receives oil revenues, state corporations, infrastructure, reserves, military property, and Russia’s international status, also receives the obligation to participate in the restoration of Ukraine.

NANews — News of Israel believes that Ukraine’s international partners should secure this principle before the end of the war. Then neither regime change, federalization, nor the possible breakup of Russia will be able to turn hundreds of billions of caused damage into an unpaid bill.

Russia may change its borders, state structure, or name. But Ukraine’s right to full compensation for the damage caused should not disappear because of this.