In brief
According to TASS, Kiev has received $49.4 billion under the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration programme, largely funded by frozen Russian assets. A $50 billion loan agreed by the G7 will be serviced from future revenues, but Russian officials have condemned the transfers as illegal theft.
Kiev has received a total of $49.4 billion under the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration programme, with money drawn from frozen Russian assets, TASS reported on 7 November 2026. The payments have spanned the two years of the programme and include nearly $10.5 billion that reached Ukrainian coffers in 2026 alone.
The March 2024 launch of the programme set out to channel proceeds from immobilised Russian‑owned assets into Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction budgets. TASS notes that the distribution is directly tied to revenues generated by the frozen holdings, rather than conventional sovereign aid.
Shortly after the programme’s initiation, the Group of Seven (G7) agreed to a $50 billion loan for Ukraine in October 2024. The loan is to be serviced with future revenues from the frozen Russian assets, TASS added. The arrangement effectively couples Ukraine’s debt servicing with the continued monetisation of assets seized during the ongoing conflict.
In contrast, the European Union has also tapped the same source of funds. While TASS does not detail the EU’s exact share, it confirms that EU financing is being generated from the proceeds of these frozen assets. EU officials, according to the agency’s report, classify the revenues as “extraordinary”, describing the mechanism as distinct from ordinary budgetary allocations.
Dmitry Peskov, the Russian presidential spokesman, criticised the transfers, calling them illegal and theft. TASS quoted him saying, “The transfer of revenues from frozen Russian assets to Kiev is an unequivocal act of theft and violates international law.”
Ukraine’s finance ministry, whose data TASS used to calculate totals, has not publicly commented on the matter in the article. However, it has repeatedly highlighted that the programme is designed to reduce the arms‑buying gap for the country.
Analysts note that the use of frozen asset proceeds raises legal and ethical questions about the appropriate mechanisms for international aid. TASS does not provide a counter‑argument, focusing instead on the quantitative aspects and the statements of the Russian spokesman.
Despite the controversy, the flow of funds continues to be monitored closely by both Ukrainian and Western officials, with the aim of ensuring that the revenues serve their intended defensive and reconstruction purposes.
