# PROFILE: The SABER Act, the law that forces Putin to fund his own defeat

> On June 23, 2026, six American senators — three Democrats and three Republicans — introduced a bill that could fundamentally transform the nature of American support for Ukraine. The SABER Act, an acronym for Seized Assets for Battlefield Equipment and Readiness, proposes to amend the REPO Act of 2024 to allow Kyiv to use confiscated Russian assets to purchase military equipmen

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Profile
- Published: 2026-06-29
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/portrait-le-saber-act-la-loi-qui-force-poutine-a-financer-sa-propre-defaite

## Introduction: When Washington turns the financial weapon against Moscow

### A bipartisan initiative that changes the rules of the game

On **June 23, 2026**, six American senators — three **Democrats** and three **Republicans** — introduced a bill that could fundamentally transform the nature of American support for **Ukraine**. The **SABER Act**, an acronym for **Seized Assets for Battlefield Equipment and Readiness**, proposes to amend the **REPO Act** of **2024** to allow **Kyiv** to use confiscated Russian assets to purchase **military equipment** directly. This is no longer humanitarian aid. It is no longer reconstruction. It is pure armament — funded by the reserves of the **Russian Central Bank** itself.

The six sponsors are: Democratic senators **Sheldon Whitehouse** (Rhode Island), **Chris Coons** (Delaware), and **Tim Kaine** (Virginia), along with Republicans **John Cornyn** (Texas), **Roger Wicker** (Mississippi), and **Chuck Grassley** (Iowa). Representative **Joe Wilson** of South Carolina simultaneously leads the **House of Representatives** version. The bipartisan breadth of this support is no small thing in the fractured **Washington** of **2026**.

### The context of an intensifying financial war

Since **February 2022**, the **G7** countries and their allies have frozen approximately **$300 billion** in Russian sovereign assets held in Western financial institutions. Of that total, roughly **$4 to $5 billion** falls directly under American jurisdiction. The **REPO Act** (**Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act**), passed in **2024**, had already authorized their confiscation and transfer to **Kyiv** for civilian purposes. The **SABER Act** takes the next step: these funds could finance defense purchases — military articles, equipment, services.

**John Cornyn** stated it plainly: the goal is to "force **Putin** to foot the bill for arming **Ukraine**." Behind the rhetoric lies a relentless logic. If **Moscow** ever wants its assets back, it must first stop its war. In the meantime, its own financial reserves fund the shells that kill its soldiers.

*There is something of deep poetic justice in the idea that Russia is funding its own military defeat. Putin bet that the West would eventually tire and back down. The SABER Act is the institutional answer to that bet: not only are we not backing down, we are turning your own weapons against you.*

## Anatomy of the SABER Act: what the law actually changes

### The key amendment to the REPO Act

The **REPO Act** of **2024**, co-sponsored at the time by **Whitehouse** himself, had established the principle of confiscation. Funds could be transferred to **Kyiv** but only for **reconstruction**, **economic assistance**, **humanitarian aid**, and contributions to international organizations. The word "armament" was absent. That gap was deliberate: in **2024**, the political consensus to go that far did not yet exist. In **2026**, after more than four years of war and thousands of dead Ukrainian soldiers, that consensus has formed.

The **SABER Act** proposes to add to the list of authorized uses the purchase of "**defense articles and services**" — the precise terminology of American arms export law. This opens the door to direct purchases through the **FMS** system (Foreign Military Sales), **Pentagon** contracts, and acquisitions from the American **defense industry**. In practical terms: **Patriot PAC-3** missiles, artillery munitions, air defense systems, and much more.

### The targeted assets: a frozen war chest

Russian **Central Bank** reserves frozen under American jurisdiction are estimated between **$4 and $5 billion**. That is modest compared to the **€210 billion** blocked in **Europe** — principally at **Euroclear** in Brussels. But symbolically, the American gesture would carry considerable political impact, definitively legitimizing the use of these funds for defensive purposes and paving the way for **G7** coordination on the military use of the entire frozen stock.

The **Russian Central Bank** — governed by **Elvira Nabiullina**, who is herself the subject of proceedings before the **ICC** for her role in the financial occupation of **Ukraine** — has already attempted to recover its funds through legal challenges. In **May 2026**, it filed a complaint before the **EU General Court** in Luxembourg to contest the indefinite freeze of its European assets. These efforts have, so far, not succeeded.

*Nabiullina in court to recover her assets, while those very assets fund the weapons working against her own policies. There is an irony of history here that even the greatest Russian novelists would not have dared imagine.*

## The architects: who are these six senators?

### Sheldon Whitehouse: the father of the REPO Act

**Sheldon Whitehouse**, Democratic senator from **Rhode Island**, is one of the institutional architects of the American legal framework for mobilizing frozen Russian assets. He had already co-sponsored the **REPO Act** in **2024** and sees the **SABER Act** as a logical extension of that work. His statement upon introducing the bill is unambiguous: allowing **Ukraine** to use seized assets to defend itself is the fairest solution — **Moscow** pays the bill for its own aggression.

**Whitehouse** is a senator known for his firm positions on international accountability. His engagement on this file fits within a long-term vision: forcing a legal normalization of the confiscation of sovereign assets of aggressor states, creating a precedent that reaches far beyond the Russian case alone.

### John Cornyn and Roger Wicker: the crucial Republican flank

**John Cornyn** of Texas and **Roger Wicker** of Mississippi are two significant figures in the Republican Party in the Senate. Their presence on this bill is strategically decisive. At a time when **Trump**'s position on **Ukraine** remains ambiguous and a fraction of the **GOP** leans toward isolationism, the commitment of these two senators sends a strong signal: support for **Kyiv** remains a bipartisan cause, rooted in geopolitical realism rather than ideology.

**Cornyn** emphasized that the **SABER Act** does not cost American taxpayers one additional cent. That is the most powerful political argument in the American budgetary context of **2026**. "Putin pays for Ukraine's weapons" — the formula is simple, effective, and politically unassailable.

*The fact that Cornyn and Wicker sign this bill says something essential about deep American geopolitics: whatever Trump's gestures, a broad bipartisan wing of Congress still views Ukraine's victory as an American strategic imperative. That is a bottom line that holds.*

## The REPO Act revisited: history of an evolving legal framework

### From confiscation to armament: a deliberate legal evolution

The **REPO Act**, signed in **2024**, had itself been a legal revolution. For the first time, the United States legislated explicitly on the confiscation of a foreign state's sovereign assets — not as an economic sanction, but as a mechanism for reparation and support for an invaded nation. That precedent was enormous. The question of international law — does confiscating sovereign assets constitute a violation of sovereign immunity principles? — was handled voluntaristically: yes, but in circumstances of illegal armed aggression, the right of countermeasure prevails.

The **SABER Act** continues in that vein. It does not reinvent the legal framework; it extends it. By authorizing military equipment purchases, it fills the most obvious gap between the REPO Act and **Ukraine**'s real needs on the battlefield. Reconstruction can wait for peace. Missiles and munitions cannot.

### Constitutional and diplomatic obstacles

Several American legal scholars have raised questions about the **SABER Act**'s compatibility with American sovereign immunity rules. The **FSIA** (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) normally protects foreign sovereign assets from seizure. However, supporters of the bill argue that the procedure established by the **REPO Act** — involving a formal confiscation decreed by the executive and validated by Congress — has already navigated around this obstacle. The **SABER Act** would merely expand the use of funds already legally seized.

On the diplomatic front, **Russia** has called these attempts "organized theft." Foreign Minister **Sergei Lavrov** declared in **June 2026** that funds sent to **Kyiv** were stolen money. The Russian position carries no binding legal force — **Moscow** has abandoned its recourse before the international bodies it helped paralyze.

*Lavrov talks about "theft." Interesting, coming from a regime that looted Ukrainian banks in occupied territories, forced the ruble into local economies, and conditioned access to medical care on obtaining a Russian passport. The accusatory symmetry doesn't work here, Sergei.*

## Ukraine and the financing of its own defense

### A vital need in a context of uncertain American aid

The potential adoption of the **SABER Act** comes in a context where **Ukraine** faces persistent uncertainty about the continuity of American support. The **Trump** administration, since its return to the **White House**, has maintained an ambivalent posture — neither a clean break with **Kyiv** nor an unlimited commitment. In that political vacuum, the mechanism of frozen Russian assets offers an elegant solution: support continues, but without weighing on the American federal budget.

For **Ukraine**, which spends hundreds of millions of dollars each month on munitions, air defense systems, and heavy equipment, access to additional funds — even partial — can make a real operational difference. The **$4 to $5 billion** under American jurisdiction is not an inexhaustible windfall, but it could fund several additional deliveries of **Patriot PAC-3** missiles, a critical need identified by Ukrainian command.

### The question of G7 coordination and European leverage

The American move fits within a broader dynamic. The **European Union** voted in late **2025** to indefinitely freeze **€210 billion** in Russian assets at **Euroclear** and uses the **profits** generated by those funds (roughly **€3 billion** per year) to finance the **€90 billion** support loan to **Ukraine**. If the United States crosses into direct military use, the pressure on Europeans to do the same with the entire stock of frozen assets will become considerable.

The **G7** reaffirmed after its **2023** summit that Russian assets would remain frozen "until **Russia** pays for the damage caused to **Ukraine**." The **SABER Act** is the first Western legislative text to move from passive retention to active military use. It is a doctrine shift.

*People have often said the West was one war behind. With the SABER Act, Congress finally seems to be catching up. Forcing Russia to fund the weapons that defeat it — that is not only just, it is brilliant.*

## The SAVE Act in decline: the political context in Congress

### The SAVE Act's failure as backdrop

The **SABER Act** emerges in a Congress where the **SAVE Act** (Support and Accountability for a Victorious Europe Act), another pro-Ukraine initiative, was struggling to find the necessary majority. According to analyses published on **June 24, 2026**, the **SAVE Act** ran out of steam under pressure from isolationist Republicans, leaving a gap in the legislative calendar for Ukraine support. The **SABER Act** attempts to fill that space with a more targeted, less costly approach for taxpayers.

The key argument that distinguishes the **SABER Act** is precisely its funding model: it adds not one dollar to the federal budget. For Republicans concerned about the American deficit — currently above **$35 trillion** — that is a defensible position. We are not asking American taxpayers to fund this war. We are asking **Russia** to do it.

### Trump's involvement: calculated silence or tacit approval?

The **Trump** administration has not officially responded to the introduction of the **SABER Act**. According to an analysis published on **June 28, 2026** by **Issue Insight**, **Trump** mentioned frozen Russian assets in a fifty-six-word speech, without specifying the direction of their use. That silence is itself a signal. **Trump** has understood that the formula "Putin pays" is politically profitable with his base. If the **SABER Act** advances, he can indirectly claim credit for it.

American envoys **Steve Witkoff** and **Jared Kushner** are expected to travel to **Moscow** for negotiations. In that context, the **SABER Act** can also serve as an additional pressure lever: either **Putin** negotiates seriously, or his assets finance Ukrainian armament. It is economic-threat pressure.

*Trump understands money better than geopolitics. The SABER Act gives him an argument he can sell to his voters: "We're forcing Russia to pay." That is pure Trump. The question is whether this convergence of interests will be enough to push the bill through to his signature.*

## The international reaction: between support and caution

### Ukraine welcomes it, Kyiv waits

**Volodymyr Zelensky** welcomed the **SABER Act**, presenting it as a logical step in American solidarity with **Ukraine**. For **Kyiv**, the ability to use frozen Russian funds to purchase **155mm** munitions, **Patriot** interceptors, or anti-drone defense systems would represent an immediate operational gain. Ukrainian forces face continuous Russian pressure in June **2026** on multiple axes — **Kherson**, the **Donbas**, **Zaporizhzhia** — and any additional equipment is welcome.

The Ukrainian government also underscored the measure's symbolic dimension. If the United States allows the military use of Russian assets, it creates a precedent for the **€210 billion** blocked in Europe. The progression toward total and definitive confiscation — not merely the use of profits — would become politically more feasible.

### European allies: watching Washington

European capitals are watching the American file closely. **Berlin**, **Paris**, and **Brussels** have been more conservative than **Washington** on the use of frozen Russian assets — the **EU** uses only the profits, not the principal. If the **SABER Act** is passed and successfully applied, it will become difficult for Europeans to justify their own caution. Political pressure to go further in Europe will intensify.

Several EU member states — notably the **Baltic states**, **Poland**, and **Finland** — have long supported total confiscation of Russian assets. They will be the first to use the American example as an argument in internal **EU** debates.

*Europe watches Washington move and waits to see. That is somewhat the habitual dynamic in this conflict: the United States crosses a threshold, Europe follows six months later. If the SABER Act passes, expect an intense European debate about the €210 billion sitting at Euroclear.*

## The economic stakes for Russia

### A limited but symbolically devastating impact

The **$4 to $5 billion** in Russian assets under American jurisdiction represent only a fraction of the total Russian reserves frozen in the West. The **Russian Central Bank** held roughly **$640 billion** in reserves before **2022**. The war and sanctions have reduced its room to maneuver, but the direct impact of the **SABER Act** on Russian finances would be measured. What is devastating, however, is the signal: international law is evolving to allow an aggressor state's assets to fund the resistance of its target. That is a revolution in the doctrine of sanctions.

The Russian economy, despite four years of sanctions, continues to function — largely thanks to oil revenues and trade with **China** and **Iran**. But Russia faces growing fuel shortages in **June 2026**, a direct consequence of Ukrainian strikes on its refineries. **Putin** himself publicly admitted "a certain fuel deficit." Economic pressure is mounting.

### Nabiullina in the crosshairs: the banker and the war

**Elvira Nabiullina**, governor of the **Russian Central Bank**, has become a central figure in war-related legal proceedings. **LexCollective**, a Ukrainian legal group, filed a formal communication before the **ICC Prosecutor's Office** naming her and Finance Minister **Anton Siluanov** as accomplices in crimes against humanity for their role in the financial occupation of **Ukraine** — forced ruble imposition, looting of banks, access to medical care conditioned on a Russian passport.

**Nabiullina** also filed a complaint in **May 2026** before the **EU General Court** to recover the frozen assets. This legal move is both a delay tactic and an attempt at legitimization — claiming that European procedure violates property rights and sovereign immunity. European legal experts are skeptical about its chances of success.

*Nabiullina suing the EU to recover assets while the SABER Act aims to use those same assets to buy weapons. This is the real tribunal of history: on one side people who make laws, on the other people who make war. I know whose side I am on.*

## The international legal precedent: a silent revolution

### Sovereign immunity tested by the right of countermeasure

The **SABER Act** rests on a developing legal theory: the right of countermeasure codified in the **Articles on State Responsibility** (ARSIWA) of the **UN International Law Commission**. Under this doctrine, a state victim of a serious violation of international law may take measures that would normally be unlawful — such as confiscating sovereign assets — if they are designed to induce the violating state to comply with its obligations.

The **Renew Democracy Initiative**, in a **2023** report co-signed by constitutional scholar **Laurence Tribe**, concluded that the Russian arguments against confiscation "have no validity, practical or legal." The **SABER Act** fits squarely within that interpretive current. The measure may face legal challenges in American courts, but the precedents established by the **REPO Act** give defenders of the bill a solid foundation.

### A precedent for future wars of aggression

Beyond the Ukrainian conflict, the **SABER Act** creates a historic precedent. If an aggressor state knows that its financial reserves frozen abroad can fund the resistance of its victim, the cost-benefit calculation of a war of aggression changes radically. The deterrent effect could prove considerable for decades to come. **China**, which watches the **Taiwan** situation closely, will have drawn its own lessons — notably about the vulnerability of its own dollar-denominated reserves.

That is why the **SABER Act** is far more than a budgetary bill or another military aid package. It is the formalization of a new paradigm in international law, one in which the sovereign assets of an aggressor state no longer enjoy total immunity from the consequences of the aggression.

*Beijing reads every line of the SABER Act while thinking about Taiwan. This bill implicitly tells Xi Jinping: if you ever cross the strait, your $3 trillion in reserves could fund Taipei's resistance. That is the implicit message. And it is received loud and clear in Zhongnanhai.*

## The legislative calendar: obstacles and chances of passage

### The packed agenda of the American Senate

The **American Senate**'s legislative calendar in **2026** is loaded. The **House of Representatives** passed the **Ukraine Support Act** on **June 4, 2026**, providing for additional military assistance. The **SABER Act** is expected to follow a parallel track. The question is whether the bill can be voted on before the midterm elections or whether it will be absorbed into broader budget negotiations.

The fact that senators as influential as **Grassley** — one of the longest-serving and most respected in the **GOP** — support the bill is a good sign for its progress. **Grassley** brings institutional credibility that can convince hesitant Republican colleagues. His support is not rhetorical: it is a procedural guarantee.

### Realistic chances of passage

Several analysts believe the **SABER Act** has a serious chance of passing, particularly if the **Trump** administration sees political value in it — which the "Putin pays" argument offers. The formula is electorally profitable for Republicans in defense-industry states like **Texas** (**Cornyn**) and **Mississippi** (**Wicker**), where military contracts carry significant weight in the local economy. If Russian assets fund Ukrainian armament, the American defense industry is the direct beneficiary.

The convergence of geopolitical interest, the fiscal argument, and the economic benefits for the American defense industry creates a rare coalition. It is hard to imagine frontline opposition to the bill in the context of **June 2026**.

*I note with a certain cynicism that the SABER Act may well advance precisely because it benefits the American defense industry. Sometimes economic interests and moral justice align. In this case, I am willing to accept cynicism as an ally.*

## Zelensky's position: Ukraine as actor, not victim

### An aggressive financial diplomacy since 2022

**Volodymyr Zelensky** has transformed **Kyiv** into the diplomatic center of a new doctrine: **Ukraine** will not beg for aid, it will build the institutional mechanisms to sustain it. Since **2022**, successive Ukrainian governments have worked with their American and European partners to develop the legal framework that now makes the **SABER Act** possible. It is no accident that Russian assets are now within reach of military conversion — it is the result of years of legal and diplomatic lobbying.

**Zelensky**'s strategy is that of a sovereign actor, not a passive recipient. He understood before many others that sustaining Western support requires institutionalizing it — engraving it into law rather than leaving it dependent on the mood of elections or budget negotiations.

### Ukraine as testing ground for a new doctrine of war

**Ukraine** is becoming the laboratory for a new form of total war in the **21st century** — not only militarily, with its **FPV** drones and deep strikes, but also financially and legally. The **SABER Act** is the legislative translation of that reality: modern war is also won in Senate committee rooms and in the halls of international courts.

For **Kyiv**, each billion dollars of Russian assets converted into armament is a double victory: logistical, because it means more materiel on the battlefield; and symbolic, because **Moscow** is the one paying for its own defeat.

*Zelensky is often presented as a symbol. What people forget is that he is above all a strategist. His financial diplomacy, his conquest of international institutions, his painstaking work on the legal framework — that is what explains why Ukraine is still standing. Not only the courage of its soldiers, but the tenacity of its political leadership.*

## The Russian reaction: between verbal fury and practical impotence

### Lavrov and the accusations of "organized theft"

**Russia** reacted to the **SABER Act** with the predictable machinery of its propaganda apparatus. Minister **Lavrov** in **June 2026** called the funds sent to **Kyiv** from frozen assets "stolen" money. That terminology is calculated to resonate with public opinion in **Global South** countries, where **Moscow** tries to cultivate an anticolonial narrative in which the **West** is the real looter.

Practically, **Russia** has few options. It no longer participates actively in **WTO** bodies; the **International Court of Justice** rejected its main arguments in the Ukrainian case; and the **Russian Central Bank** cannot seize equivalent Western assets in retaliation — it no longer has the capacity or access to do so.

### The legal delay strategy

**Moscow** is betting on time. The **Russian Central Bank**'s complaint before the **EU General Court**, filed in **February 2026**, aims to block the European procedure for years. Similarly, if the **SABER Act** is adopted, legal challenges before American courts are foreseeable. The goal is not to win, but to buy time. By delaying the use of the assets, **Moscow** hopes to shift the balance of power on the ground or wait for a political change in the **West** to reopen the debate.

This legal delay strategy is consistent with Russian military doctrine: attrition. But on the other side, American legislators have also learned to accelerate. The **REPO Act** took less than two years to pass; the **SABER Act** could follow the same pace.

*Russia plays the clock. It is its favorite tactic — on the battlefield as in the courtroom. But legal attrition has its limits: a bill signed by the American president is not as easily undone as a front-line position in Ukraine. When the law speaks, Lavrov falls silent.*

## The stakes for the American defense industry

### A multi-billion-dollar market for American contractors

If the **SABER Act** is adopted and **Ukraine** can use Russian assets to buy American military equipment through the **FMS** system, the direct beneficiaries include major American defense contractors: **Lockheed Martin** (**Patriot PAC-3** missiles, F-16 support), **Raytheon Technologies** (interceptors), **General Dynamics** (artillery munitions), and many others. The multiplier effect on the American defense industry could be considerable.

This economic reality partly explains the enthusiasm of senators like **Cornyn** from **Texas**, a state that hosts several major military production facilities. Support for **Ukraine** thus becomes disguised industrial policy — one more argument for lawmakers with a defense-industry base.

### The supply chain question

One of the challenges the **SABER Act** will need to overcome is the production capacity of the American defense industry. **Patriot PAC-3** missile production lines, for example, have been accelerated since **2022**, but delivery timelines remain significant — on the order of **12 to 24 months** between order and delivery. If additional orders are placed using funds from Russian assets, delivery delays could stretch over several years. The immediate operational effect for **Ukraine** would therefore be limited, but the medium-term effect on stocks would be real.

**Berlin**, as illustrated by the announcement on **June 28, 2026** by Defense Minister **Boris Pistorius** of allocating **$400 million** for **PAC-3** missiles via the **PURL** and **JUMPSTART** mechanisms, is also working to accelerate deliveries. American-European coordination on the use of frozen assets could allow more efficient bulk purchases.

*The American defense industry is, I dare say, Ukraine's most reliable ally — not out of idealism, but out of pure commercial interest. And in this particular case, commercial interest converges with the right cause. That is not always true in geopolitics. Let us savor the convergence when it presents itself.*

## Analysis: toward a new architecture of financial warfare

### The SABER Act in the broader picture

The **SABER Act** fits within a broader movement to rearrange the rules of international financial warfare. Since **2022**, Western democracies have discovered — or rediscovered — the power of financial sanctions and asset-freezing tools. The question now agitating chancelleries is: how far can we go? The freeze is established. The use of profits is underway. Total confiscation for military use is the next threshold.

The **SABER Act** crosses that threshold, at least for the **$4 to $5 billion** under American jurisdiction. If the bill succeeds, the argument for crossing the same threshold in **Europe** on the **€210 billion** at **Euroclear** will become politically irresistible. What is today an American legislative bill could tomorrow become the standard of international law in matters of armed aggression.

### The long-term legacy

In fifty years, historians may view the **SABER Act** — if adopted — as one of the founding texts of a new international regime for sovereign assets. It establishes that sovereign immunity has limits; that the reserves of a state that violates international law are not protected indefinitely; and that the international community can and must use available financial tools to support the resistance of aggression victims.

This is not only a law for **Ukraine** in **2026**. It is potentially a rule for the world of tomorrow. **Sheldon Whitehouse**, **Tim Kaine**, and their colleagues may be writing a chapter of international law without yet fully grasping its reach.

*I often say that the war in Ukraine is the greatest test of the international order since 1945. The SABER Act is its legislative manifestation. What these senators are writing today in a committee room in Washington will echo in international law courses for decades. The stakes are immense.*

## Conclusion: When the law becomes the most powerful weapon

### A legislative act that transcends the Ukrainian war

The **SABER Act**, if adopted, will be far more than a military financing mechanism. It will be the demonstration that liberal democracies know how to use their most powerful weapons — not just missiles and drones, but laws, legal precedents, and financial institutions — to defend the international order they have built. **Putin**'s **Russia** bet that this order was fragile, that the **West** would hesitate, temporize, divide. It is partly right on certain points. But in **2026**, the general trend is toward escalating responses, not moderating them.

The **SABER Act** tells **Moscow** this: you parked your assets in our banks because you believed in our rules. Those rules are evolving. And now, those assets are working against you. There is no better answer to aggression than turning its own resources against it.

### Ukraine deserves this tool

**Zelensky** and the Ukrainian people have been fighting for more than four years against a nuclear power that invaded their sovereign territory. They deserve every legal, diplomatic, and military tool their allies can place at their disposal. The **SABER Act** is one of those tools. It is not perfect; it is not sufficient. But it is just. And sometimes, in the conduct of international policy, justice and strategic interest converge in rare ways. This bill is one such example.

*The law as a deterrent weapon: that may be the most enduring lesson this war leaves us. Putin bet on brute force. The West answers with its institutions. And that answer, slow and imperfect, is beginning to hurt where it really counts.*

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [U.S. Senate — Whitehouse and colleagues introduce bipartisan SABER Act — June 23, 2026](https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-colleagues-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-strengthen-ukraines-defense-arsenal-using-seized-russian-sovereign-assets/)

- [Ukrainska Pravda — Frozen Russian assets for weapons for Ukraine: New bill introduced — June 19, 2026](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/06/19/8040192/)

- [TASS — US senators initiate bill on buying weapons for Ukraine from Russian frozen assets — June 19, 2026](https://tass.com/world/2149171)

### Secondary sources

- [Read Lion — As SAVE Act withers on the vine, Republicans unveil bill to help Ukraine — June 24, 2026](https://readlion.com/as-save-act-withers-on-the-vine-republicans-unveil-bill-to-help-ukraine/)

- [Issue Insight — Fifty-Six Words About Assets From President Trump — June 28, 2026](https://www.issueinsight.org/analyses/x0voixqu7bxd4qn26i8fg35w7oq4om)

- [Euromaidan Press — Inside the war crimes case against Russia's central bank — May 18, 2026](https://euromaidanpress.com/2026/05/18/russia-financial-war-crimes-lex-collective-icc/)

- [Wikipedia — Confiscation of Russian central bank funds — updated 2026](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation_of_Russian_central_bank_funds)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/portrait-le-saber-act-la-loi-qui-force-poutine-a-financer-sa-propre-defaite