Bill Browder on the $300 Billion in Frozen Assets That Could Save Ukraine

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, ANCHOR: And now, to the war in Ukraine, which this week marked its third grim anniversary. And as American support for Kyiv appears to be uncertain, French President Macron met yesterday with President Trump and warned against any surrender of Ukraine. To discuss the impact of the U.S. administration’s recent moves to negotiate with Vladimir Putin, Walter Isaacson sat down with Hermitage Capital Management CEO and co-founder Bill Browder.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Bill Browder, welcome back to the show.

BILL BROWDER, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, HERMITAGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Great to be here.

ISAACSON: Well, this week at the third anniversary of the invasion, and things have dramatically changed, not on the battlefield, but on the political field, with Donald Trump being unwilling to continue support, it seems, for Ukraine. There were summits of European leaders this week. What do you make of the situation now?

BROWDER: Well, I would say it’s actually gone a little worse than being unwilling to support Ukraine. Based on statements that Donald Trump has made, it looks like he’s now thrown his lot in with Putin. And what do I mean by that? Donald Trump has blamed Ukraine for starting the war, which of course, anyone who has two eyes knows that’s not true. He has called Zelenskyy a dictator. And all of his people now on all the talk shows are basically saying that Russia wasn’t the aggressor. And so, I think what we have happening is far worse than just sort of washing his hands of Ukraine, he’s kind of thrown his lot in with Putin, and that has unbelievably negative consequences not just for Ukraine but for a lot of issues around the world.

ISAACSON: But didn’t we see it coming that he had an affinity for working with Vladimir Putin or who knows what it is, and that this was going to come to pass?

BROWDER: Well, we all saw it, of course. Remember, there was the Mueller investigation into Russian collusion. There was all this — the Helsinki summit where Trump sided with Putin over the U.S. intelligence services, and, by the way, offered to hand me over to Putin when Putin asked him. We — we’ve seen it in many interviews. But I think everybody was sort of hoping and praying that this wouldn’t change — that whatever his affinity was wouldn’t change U.S. policy. And for the most part, during his first term as president, it didn’t. He was surrounded by a lot of people who kind of kept the guardrails in. But this time around, he has literally come out of the gates swinging on behalf of Vladimir Putin and against Ukraine and against a lot of the rest of the world and perhaps against the American people when it comes to this whole issue.

ISAACSON: A lot of the Trump administration officials have been going to Saudi Arabia trying to have direct negotiations with the Russians. And it seems that President Trump wants to have direct negotiations with Putin, leaving out both the Ukrainians and the Europeans. What do you make of that?

BROWDER: Well, I think that you can’t have a negotiation between two warring parties and exclude one of the warring parties. You know, Russia is —

ISAACSON: Well, wait a minute. I mean, that may happen. So, I mean, that may be what happens.

BROWDER: Well, then it’s not a negotiation. I mean, I think that actually the purpose of these meetings in Saudi Arabia is not to resolve the war. The purpose in Saudi Arabia is for Trump and Putin to reset relations between themselves. There’s been all this talk about lifting sanctions, about bringing Russia into the G7 for American businesses to show up in Russia. This doesn’t look like a peace negotiation, this looks like some type of reset of relations between Russia and the United States.

ISAACSON: What should Ukraine do?

BROWDER: Well, Ukraine, in my opinion, doesn’t really have much of a choice. Ukraine should fight. They should fight the Russians. And to the extent that the U.S. is cutting off military aid, then the Ukraine should look to the Europeans to increase military aid. If the Europeans don’t have enough money in their — within their own resources, and I should point out that the Europeans have produced more than half of the military aid before, but for them to double down may be difficult if they don’t have the money to continue or to double down, the Europeans should then draw on the $300 billion of Russian money, which has been frozen mostly in Europe and use that money to support the Ukrainians. And in those circumstances, Trump doesn’t really have the leverage to change the outcome of this war. He doesn’t have the leverage to force Ukraine into a surrender, which is effectively what he’s trying to do right now.

ISAACSON: You’ve been talking about that $300 billion in frozen assets. You’ve been talking about it for three years saying that it should be confiscated, it should be used to help Ukraine. It seems obvious to me, unless you want to correct me, that Trump’s not going to go along with that. To what extent can the Europeans do it on their own and why haven’t they done it?

BROWDER: Well, the Europeans can absolutely do it on their own. Of the $300 billion, only $13 billion is in the United States. So, $287 billion is in Europe. The Europeans could absolutely take that money. It’s Putin’s money. Putin should be paying for the Ukrainians, not anybody else. Why haven’t they done it? Because there hasn’t been the political will to do it up until now. Now, the Europeans are in a whole different world than they were living in two weeks — from two weeks ago. The Europeans are now being told in no uncertain terms by the president — by the vice president, J. D. Vance that they’re on their own. And so, the Europeans are waking up to a new reality. And as they wake up to this new reality, I believe that there’s quite a bit of political will to support Ukraine and I think there’s quite a bit of political will to have Putin pay for it before they have to tax the taxpayers that extra money.

ISAACSON: Yet, on these frozen assets that you think they should seize, have you talked to any European leaders in the past couple of weeks about it?

BROWDER: I have. I was at the Munich Security Conference about a week ago and I met with seven European foreign ministers from both big and small countries, and this was just at the moment when J. D. Vance was giving his famous speech criticizing or attacking Europe and not attacking Russia. And every single one of these foreign ministers that I met with thought it was a no brainer. Of course, that money should be taken. Now, this was a week before the Germans had their elections, and I don’t think any big decision like that could be taken without a German chancellor. And so, now, we have a German chancellor, I think that things will probably move forward quickly in that direction.

ISAACSON: As you look at the German elections and the new chancellor in which both the far-right AfD got defeated and you may have a coalition of a conservative government there, how does that affect Ukraine and the relationships with Russia?

BROWDER: Well, in my opinion, the previous German chancellor was sort of half in, half out. It was sort of one step forward, one step back when it came to Ukraine. He was really — didn’t have the appetite. The new German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has the appetite. And his words are very clear, very strong in supportive of Ukraine. Now, in German politics, it’s not like American politics where in order for him to form a government, he’s got to do so in coalition with other parties, including the party of the previous chancellor, Olaf Scholz, the social Democrats. And so, though some compromises will have to be made, but I’m hoping, and I think the Ukrainians are hoping, and I’m predicting, that there’ll be a much more robust policy in favor of Ukraine coming from Germany with a new chancellor.

ISAACSON: The new incoming Chancellor Mertz has also talked about having to take some independence from the United States. They, in some ways, seem to be generally supportive of conservative Republicans in the United States but has now reacted against some of what Trump has said. What do you think his relationships with the U.S. will be and with Putin will be?

BROWDER: Well, I think that his relationships with Putin will be adversarial, as they should be. Putin is an adversary to Europe. And I think his relationship with the United States will be the best that he can make of it, but understanding the new reality. And I should point out that there’s a difference between Republicans and the Trump administration. Republicans in Congress are all very transatlantic. They’re very much support Ukraine. They’re very much against Putin, with the exception of a few crazies. Everybody that I know in Congress is firmly on the side of Ukraine. It’s the new MAGA wing of the Republican Party, the current administration that has this strange and different view, which I wish I should also point out is different than the average American. I think the vast majority of Americans support Ukraine think that Putin is a criminal and a dictator. So, this is sort of — I think Trump is trying to change the public opinion of America and trying to change the public or the opinion of members of Congress, but I think that Germany is going to do the best they can to try to hold it all together. But, you know, the message is very clear, J. D. Vance was very clear, that Europe was seen, in his words, as an adversary. Trump has also been very clear that he’s not a big fan of NATO. He doesn’t believe that countries should be defended, which is what NATO is all about, if they’re not paying their way. And therefore, there’s going to be a scenario, or there could be a scenario, where Europe has to go it go on its own as far as defending itself. And I think that that’s what Friedrich Merz, the new chancellor, was saying in his speech. And it’s probably important to do under any circumstances because I’m very much disagree with Trump on his treatment of Ukraine, but the one place I agree with him is that Europe has been living in this cozy cocoon of being protected by America, it’s time for Europe to pay for its own defense. And now, the reality is very much that they’re going to have to do that.

ISAACSON: President Trump and some in his administration have called for the use of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals and mineral rights to be helping fund or pay back to the United States. I think Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent walked it back a little bit in the Financial Times op-ed in which he talked about creating a fund focused on long-term reconstruction, but what do you make of that whole idea?

BROWDER: It’s outrageous. So, in — so, the United States, in the form of a grant, a gift, has given Ukraine, over a period of time, a hundred billion of military aid. Scott Bessent, the U.S. treasury secretary, shows up in Ukraine, and he says, that wasn’t a grant, that was a loan, and we’d like it back, but we don’t want $100 billion back, we want $500 billion back. And in order to do that, we would require you to sign over all your mineral wealth, 50 percent of it into perpetuity. I mean, it’s an indecent proposal on the most maximum scale for him to come in to do that on every possible level. First of all, you don’t — and by the way, on top of the whole thing, in exchange for nothing. So, the United States wasn’t going to say, OK, we will — in exchange for that, we will guarantee your security into perpetuity. No, this is to pay back this $100 billion that was spent in the form of a $500 billion payment. Anybody who looks at this, even for two seconds, understands that it’s a just crazy insane insult to Zelenskyy. And I read that FT op-ed by Scott Bessent, and he puts a few fancy words on an indecent proposal, but Zelenskyy was right to reject it. I sincerely hope that he doesn’t ever feel any pressure to accept it because it doesn’t do anything towards fixing the problem, which is Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

ISAACSON: How could this be resolved now with the U.S. not willing, it seems, to support Ukraine and Zelenskyy? Could there be a ceasefire in place that would hold, or is there just no solution to this problem?

BROWDER: Well, the other problem that nobody seems to spend any time on is that Putin doesn’t really want to resolve it. Putin wants to have sanctions lifted. He wants to have better relations with America and other countries. He wants to sort of go back into the mainstream. He doesn’t want any justice to be done for what he’s done before. But he doesn’t want to stop fighting. And for a very simple reason, he doesn’t want to stop fighting, because he has — he’s now a war president. And he — and for him to sort of stop halfway doesn’t accomplish any of his objectives. To be — the reason he’s doing this war, in my opinion, has nothing to do with NATO or even territory, it has to do with a man who’s been around for too long, a dictator has been around for too long, who’s desperate to stay in power, because he understands that if he ever loses power, he ends up going to jail, losing all of his money and dying. And so, you’ve got this little dictator who’s just desperate to stay alive and he’s ready to throw hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers to their death, spend hundreds of billions of dollars. And he has no intention of backing down. The only thing that could happen is a short pause for him to rearm and then carry on with his mission.

ISAACSON: Well, wait, I still don’t understand. What solution would you suggest now for Ukraine?

BROWDER: Well, my solution is very simple, give the Ukrainians all the tools they need to fight —

ISAACSON: Well, wait, wait, wait. We’ve already established that’s not going to happen.

BROWDER: Well, no, it could absolutely happen with the Europeans. There’s $300 billion of money to spend on weapons and let them — let the Ukrainians fight back the Russians to the point where they have their boot on Putin’s throat instead of the other way around, and then they can negotiate a ceasefire. Putin is never going to negotiate from a position of strength. He’s only going to negotiate from a position of weakness.

ISAACSON: Well, as you’ve said there’s been talk that Putin wants to have sanctions lifted. This is his long-term goal, and I saw the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, even gave a talk about how you could lift sanctions, bring Russia back into the world community. Is that a fantasy or could that be a new opening to Russia?

BROWDER: Well, I mean, it’s outrageous if they do it. I mean, put Putin has launched a war of aggression. He’s taken a large part of a neighboring country that did nothing to provoke the — this conquest and then to lift sanctions and bring them back into the world community would be a terrible thing to reward him for, and it would also send a terrible message to Xi of China that he could do the same thing in Taiwan and every other dictator around the world. This is not the message that we want to send any of these people and it certainly would be the biggest slap in the face of the Ukrainians if we were to do that.

ISAACSON: Secretary of State Rubio said, if the sanctions lifting then American companies, businesses could do business in Russia and it would be huge. You were one of the biggest investors, maybe the biggest investor in Russia back in the day. What advice would you give to American corporations or people thinking of doing business in Russia?

BROWDER: Stay away. I was the largest foreign investor in their country. They expelled me from the country. They raided my office. They seized our documents. My lawyer discovered a fraud, a $230 million fraud connected with the seizure of our documents by the police. He exposed it. He was then arrested by the same people who did the crime, tortured for 358 days, and murdered. His name was Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered on November 16, 2009. And so, my message to American businessmen is, you don’t only risk your money, you risk your life. And if that’s what they did to the largest foreign investor in the country, they’ll do that to you too.

ISAACSON: We talked two years ago, which was then on the first anniversary of this latest invasion by Russia into Ukraine, and you said that you thought Putin’s idea, that his plan was he could just wait out the U.S., wait us out until the U.S. got tired of it all — of supporting Ukraine. Well, that seems to be a bit what happened, at least the U.S. president and his administration feel that. Should we have tried to settle this war a year ago?

BROWDER: Well, I’ve got a lot of criticism of how it was handled by the U.S. government before Trump. Biden was running this war where he was basically giving the Ukrainians enough equipment so they didn’t lose, but he was very conscious and explicit in not giving them the equipment they needed to win. And had he done that, we might be in a different place right now.

ISAACSON: Bill Browder, thank you very much for joining us again.

BROWDER: Thank you.