“No one in history signed the Versailles Treaty voluntarily,” concludes a tweet by Russian media personality Yulia Latynina, in which she argues against the idea of Russia paying reparations to Ukraine for its aggression.

Latynina, a popular YouTube commentator, positions herself as a critic of Putin. Although she does not explicitly align herself with the Russian political opposition, this tweet serves as a striking commentary on a topic that Russian “liberal” or “opposition” circles often avoid discussing.

It is clear that Russian opposition figures will have minimal influence on decisions regarding the confiscation of Russian assets or the payment of reparations to Ukraine. However, their positions provide an intriguing glimpse into their thought processes, as they attempt to find compromises or evade the issue altogether. Understanding these perspectives is crucial for Ukrainian society, as international allies are likely to consider them in some capacity during discussions on this matter.

Those in Favor

Among the most prominent figures of the “Russian opposition,” several individuals firmly support the idea of paying reparations to Ukraine. However, they either avoid or refrain from addressing the issue of confiscating Russian assets. Notable among them are Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kara-Murza, and Ilya Yashin.

Garry Kasparov
Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion and founder of the Free Russia Forum, is one of the few Russian opponents of Putin who openly and consistently advocates for reparations to Ukraine. Since March 2022, he has repeatedly emphasized the necessity of reparations as a condition for ending the war, sharing his stance through his X (formerly Twitter) account.

In an August 2023 interview with RBC-Ukraine, Kasparov described the “collapse of the Putin regime” as encompassing:

“the liberation of all Ukrainian territories, as well as renouncing any territories that Russia either occupies or influences with unlawful power. Moreover, Moscow should pay reparations and hand over war criminals.”

Kasparov has consistently maintained this position. In a March 2023 interview with Radio Liberty, while discussing Ukraine’s victory, he again identified three main elements:

“the liberation of all Ukrainian territories, including Sevastopol; the payment of reparations; and the prosecution of war criminals in the International Tribunal.”

He has also articulated this vision as a central tenet of the Free Russia Forum he leads. In an interview with the Russian project Current Time in October 2024, Kasparov reaffirmed these principles, underscoring their importance in shaping the Forum’s strategy.

Vladimir Kara-Murza
Russian journalist and opposition figure, he was imprisoned from 2022 to 2024 for his anti-war statements. In August 2024, he was released as part of a prisoner swap between Russia and the United States. Kara-Murza has been unequivocal in his support for reparations to Ukraine.

In a recent interview with the Ukrainian Voice of America, he stated:

“Of course, they should pay reparations. Of course, the occupied territories will have to be returned to their 1991 borders in full. These are obvious things.”

He expressed an even stronger stance on the issue in an interview with the German newspaper Zeit Online immediately after his release in August 2024:

“It is not for us, Russian politicians, or even for us, Russian opposition politicians who were imprisoned because of our position on Ukraine, to tell Ukrainians what to do. It is their country that has been attacked. Putin is the aggressor. He is a wanted war criminal. He must be held accountable for this. There must be a trial for war criminals. Reparations must be paid to Ukraine. The Russian state must be rethought and renewed from scratch.”

Ilya Yashin
Ilya Yashin, a Russian opposition politician, sparked controversy shortly after his release as part of the August exchange by suggesting negotiations between the Russian Federation and Ukraine—a stance he later recanted.

On the topic of compensation for Ukraine, Yashin was notably clear in a recent interview with Echo of Moscow:

“It is obvious that compensation must be paid, because, unfortunately, on behalf of our country, enormous humanitarian and economic damage has been inflicted on Ukraine. Putin bombs Ukrainian cities every day. Some cities and settlements have simply been wiped off the face of the earth. And this is being done, unfortunately, on behalf of our country, with Russian weapons and Russian shells.”

Unlike Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Kara-Murza, Yashin also addressed the issue of confiscating the reserves of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation directly:

“As far as I understand, a more or less compromise position is that the basis of these compensations should be frozen assets that the Putin government cannot return today. It has already been decided to transfer interest from these assets to the Ukrainian budget. We are talking about approximately 300 billion US dollars.”

Those Who Avoid

As we mentioned at the beginning, avoiding the issue of reparations appears to be a primary strategy among Russian opposition figures. This approach is particularly characteristic of individuals associated with the Alexei Navalny’s ”Anti-Corruption Foundation” (FBK) and Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Yulia Navalnaya
The wife of the late Alexei Navalny, seen as his political heir and a leader of the Russian opposition, has so far avoided making public statements about reparations. There are no interviews where she addresses this topic, nor does she comment on it in her posts on the social network "X" or her Telegram channel.

Meanwhile, international media have tried to link her position to the alleged stance of Alexei Navalny. Following his death, on February 20, 2024, a document titled "15 Points of a Russian Citizen Who Wishes Good for His Country" was published on his website. Among these points was Point 12: "After the war, we must compensate Ukraine for the losses caused by Putin's aggression."

However, there is no evidence that Navalny, who had been imprisoned for the preceding three years, personally authored these points or fully agreed with them. Similarly, there is no indication that Yulia Navalnaya supports them.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky
Once the richest man in Russia and the former owner of the Yukos energy company, Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been active in opposition politics abroad since his release in 2014. Despite his frequent interviews, public statements, and activity on the social network "X," he has not made any explicit comments regarding compensation to Ukraine for Russian aggression.

The topic of reparations to Ukraine is mentioned occasionally in posts on his Telegram channel, but his position remains unclear. For instance, he criticized propagandist Margarita Simonyan's suggestion to return $300 billion in frozen reserves of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation to Ukraine in exchange for recognizing Kremlin authority over temporarily occupied territories.

In another post, Khodorkovsky acknowledged that "the money of Putin’s entourage will go to reparations," but framed it as a step toward "restoring relations with the rest of the world." Notably, this statement referred to reparations sourced from the private funds of Putin’s inner circle rather than from Russia's sovereign assets.

Although Khodorkovsky shared on his channel an announcement about the Free Russia Forum rally in London on November 17, 2024, which explicitly discussed "reparations," it appears that, like Alexei Navalny, he is deliberately avoiding directly addressing this issue or voicing a clear, articulated stance.

Leonid Volkov
Leonid Volkov, a close associate of Alexei Navalny, headed the “Anti-Corruption Foundation” following Navalny’s arrest. He is known for his controversial statements regarding Russian aggression against Ukraine and was one of the signatories of an appeal to the European Commission in 2023 to lift sanctions on Alfa Group beneficiaries. This decision prompted him to temporarily suspend his public activities. Despite this, Volkov remains one of the most prominent figures in the Russian opposition.

Volkov has expressed that the payment of reparations will be necessary for both Ukraine and Russia, ostensibly to “prevent revanchist sentiments.” Drawing parallels with the Marshall Plan, he stated:

“The Marshall Plan at one time helped to restore territories destroyed by the war, including civil and democratic institutions. Assistance was provided not only to countries that suffered from Hitler’s aggression, but also to Germany itself. This was done to avoid a repetition of the feeling of injustice, as if the victors had treated the vanquished unfairly. It was important not to take revenge, but to create conditions for gratitude and the desire for normal, stable relations. Ukraine will also need a Marshall Plan, but, of course, a similar plan will be needed for Russia as well.”

However, Volkov avoids clearly addressing the source of reparations. He has not commented on the possibility of confiscating the reserves of the Russian Central Bank. In March 2022, he suggested reparations could come from the private assets of Putin’s inner circle.

In this regard, Volkov’s position aligns closely with that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Those Against

Paradoxically, some of the most prominent opponents of the idea of reparations are representatives of “liberal” journalism in the Russian Federation. Among them are the well-known commentator and journalist Yulia Latynina and the young blogger on historical topics, Anatoly Shtefanov.

Yulia Latynina
Russian journalist and frequent guest on Ukrainian media and bloggers' broadcasts, Latynina has shifted her stance on the idea of reparations for Ukraine. In 2022, she expressed support for reparations, albeit while manipulatively contrasting them with compensation for climate change. 

On March 1, 2023, she reiterated her support in a post on her Telegram channel:

“Until Russia becomes a democracy, returns to the 1991 borders, pays reparations, and extradites its war criminals, it will remain a threat to the whole world.”

However, her rhetoric has changed in recent months. Commenting on the Russian opposition rally in Berlin on November 17, 2024, she criticized its slogans, including the demand for reparations, stating:

“The organizers of the march voice all the ‘wishes’ of the telethon. 1991 borders. Trial of war criminals, reparations, etc. These demands have not been voiced in serious negotiations for a long time. They are heard in Zelensky’s speeches and in the telethon. They have nothing to do with the situation on the battlefield.”

On December 3, 2024, Latynina posted on the social network "X," condemning the idea of reparations and claiming that it was unrealistic under current conditions. She also referred to Donald Trump’s purported “peace plan,” which she claimed includes Ukraine’s refusal to demand reparations:

“In a situation where Trump’s peace plan, in particular, provides for Ukraine’s refusal to pay reparations, it looks like a lawyer who, after the judge’s refusal to pay reparations, shouts: ‘No, no, we will pay! I will force my client!’ Nobody needs such a lawyer.”

Her remarks, in which she compared Russian aggression against Ukraine to a road accident, sparked outrage on social media.

Anatoly Shtefanov
A popular Russian YouTube and TikTok blogger, Shtefanov is known for his content on historical topics. His most comprehensive commentary on reparations to Ukraine for Russian aggression was given during an interview with Russian journalist and blogger Yuri Dud. In the interview, Shtefanov dismissed the feasibility of reparations to Ukraine, instead proposing bizarre hybrid models. His arguments reflect a distinctly pro-Russian stance, relying on loosely grounded historical interpretations and poorly substantiated legal claims.

Shtefanov argues that reparations are absolutely impossible in the event of a frozen conflict, suggesting they could be used "to kill Russians":

"And if we are talking about freezing the conflict, then this generally looks like transferring money for which they can then start killing you. This, in my opinion, is destructive."

He further asserts that reparations, if paid, should not go directly to the Ukrainian state but rather to individuals affected by the conflict:

"A responsible Russian government, responsible Russian politicians can do this. They can privately pay compensation to people who suffered from the fighting and from the damage caused by the Russian Federation. Transferring money directly to the Ukrainian budget will most likely not lead to anything good for the Russian state and will not be accepted by society. This may become a basis for revanchism."

In Shtefanov's view, it should be either "Russia itself" or an international court trusted by Russia, such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)—if Russia resumes its membership there—that determines who should receive reparations.

His main counterargument against reparations to Ukraine is based on Germany’s experience after World War I. He contends that reparations led to revanchism and resentment, which could similarly occur in the case of Russia.

Instead of Conclusions

It should be acknowledged that the Russian "opposition" is unlikely to gain power in Russia in the coming years or to have a significant voice in resolving issues related to compensation for Ukraine or the confiscation of Russia's sovereign assets. However, understanding their positions remains important—particularly to counteract potential negative communication on this issue (which may intensify) and to explain the fallacies in their reasoning to the West.

Based on the positions analyzed, any future “reparations concepts” proposed by the Russian opposition are likely to fall into one of the following categories:

• No reparations to Ukraine, citing the negative historical experience of Germany after the Treaty of Versailles, which allegedly contributed to the rise of the Nazis.
• Reparations for both Ukrainians and Russians who suffered from the war, including residents of Russian regions such as Kursk and Belgorod.
• Reparations paid not by the Russian Federation as a state, but by Putin and his inner circle.

All these approaches fail to withstand even superficial scrutiny. In the long term, it might be feasible to engage in dialogue with figures who support the notion of full Russian responsibility for the aggression—such as Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kara-Murza, and Ilya Yashin. However, given the fragmentation and lack of unity within these opposition forces, it is unlikely that consolidated support could be achieved.

In the optimal scenario, efforts should focus on neutralizing attempts by opposition figures to influence decisions made by Ukraine’s allies negatively.