Russia to seize control of companies vulnerable to Ukrainian attack

By Klaus Berger · August 26, 2026

The moment a state declares that fundamental economic rights are conditional upon military competence, it has signaled its abandonment of the rule of law.

The Rulebook Is Not Written in Blood

The moment a state declares that fundamental economic rights are conditional upon military competence, it has signaled its abandonment of the rule of law. This is precisely what President Putin did when he signed a decree granting the government power to seize private assets—from logistics hubs to energy facilities—if they fail to protect themselves against Ukrainian drone strikes. The mechanism, as reported by both Egypt Independent and The Moscow Times, allows for "temporary administration" based on presidential instruction alone, bypassing any judicial oversight or due process.

This is not an act of prudent governance; it is a legislative blank cheque presented under the guise of national security. When Deputy Prime Minister Manturov attempts to soothe concerns by insisting this measure is "selective" and not about mass nationalization, he ignores the legal reality. As experts noted in Euronews, temporary management means losing control over operations and eventually being forced to sell assets on terms that are hardly voluntary. The state has substituted due process with a decree, replacing stable property rights—the bedrock of any functioning market economy—with political compliance.

When Necessity Becomes Pretext

The justification for this sweeping power is the escalating threat posed by Ukrainian air campaigns. It is easy to accept the premise of danger; it is impossible to accept the state’s unilateral right to adjudicate that danger and, subsequently, confiscate wealth. The Decree encompasses sectors deemed "critical," a definition so broad it renders compliance subjective.

The strongest defense for this decree rests on the argument that private enterprise has a duty to maintain security in wartime. Yet, this fails entirely when confronted with the mechanism itself. The state is not merely offering aid; it is asserting ownership over failure. It is creating a financial incentive structure where the only way for large businesses to survive is to align their operations and assets completely under the direct scrutiny of the central authority.

From Crisis Management to Total Control

The historical record provides a chilling continuity here. The shared mechanism between this decree and the suspension of normal property law during World War II is undeniable. In both instances, the state declares that national survival—the maintenance of industrial output and infrastructure—supersedes individual rights. When the threat level reaches the point where the government deems private owners incapable of managing risk, the legal framework collapses into executive fiat. The promise of temporary control has always been a prelude to permanent absorption.

The true lesson here is not about drones or energy grids; it is about institutional discipline. Stability requires predictable law, not unpredictable decrees signed in the heat of conflict. This move does nothing but deepen the state's grip on capital, exchanging market dynamism for centralized command. The moment a nation treats its private balance sheets as merely extensions of the Kremlin’s war effort, it ceases to be an economy and becomes, simply, a resource pool.

Russia to seize control of companies vulnerable to Ukrainian attack

The Rulebook Is Not Written in Blood

When Necessity Becomes Pretext

From Crisis Management to Total Control

Sources