Foreign assets become another front in Moscow’s confrontation with Europe.
MOSCOW
Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered the transfer of five Western-owned industrial businesses into temporary Russian management, expanding a campaign of asset seizures that has intensified economic tensions between Moscow and European governments over the war in Ukraine.
The latest decree affects French flooring manufacturer Tarkett, Belgian hygiene products company Ontex, German packaging producer Menshen, paper packaging company Kappa Rus and Eviosys, a metal packaging business now owned by US-based Sonoco. Together, the affected operations generate annual revenues exceeding 50 billion rubles, approximately €532 million.
Control of the businesses has been assigned to Centre Capital, a Russian management company established in February 2026. Its chief executive, Marat Mirkhaydarov, previously worked in the administration of the governor of Russia’s Zabaykalsky region.
The decision represents another escalation in Moscow’s intervention in foreign-owned commercial operations. Although the measure formally establishes temporary administration rather than an immediate transfer of legal ownership, it removes operational control from the companies’ existing management structures.
Several affected manufacturers continued operating in Russia after the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Their decision to maintain local production illustrates the increasingly difficult position of multinational businesses navigating commercial commitments, sanctions and political risks.
The latest intervention follows similar measures involving Nestlé, Metro, Auchan and Leroy Merlin. Earlier cases included Danish brewer Carlsberg and French dairy group Danone, whose Russian operations became targets of the asset-control mechanism introduced in April 2023.
The Kremlin has defended its approach by referring to economic measures imposed by countries supporting Ukraine. Russian officials classify European Union members, the United States and several other governments as unfriendly states because of their sanctions against Moscow.
Western governments and legal specialists have challenged the legitimacy of these seizures, arguing that foreign investors may be deprived of effective control over their businesses without adequate legal protection.
Affected companies could seek compensation through international arbitration, depending on applicable investment treaties and corporate structures. However, obtaining a favorable ruling would not necessarily guarantee enforcement against Russian authorities.
The economic implications extend beyond the immediate businesses involved. International investors may reassess their exposure to jurisdictions where political decisions can abruptly change corporate control, operational access and investment security.
For Russia, temporary administration offers a mechanism to maintain domestic industrial production while reducing dependence on foreign corporate decision-making. Yet this approach may also complicate access to external capital, specialized technology and future international partnerships.
The dispute intersects with the broader confrontation over Russian sovereign assets frozen abroad following the invasion of Ukraine. Moscow has presented its interventions partly as a response to Western restrictions, although the legal status and ownership of the respective assets differ substantially.
For European companies, the latest decree reinforces the distinction between possessing investments in Russia and retaining practical authority over them.
As economic separation deepens, the central question is whether these interventions remain exceptional wartime measures or become a lasting feature of Russia’s investment environment.
Behind Every Decision, a Larger Consequence.