In the four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the country’s billionaire class has delivered a striking paradox. Their collective wealth has climbed to record levels, reaching $696.5 billion according to Forbes’ 2026 ranking of 155 Russian billionaires. Alexei Mordashov, the steel and investments magnate behind Severstal, sits at the top with $37 billion. Vladimir Potanin of Norilsk Nickel and Interros follows at $29.7 billion, with former Lukoil chief Vagit Alekperov close behind at $29.5 billion. Yet this rebound in fortunes has coincided with a sharp erosion of their independence. Most of Russia’s super-rich now operate under tighter Kremlin constraints than at any point in the post-Soviet era. A growing wave of asset seizures, forced loyalty tests, and quiet capital flight reveals the limits of even the wealthiest Russians’ ability to chart their own course.
The transformation did not happen overnight. In the 1990s, under Boris Yeltsin, a handful of oligarchs acquired vast state assets at fire-sale prices during privatization. They gained genuine political influence, funding campaigns and shaping policy. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, then Russia’s richest man through the Yukos oil empire, famously challenged official corruption in a televised Kremlin meeting. His reward was a decade in prison and the dismantling of his company. That episode set the template for Vladimir Putin’s approach: wealth is tolerated, even encouraged, provided its holders stay out of politics and remain useful to the state.
By the time Russian troops crossed into Ukraine in February 2022, the old independent oligarchs had largely been replaced by what analysts call “kremligarchs”—businessmen whose fortunes depend on proximity to power. Putin summoned dozens of them to the Kremlin on the day of the invasion. Few dared object. Western sanctions initially hammered their net worths, but the subsequent war economy reversed the losses. Commodity prices rose, foreign competitors exited, and state spending on the military and import substitution created new opportunities. Loyalists prospered. Those who hesitated or spoke out paid a steep price.
The primary tool of enforcement has been the selective use of anti-corruption laws and national security justifications to seize assets. In 2025 and 2026 the campaign accelerated dramatically. Courts and prosecutors have transferred businesses worth tens of billions of dollars into state hands or to more reliable owners. The largest single case to date involves Vadim Moshkovich, founder of the agricultural giant Rusagro. Arrested in March 2025, the former senator faced charges of fraud, money laundering, bribery, and intentional bankruptcy. In May 2026 a Moscow court ordered the nationalization of his family’s controlling stake. By June, authorities confirmed the transfer of assets valued at roughly 550 billion rubles—about $7.6 billion—to the state, one of the biggest single confiscations of the wartime period. Rusagro, a major producer of pork, sugar, and grain controlling more than 800,000 hectares of land, is now under government control.
Moshkovich’s fall was not an isolated incident. Similar actions have hit seafood empires, airports, gold mines, car dealerships, and industrial plants. Between 2022 and mid-2026, the cumulative value of seized private assets has been estimated in the range of $60–90 billion. Beneficiaries often include state corporations such as Gazprom, Rostec, and Rosatom, or business groups linked to long-standing Putin associates. The message is unambiguous: property rights in Russia remain conditional on political reliability.
Oleg Tinkov provides an earlier, sharper illustration of the risks of public dissent. After the banker and entrepreneur described the war as “crazy,” Kremlin-linked pressure forced the sale of his stake in Tinkoff Bank at a fraction of its value. Tinkov later said he lost nearly $9 billion and left the country. He has continued to speak critically from abroad, most recently urging Russians to take their children out of the country. His experience reinforced the lesson that silence is safer than principle.
Against this backdrop of enforced compliance, one figure has drawn unusual attention. Andrey Melnichenko, ranked among Russia’s top ten richest with a fortune estimated around $20 billion from fertilizers, coal, and industrial holdings, has long cultivated a low profile. Unlike many peers, he spent years operating largely outside Russia. In 2026 he broke with that caution. Over roughly 60 hours of conversations with The Economist, Melnichenko outlined a stark assessment of his country’s trajectory. He warned of structural rot, economic risks, and the need for fundamental change that would effectively end one-man rule—without explicitly calling for Putin’s removal. Living in Moscow and still deeply invested in the domestic economy, he represents a rare case of an insider speaking at length while remaining inside the system. His intervention is significant precisely because it comes from someone whose factories have supported the war economy rather than from the usual circle of exiled critics.
Melnichenko’s willingness to talk does not mean Putin has lost control. Most of the top tier—Mordashov, Potanin, Gennady Timchenko, Suleiman Kerimov, and others—have avoided open confrontation. Some have even offered large “voluntary” contributions to the budget when summoned. Yet the atmosphere of uncertainty is real. Reports in mid-2026 indicated substantial capital flight as nervous elites moved assets abroad amid fears of further seizures and the mounting costs of the war. Estimates of outflows in the hundreds of billions of dollars, if accurate, signal a quiet vote of diminished confidence even among those who have publicly stayed loyal.
The system that Putin built has proven highly effective at neutralizing independent power centers. By combining selective enrichment with the constant threat of expropriation, the Kremlin has largely succeeded in turning billionaires into stakeholders in regime stability rather than potential rivals. Western sanctions, far from prompting elite revolt, often reinforced dependence by closing off easy escape routes for capital and lifestyles. At the same time, the very success of this control mechanism carries risks. When property can be seized on political grounds, long-term investment suffers. Innovation takes a back seat to political risk management. And the concentration of decision-making in fewer hands leaves the system brittle if the war’s costs continue to mount or succession questions eventually arise.
For now, the Russian billionaire class remains largely contained. A handful of outliers such as Melnichenko can still voice carefully calibrated concerns. Exiles like Tinkov and Khodorkovsky can criticize from a distance. But the great majority operate inside a framework where wealth is real yet provisional. Putin may not micromanage every business decision, yet the boundaries of acceptable behavior are clear and the penalties for crossing them are severe. In that sense, the oligarchs of the 2020s are both richer and more constrained than their predecessors. Their fortunes rise and fall with the state’s priorities, and true autonomy remains the one asset that continues to elude them.
About The Author
