Russia targets European firms, largely spares US businesses as Putin-Trump ties warm

Russia has placed foreign-owned companies under state administration, meaning the government has taken control of their local assets or operations. Since Donald Trump took office in January 2025, 20 foreign-owned companies have reportedly faced this treatment. The striking divide is their national background: European firms have been targeted far more often than US firms.

The latest seizures include local units of Swiss food group Nestle and retailers Auchan and Metro. Russia also took control of assets belonging to four smaller companies from France, Germany, Sweden, and Belgium. Only three of the 20 companies were linked to the US. The article connects this difference to Russia’s political and economic calculations.

European businesses face greater exposure because their governments support Ukraine and have imposed measures affecting Russian property, according to Moscow. US companies appear more protected while Russia courts better relations with Washington. That leaves European firms facing increased uncertainty over their Russian assets and future operations.

Three of the 20 foreign-owned companies placed under Russian administration since January 2025 were linked to the United States. That means the overwhelming majority, 17 companies, were controlled by European firms. The figure matters because it shows that Russia’s treatment of foreign businesses has not been evenly applied across Western countries.

The article identifies recent European-linked targets including Swiss food group Nestle and retailers Auchan and Metro. Russia also seized assets belonging to four smaller companies from France, Germany, Sweden, and Belgium. By contrast, only three companies in the reported group had US links. A person close to Russian financial regulators said negotiations with Washington reduced Moscow’s incentive to take the same approach toward American firms.

The number points to a political pattern, not simply a broad business crackdown. European firms remain more exposed, while US companies benefit from Russia’s effort to improve economic ties with the Trump administration. The article does not identify the three US-linked companies.

Expropriation generally means a government takes private property or business assets for state control, rather than leaving ownership and management with the original owner. It can involve compensation under some legal systems, but the central feature is the forced transfer of control. The term matters because it signals a serious threat to ownership rights.

The European Commission used the phrase “forced expropriation in all but name” to describe Russia’s recent actions. Russia placed local units of Nestle, Auchan, and Metro under administration, then took control of assets belonging to four smaller European companies. These actions move practical control away from foreign owners, even if Russia uses administrative or court procedures instead of formally calling them expropriations.

The Commission said the seizures followed a clear pattern of economic retaliation and showed that Russia was not a safe environment for business. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said countries’ actions, including alleged illegal expropriations of Russian property, were among the factors considered.

Russia appears to be treating US and European businesses differently because their governments occupy different political positions in Moscow’s calculations. European countries support Ukraine, while Russia is seeking improved economic relations with the Trump administration. Protecting more American firms can therefore support negotiations with Washington and encourage future commercial cooperation.

A person close to Russian financial regulators told Reuters that ongoing business negotiations with Washington gave Moscow little incentive to take the same hard line against US firms. Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev has advocated returning and expanding US businesses. Russia also released American detainee Stephen Hubbard during Steve Witkoff’s visit, although the article does not directly link the release to business policy.

European firms face more pressure because Moscow views their home countries as supporting measures against Russia. Dmitry Peskov accused those countries of illegal expropriations of Russian property. The pattern suggests that asset seizures are being used not only for economic control, but also as political retaliation and leverage.

If Russia is widely viewed as unsafe for business, European companies may face asset seizures, disrupted operations, and difficulty recovering investments. Investors could become less willing to commit money because ownership and management may depend on political decisions rather than predictable legal rules. The European Commission has already said the recent actions show that Russia is not a safe environment for business.

The reported seizures provide a concrete warning. Russia took control of local units of Nestle, Auchan, and Metro, as well as assets from four smaller European companies. The Commission described this as economic retaliation. Such actions can make companies question whether they can keep profits, sell assets, or leave the market on agreed terms.

Future deals could therefore become rarer, smaller, or more expensive. Businesses may demand stronger protections or avoid Russia altogether. The article also shows a political split: Russia is encouraging US investment while European firms face greater pressure. That difference could further reshape which foreign businesses remain willing to operate there.

Sanctions, tariffs, and asset seizures are economic tools that can impose costs without direct military action. Sanctions restrict transactions, financing, or trade. Tariffs raise the cost of imported goods. Seizures transfer control of property or businesses to the state. Together, they can pressure governments and companies while signaling political resolve.

The article describes several such measures. Russia placed foreign-owned companies under administration and took control of assets linked to European firms. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Russia was responding partly to what he called illegal expropriations of Russian property. The United States, meanwhile, had Russia-related sanctions and tariffs in place, although Donald Trump signed an order waiving key measures before they took effect under a new law.

These tools also affect negotiations. Russia’s seizures have been described by the European Commission as economic retaliation, while Moscow is easing selected restrictions as it courts Washington. The result is a shifting economic battlefield, where access to markets, ownership, and trade terms become bargaining tools during the war.

Secure property rights mean investors can own, use, sell, and profit from assets without arbitrary government interference. Predictable laws let businesses estimate costs, enforce contracts, and plan for the future. These conditions matter because investment usually involves committing money for years. If rules can change suddenly, expected returns become harder to calculate and losses become more likely.

The article gives a direct example. Russia placed local units of Nestle, Auchan, and Metro under state administration and took control of assets from four smaller European companies. The European Commission called these actions forced expropriation in all but name and said Russia was not a safe environment for business. That uncertainty affects both existing owners and companies considering entry.

When property rights appear politically conditional, investors may delay projects, reduce exposure, or seek other markets. Future deals may require stronger safeguards and higher compensation for risk. The article’s contrast between targeted European firms and more protected US businesses also shows that political relationships can influence commercial security.