A financing mechanism agreed less than two years ago has, on these figures, moved tens of billions of dollars, and the flow has continued into 2026.
Ukraine has received $49.4 billion over the two years of the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration programme, according to TASS calculations based on data from the Ukrainian Finance Ministry. The scheme channels money to Kyiv from the proceeds of frozen Russian assets. Since the start of 2026, the report says, Ukraine has received nearly $10.5 billion in financial support from the Group of Seven countries funded in this way.
The figure is close to the $50 billion loan the G7 agreed in October 2024, to be serviced from future revenues derived from frozen Russian assets. That the disbursements appear to have approached the headline sum within two years is the central claim of the TASS report, which presents the total as a calculation rather than an official announcement. The report does not break the money down by donor country, nor does it specify the currencies or instruments involved.
The arrangement matters because it converts an accounting question into a financial one. Rather than transferring the assets themselves, the programme uses the income they generate to back lending to Kyiv. For Ukraine's budget, that provides a predictable stream of external support at a moment when domestic revenue remains under pressure. For the G7, it spreads the cost across members while avoiding direct confiscation of the underlying reserves.
Moscow's objection is stated plainly in the report. Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the transfer of revenues from frozen Russian assets to Kyiv as illegal actions and theft. The Russian position is that the measures lack legal foundation; the G7 position, as reflected in the October 2024 agreement, is that the proceeds can be used to service the loan. The report does not set out the legal arguments on either side in detail.
Several things are not yet known. The TASS total rests on its own reading of Ukrainian Finance Ministry data, and no independent confirmation of the $49.4 billion figure is offered in the material. It is unclear how much of the $50 billion has now been committed in binding terms, how the remaining balance will be timed, and what happens if the revenues generated by the frozen assets fall short of the sums needed to service the loan. Nor is it clear whether any G7 member has attached conditions to future disbursements.
What the report does establish is the scale. A financing mechanism agreed less than two years ago has, on these figures, moved tens of billions of dollars, and the flow has continued into 2026. The dispute over the legality of using the revenues is unresolved, and it will shape both the next tranches and the wider argument over sovereign assets held abroad.
