Value of American assets in the Russian federation
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Estimates of “American assets in the Russian Federation” vary widely depending on definitions — whether counting historical cumulative investment, current on‑the‑ground fixed assets, or write‑downs and sales since 2022 — and the open-source record is inconsistent; U.S. business investment over decades is commonly cited around $100 billion while Russian state actors and the Russian Direct Investment Fund have claimed American firms lost as much as $324 billion when exiting after the 2022 invasion [1] [2]. Independent datasets (BEA via Statista) track U.S. foreign direct investment positions in Russia but require careful interpretation because figures are reported on different bases (historical cost vs. market value) and have not been fully updated or reconciled publicly in the available reporting [3].
1. What “value” typically means and why numbers diverge
Measured strictly as the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) foreign direct investment position, U.S. asset holdings in Russia are a stock concept reported on various accounting bases (historical cost, market value) and published summaries are available through aggregators like Statista; those series are the most authoritative public source for a time‑series but do not appear in the supplied snippets as a single recent headline number, so any single figure must be read against the accounting method used [3]. By contrast, industry lobbyists and Russian officials often cite cumulative or replacement‑cost estimates — for example AmCham Russia’s senior official saying U.S. business invested about $100 billion over 25 years — which captures long‑run flows rather than the present market value of assets inside Russia [1].
2. The high, contested claim: $324 billion in losses
Russia’s RDIF chief Kirill Dmitriev told Reuters that U.S. companies “lost $324 billion” by leaving Russia, breaking that loss into sectors such as IT & media, consumer & healthcare, and finance; Reuters reported Dmitriev’s figure and his framing that many assets were sold “at very cheap valuations” [2]. That number is notable but originates from a Russian sovereign fund executive with incentives to emphasize Western retreat; it likely mixes writedowns, exit sale proceeds, and hypothetical replacement or market values rather than an independent BEA‑style stock assessment, so it should be treated as an upper‑bound claim rather than a neutral accounting metric [2].
3. The more conservative, evidence‑based baseline
Publicly available, independent measures suggest substantially smaller, clearer baselines: AmCham’s $100 billion cumulative investment over decades is a widely cited figure that aligns with the idea that U.S. corporate presence was significant but not on the scale implied by the RDIF’s $324 billion claim [1]. The BEA/Statista foreign direct investment series remains the standard source for a defensible snapshot, but the specific 2023 or 2024 position numbers were not provided in full in the supplied material and require consulting the BEA tables directly for a precise current stock figure [3].
4. Why current on‑the‑ground value is lower than headline figures
Two forces have compressed the current realizable value of American assets in Russia: voluntary divestment and forced sales after 2022 (often at steep discounts), and the legal, operational and political risks that reduce market valuations for foreign owners who remained or tried to sell [2]. Reporting also shows that some sectors and assets transferred ownership in complex deals or were nationalized, meaning headline historical investment totals overstate what is presently owned by identifiable U.S. entities [2] [1].
5. What the sources do not settle and how to proceed
Open reporting provides a range of indicators but not a single authoritative up‑to‑date dollar figure reconciling BEA positions, corporate disclosures, and Russian claims; the Brookings and Reuters materials clarify the broader context (frozen Russian reserves, geopolitical leverage) but do not replace granular BEA or company balance‑sheet data for this specific question [4] [5]. To move from ranges to a precise current valuation would require combining BEA FDI position tables, audited company filings for major U.S. multinationals that operated in Russia, and market‑by‑market evidence of post‑2022 disposals and writedowns — data not fully present in the supplied sources [3] [2] [1].