Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI), the largest Western bank still operating in Russia, has unexpectedly suspended the sale of its Russian subsidiary. According to The Financial Times, the reason lies in a shift in the political atmosphere: cautious diplomatic re-engagement between Moscow and Washington.
While the bank has been under growing pressure from the European Union and the United States to leave the Russian market following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the exit turned out to be a far more complicated process than initially expected.
Deal Disrupted: Legal and Political Barriers
The situation worsened in the autumn of 2023, when a Russian court froze the shares of Raiffeisen’s Russian branch. In January 2024, the court ordered the bank to pay €2 billion in damages. This effectively blocked any attempt to transfer ownership of the asset. At the time, Raiffeisen representatives stated that the legal case had “put a freeze on any potential share transfer” in its Russian business.
Nevertheless, according to two sources familiar with the negotiations, in February the bank itself decided to “temporarily freeze” its sale efforts. The reason: signs of a political thaw between the United States and Russia, however limited. One of the sources told The Financial Times: “This is to assess the current situation and determine whether the US position might change.”
A third source added that “all serious efforts to sell have stopped for now,” though the internal situation could still shift. He declined to specify whether political factors or the legal proceedings were behind the decision.
In an official statement, Raiffeisen Bank International confirmed that “the sale process is ongoing,” but admitted that “no transaction can currently be executed due to the freeze on shares in Russia.” The bank emphasized that it continues “to wind down operations in accordance with the requirements of the European Central Bank (ECB).”
The Role of US Foreign Policy: A Turning Point for RBI
The decision to pause the sale coincides with signs of renewed US interest in economic cooperation with Russia. American authorities had previously warned RBI that its ties to Russia could result in a loss of access to the US financial system. However, Washington’s position seems to be shifting. For instance, Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, recently stated that the US and Russia were discussing “very compelling commercial opportunities” following his third meeting with Vladimir Putin this year.
Despite ongoing pressure from Western regulators, Raiffeisen continues to maintain a significant presence in Russia. In 2023, the ECB demanded that all European banks, including RBI, speed up their exit from the Russian market or substantially reduce their operations if a sale was not possible.
Raiffeisen has indeed taken steps in that direction: it reduced lending volumes and stopped onboarding new customers. However, unlike its competitors, the bank still retains a large-scale business in Russia. Legal battles, meanwhile, have taken a toll on its finances. In the fourth quarter of 2024, RBI reported a net loss of $926 million — its first quarterly loss in nine years — due to a major impairment charge tied to the Russian court ruling. An appeal hearing is scheduled for April 24, 2025.
According to The Financial Times, the Raiffeisen case clearly illustrates the immense difficulty international companies face when attempting a strategic exit from the Russian market — especially when political instability, court restrictions, and diplomatic shifts come into play.
Despite the announcement of a “pause,” the future of RBI’s Russian business remains uncertain. Any further change in US policy could once again alter the bank’s strategic direction.
This article was prepared based on materials published by The Financial Times. The author does not claim authorship of the original text but presents their interpretation of the content for informational purposes.
The original article can be found at the following link: The Financial Times.
All rights to the original text belong to The Financial Times.
