Blog Post

A sanctions counter measure: gas payments to Russia in rubles

A requirement for gas to be paid for in rubles is a way for Russia to side-step central bank sanctions.

By: and Date: April 19, 2022 Topic: Global economy and trade

A Greek language explainer based on this blog post was also published by Kathimerini. A Dutch version was published in Het Financieele Dagblad.

Russia’s Gazprombank has so far not been sanctioned by the European Union in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Gazprombank handles payments made by European gas importers, who would not be able to make euro (or dollar) payments for gas if it were sanctioned. The question however is whether the Russian state can access these payments made to Gazprombank and turn them into domestic currency to finance its current operations.

In a 31 March decree, Vladimir Putin ordered that gas exports to Europe should be paid for in rubles instead of euros or dollars. In practice, this means European gas importers should open both ruble and foreign currency accounts with Gazprombank and transfer dollars or euros to it. The proceeds would then be exchanged into rubles to pay for gas.

Why would Putin want to make these changes? A broad interpretation of EU sanctions on Russia’s central bank could provide an answer. If EU sanctions on the Bank of Russia are understood as covering all foreign assets in Russia’s possession, including proceeds from the sale of gas, and if these sanctions are enforced, the Russian state would not be able to access payments in euros (or dollars).

By contrast, the demand to pay in rubles can be constructed to bypass the euro or dollar financial system and therefore continue to feed Russia’s state finances. In the following, we describe what difference Putin’s decree potentially makes (see the appendix for details and which transactions would be blocked by sanctions).

Payments in euros

The gas importer pays euros from its own bank to Gazprombank. If the Russian state itself is sanctioned, it cannot access its foreign accounts and therefore the euros paid to Gazprombank remain frozen there (Figure 1).

Sanctions are such that while the Russian state has a euro claim on Gazprombank, it cannot use it to, say, buy the rubles it needs domestically. Any euro exchange the Russian state might attempt, either via the markets or the Bank of Russia, would have to be settled with Target 2 – the euro area’s settlement system – and would be captured by sanctions (Figure 2).

Sanctions therefore would mean that the flow of euros that gas importers pay is stuck in Gazprombank, just as Russia’s stock of foreign reserves was frozen at the start of the war in Ukraine. In other words, the Russian state’s legal claim on these new foreign assets is suspended.

Payments in rubles

According to the 31 March decree, European gas importers must open both a ruble and a foreign currency account with Gazprombank. Our understanding on how the payment would be done and how this bypasses sanctions altogether is shown in Figure 3. The gas importer’s bank pays euros into the foreign currency account.

The gas importer then asks Gazprombank to exchange the euros into rubles. Gazprombank does this by borrowing rubles from the Bank of Russia, thus increasing its reserves (deposits) at the Bank of Russia. This borrowing can be done against any collateral, including the euros it has received from the gas importer’s bank. Gazprombank then transfers the rubles it has borrowed from Bank of Russia to the gas importer’s ruble account. Gazprombank can then, on behalf of the gas importer, pay out rubles to the Russian state by drawing down on its deposits at the Bank of Russia.

In this way:

  1. There are no euros involved in transactions with sanctioned entities (Gazprombank borrows from the Bank of Russia in rubles) and therefore no need for any euro settlement at Target 2 involving a sanctioned entity, thereby respecting sanctions.
  2. The euros paid into Gazprombank remain untouched by sanctioned entities and thus there is no need for any further Target 2 settlement, again respecting sanctions.
  3. There is an implicit foreign exchange transaction in the exchange of deposits between the Bank of Russia and Gazprombank. As the price of gas is fixed in euros, the exchange rate at which euros are exchanged into rubles should be irrelevant. However, Gazprombank can charge a fee to the gas importer as commission for the foreign exchange operation. Normally foreign exchange commissions are extremely low but, as the market for rubles is probably very illiquid, Gazprombank might ask for a hefty commission, de facto increasing the gas price. This ends up operating as a price instrument in the hands of the Russian state (an indirect indication that this could occur is that the fee applied by Russia’s VTB Bank for ruble/dollar transactions with private customers, which before the war was about 4%, is now three times higher).
  4. The Central Bank of Russia has a potential euro claim on Gazprombank if this used as collateral for lending to Gazprombank, but this is suspended because of sanctions.

If this approach is followed, at the end of the transaction flow the Russian state has ruble funds with the Bank of Russia that it can access to finance its domestic expenses, without having recourse to monetary financing. However, it cannot access the euros held by Gazprombank as long as sanctions are in place.

An attempt to monetise gas

The value of the ruble and the price of energy correlate such that as the latter increases the currency appreciates. Figure 4 indicates that the opposite happened at the start of the Ukrainian war.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the oil price increased and the ruble devalued, arguably because of the impact of the sanctions. But the ruble has recovered from the initial devaluation. Russia’s stipulation that gas must be paid for in rubles coincided with a significant reinforcement of this development.

Formally, with payments made in rubles via Gazprombank, sanctions are not violated. However, there might be an issue with a breach of contract. As contracts are in euros, as far as the European gas importer is concerned, payments are finalised as soon as the euro transfer is made. However, the decree specifying ruble payments means that, for the Russian exporter, the payment is not finalised until ruble payments are made. While there is no exchange risk as the importer pays euros, during the period between the transfer of euros to Gazprombank and their exchange into rubles, the European importer bears a counterparty risk. In addition, as noted earlier, Gazprombank might charge a fee for the exchange rate transaction, which would be a breach of contract and raise the price of gas by stealth. European countries have raised this concern.

Sanctions are unlikely to be 100% effective. They trigger defensive or counter measures and the final result is uncertain. However, violating sanctions would be costly for Russia: financial entities that might help Russia could ask for hefty compensation, given the risk of being discovered by the European or US authorities. Sidestepping the sanctions altogether by requiring payments in rubles can be advantageous for the Russian authorities.

Recommended citation:

Demertzis, M. and F. Papadia (2022) ‘A sanctions counter measure: gas payments to Russia in rubles’, Bruegel Blog, 19 April


We reproduce the flow of transactions with the help of simplified balance sheets. The transactions are not necessarily to be understood as sequential, they rather identify the changes involved in paying for gas in dollars or euros, or in rubles. Transactions potentially affected by sanctions are in red. For simplicity reasons, Gazprom and the Russian State are consolidated into a single entity, under the latter’s name. Analogously, the foreign exchange ruble/€ transaction is, in the second table, implicit in an exchange of deposits between Gazprombank and Bank of Russia, avoiding the introduction of another bank intermediary as the counterpart of Gazprombank in the foreign exchange transaction.

Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

REPowerEU: will EU countries really make it work?

By acting together, the European Union can optimise its response to the energy crisis in all scenarios but each country will have to make concessions.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Green economy Date: May 18, 2022
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

European governance

Does the war in Ukraine call for a new Next Generation EU?

The European Union should take significant economic measures in response to the war in Ukraine, but a new Next Generation EU is not needed yet.

By: André Sapir Topic: European governance Date: May 17, 2022
Read article

Blog Post

The EU needs transparent oil data and enhanced coordination

The EU lacks the coordination structure and transparent data necessary to most effectively navigate an embargo on Russian oil.

By: Agata Łoskot-Strachota, Ben McWilliams and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: May 16, 2022
Read article

Blog Post

Now is not the time to confiscate Russia’s central bank reserves

The idea of confiscating the Bank of Russia’s frozen reserves is attractive to some, but at this stage in the Ukraine conflict confiscation would be counterproductive and likely illegal.

By: Nicolas Véron and Joshua Kirschenbaum Topic: Banking and capital markets, Global economy and trade Date: May 16, 2022
Read article More on this topic


For Europe, an oil embargo is not the way to go

Even at this late hour, the European Union should consider taking a different path.

By: Simone Tagliapietra, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 9, 2022
Read article More on this topic


A tariff on imports of fossil fuel from Russia

A tariff on imports of Russian fossil fuels would allow Europe to hit Russia's energy sector without great suffering.

By: Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 2, 2022
Read article More on this topic

External Publication

How to weaken Russian oil and gas strength

Letter published in Science.

By: Ricardo Hausmann, Agata Łoskot-Strachota, Axel Ockenfels, Ulrich Schetter, Simone Tagliapietra, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 2, 2022
Read article More on this topic


A phase out of Russian oil may be less effective than a tariff at reducing Putin’s rents

A punitive tariff on all energy imports from Russia would be a better choice than a gradually phased-in embargo on selected fuels.

By: Simone Tagliapietra, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 2, 2022
Read article

Blog Post

How a European Union tariff on Russian oil can be designed

The European Union should apply a tariff on imports of Russian oil; it can be accompanied by a quota for a gradual, conditional phase-out of all Russian oil imports.

By: David Kleimann, Ben McWilliams and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: April 29, 2022
Read article


EU risks letting Putin’s gas divide-and-rule strategy win

The 2 May meeting of EU energy ministers should deliver strong and common EU action. Failing to do so would undermine Europe’s unity, energy security and foreign policy.

By: Agata Łoskot-Strachota, Simone Tagliapietra and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: April 29, 2022
Read article More by this author


Europe must get serious about cutting oil and gas use

As energy security risks increase, European governments must stop subsidising oil and gas, and ask people to consume less.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: April 29, 2022
Read article Download PDF

Policy Contribution

European governance

Fiscal support and monetary vigilance: economic policy implications of the Russia-Ukraine war for the European Union

Policymakers must think coherently about the joint implications of their actions, from sanctions on Russia to subsidies and transfers to their own citizens, and avoid taking measures that contradict each other. This is what we try to do in this Policy Contribution, focusing on the macroeconomic aspects of relevance for Europe.

By: Olivier Blanchard and Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European governance, Macroeconomic policy Date: April 29, 2022
Load more posts