Russian Billionaire Oleg Deripaska Faces Backlash for Rare Anti-War Remarks

MOSCOW – Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska faced sharp criticism from pro-war supporters on August 9 after making an unusual anti-war statement, describing the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as “mad” and urging an unconditional ceasefire.

In an interview with Nikkei Asia during an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) Business Advisory Council meeting in Japan, where Deripaska was representing Russia, he voiced his concerns about the war. He openly criticized Russia’s defense spending and called for an “immediate, unconditional ceasefire” in Ukraine, asserting that “If you want to stop the war, first you need to stop the fire.”

These remarks represent the strongest public criticism of the war by any influential businessman still residing in Russia since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine commenced in February 2022.

“Deripaska’s previous stance on the special military operation was unclear. Now, he has made his position known. He has chosen the other side,” commented philosopher Alexander Dugin, a prominent ideologist supporting the war. Dugin accused Deripaska of betraying Russian forces and aiding Ukrainian “terrorists” who, according to him, have invaded the Kursk region. These comments were shared on his Telegram channel.

Representatives for Mr. Deripaska did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Deripaska, who amassed his fortune by acquiring stakes in aluminum factories during the collapse of the Soviet Union, has been a prominent figure in Russia’s business community. As of 2024, Forbes estimated his wealth at US$2.8 billion.

His recent remarks go beyond his previous statements in 2022 when he called for peace in Ukraine and described the conflict as a tragedy for both Russian and Ukrainian people. Deripaska has been under U.S. sanctions since 2018 and has made efforts to challenge them legally in U.S. courts. He has also been under European Union and British sanctions since 2022, criticizing these measures as outdated and ineffective, labeling them as “a 19th-century instrument.”