On April 1, 2025, a new subsidized mortgage program will allow families in select cities across Russia to purchase secondary housing, aiming to provide relief to those most affected by conflicts. Notably, this initiative includes cities that remain under the control of Ukrainian armed forces, stirring significant controversy and debate.
The decision was made by DOM.RF, the operator responsible for the subsidized housing program, which published a list of almost 900 cities eligible for this new family mortgage program. The list notably includes Ukrainian cities such as Kherson and Kramatorsk, which have never been under Russian control, as well as cities that have suffered considerable damage due to ongoing hostilities, including Artemovsk (now better known as Bakhmut), Ugledar, and Soledar. Excluded from the list are major cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg, raising questions about the criteria used for selection.
According to the regulators, the program aims to support families, particularly those with children under the age of six, allowing them to secure housing under favorable conditions—with a mortgage interest rate set at just 6%, compared to market rates that can reach 30%. The program specifies that eligible properties must be no older than 20 years and not considered emergency housing.
Why, you may ask, are cities under Ukrainian control included in this program? Svetlana Razvorotneva, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Construction, indicated that the inclusion of such cities demonstrates a systematic approach to supporting residents devastated by military actions. "This decision is a measure of support for residents who have lost their homes as a result of hostilities. It's not about alternative housing certificates, but about an additional measure to support this area," she stated.
This policy follows the Russian government's previous actions to provide housing certificates to those displaced from the Kherson region, despite little assistance being given to residents of the self-proclaimed republics of LNR and DNR. Razvorotneva emphasized that families forced to abandon their homes need housing solutions, adding further layers to an already complex issue. "This shows there is a single support measure acting in such specific situations. Will it work? Time will tell," she noted.
The critical debate focuses on the practicality of the policy versus its symbolic nature. Each town included in the DOM.RF list was chosen based on the number of multi-apartment buildings under construction—specifically, those with no more than two buildings underway at the time the list was compiled. The inclusion of areas like Kherson and Bakhmut complicates matters, as these regions are not only auxiliary to the main conflict with Ukraine, but are also deeply sensitive due to humanitarian concerns.
In the context of housing, the challenges vary significantly across the regions. For example, in Murmansk, the situation is dire, with many regions lacking natural gas, posing difficulties for potential buyers wishing to relocate. Furthermore, Razvorotneva alluded to potential negotiations with banks to encourage support for developers that are willing to build in these difficult regions, hoping to stimulate local economies.
There’s also an immediate financial reluctance surrounding the loans because of uncertainties in the construction market within these territories. "If a resident of Moscow wants to sell an apartment and purchase housing in Sudzha—this is entirely feasible. The subsidized mortgage is tied to the property itself rather than the buyer's current residence," Razvorotneva explained.
Hopes for the effectiveness of the program diverge sharply, with some experts questioning not only the feasibility of providing mortgages in tumultuous regions but also whether buyers will genuinely benefit from this initiative. While the program represents an important step towards addressing housing issues exacerbated by conflict, many remain skeptical about its implementation and potential outcomes.
Critics suggest that without additional supportive measures and a comprehensive strategy for addressing the broader housing crisis, the program may ultimately shift more challenges to families already suffering from the impacts of war. The government plans to continue discussions with banking institutions to ensure that these mortgages can become a reality for families needing assistance, hinting at further developments to ensure these families can achieve proper housing.
This perplexing situation highlights not only the reality of post-conflict recovery but also the ongoing complexities which arise in regions still rife with conflict and uncertainty. Families need stability, and as Razvorotneva noted, the real test of this program will emerge in practice, balancing support with political realities in a landscape marked by instability.
As the deadline approaches, families eager for a fresh start are left to navigate the uncertainties of the housing market amid conflict. This policy, whether it ultimately provides the stability it promises or becomes another layer of complication in the lives of those already struggling, will undoubtedly stay in the spotlight in upcoming months.
