Not sure if I mistyped or you did.
There would appear to be clear oppositional lines drawn of the significant populations of Asia (India and China) vs the populations of the NATO.
There is no point in thinking about money when all those countries have their own central banks and can create it.
But . . . we are in fact talking about Russian assets, which is money. They have their own central bank, too.
It’s mostly a matter of appearances so NATO oligarchs do not have to risk having their wealth declared absent-meaning by a war between central banks with their infinite money.
Again, your definition of Asia - China and India - defies reality. Even financially. Japan, but are fraction the population of India, has a GDP as large as Inida. And tiny South Korea outperforms India financially per capita with exports of nearly 3/4 what India’s are. Using the weight of population to limit your definition of “Asia” to the exclusion of two of Asia’s important economies, makes no financial sense.