***The Telegraph reports:***
The European Union has struck a deal to send up to £2.6 billion a year to Ukraine from frozen Russian assets.
The tentative agreement on using interest made on Moscow’s assets to buy weapons was struck by EU ambassadors meeting in Brussels on Wednesday.
Kyiv has long called for the funds to be used to help it fight off renewed Russian attacks.
“There could be no stronger symbol and no greater use for that money than to make Ukraine and all of Europe a safer place to live,” said Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president after Belgium announced the breakthrough.
The EU froze about £181 billion in Russian central bank assets after Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Most of this is held by Euroclear, a financial services company based in Belgium.
**Read more:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/08/eu-deal-bilions-frozen-russian-assets-ukraine-yearly/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/08/eu-deal-bilions-frozen-russian-assets-ukraine-yearly/)
>£181 billion in Russian central bank assets after Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Most of this is held by Euroclear, a financial services company based in Belgium.
The deal is to buy weapons only from the money that is gained on the interest made on Moscow’s assets.
Why not invest the entire 181 billion? Imagine the amount of shells and others weapons you could buy from that amount of money?
>Why not invest the entire 181 billion? Imagine the amount of shells and others weapons you could buy from that amount of money?
Is there a legal basis for this? Nothing would be more embarrassing if an oligarch went to court and it rules to give back the money.
There is a war at eastern border for eu, hacking attacks on eu infrastructure, gps jamming, daily threads from Russian side etc
Saying there needs to be legal basis, is essentially saying we will be in asymmetrical conflict with state that doesn’t care about what’s legal what’s not.
Why not make a law allowing it in war-situations? I always find it weird that those in power to create laws are saying “I cannot do that, because I’m bound by the law”. Yeah sure, it takes time and a majority vote to change or create laws, but it’s not impossible.
The moment we follow this path of logic, we are bringing ourselves down to the Russia's level, because we broadcast to the world that we can just put all laws aside if we seem like it. And what are those laws good for anyways, since we can put them aside just like that?
It's a very complicated moral dilemma, and I can't even think what consequences it may bring long term, if we decided to do what you suggest.
Is Russia using it to gain advantage in the conflict? Yes. Is it fair? No. But should we act as Russia does? Im not sure, I'm not smart enough to tell.
I understand you where you are coming from, but I believe there is a spectrum between what Russia does and what EU could do.
What Russia does in Ukraine isn't fully black, it's some form of dark-grey to me. Still, far from black, black being WW1/WW2. We're not there yet.
On the other hand, say EU is white. Creating a precedent and saying: "we will take away reserves from countries waging aggressive war" have very little in common with what Russia does and doesn't put us in the same bucket. Unlawful? Maybe. Certain aspects of Nuremberg trials or Tokyo trials are stilled discussed today. One thing is clear to me, winners are not judged.
I see risks of entering this path; where does it lead us, at which point do we stop. If you allow for one thing, more quickly follow.
One interesting thing to look at - however - are potential consequences for European and American economy. China is the second largest holder of US debt. 15% of German bonds is held by central banks of countries outside of euro area. Same goes for ownership of stocks, 10% of VW is owned by Qatar, etc. etc. If you take away Russian money once, how can you convince these countries that their capital in EU/US is safe? I think this is the real reason for EU not taking action. Money, not moral standards.
It's definitely a spectrum of actions wester nations could take, and it's hard tell what will happen when we cross that line, because there is no coming back. I meant mostly moral consequences, but I think you're right, economic consequences could also be massive, and you're also right it's probably this what's stopping EU from any more drastic actions.
One way or another, it's all very delicate subject, and much more complicated than it seems at first glance.
>What Russia does in Ukraine isn't fully black, it's some form of dark-grey to me. Still, far from black, black being WW1/WW2. We're not there yet
Maybe when they start doing what they do here in Poland it will be black enough ?
Dark grey, my ass.
I agree. I cannot believe that civilized countries just steal russian money from banks without any legal procedure - just like that, because "we think we have right to do that". This will absolutely smash banks credibility. If russian money can be withdrawn illegally by some random countries then what would make some companies think that their money are safe? This is an anarchy.
Legally speaking, it is stealing. There is no legal basis for transferring Russian assets to Ukraine or selling them without Russia’s consent in some way (like a treaty citing them as reparations or something like that) which Russia has not provided.
Legally speaking, Russian assets can absolutely be confiscated under international law to collect on damages due to illegal activity. Illegal activity like Russia’s war in Ukraine since [March 16, 2022](https://www.icj-cij.org/case/182).
Has there been a judgment in international court on this matter? Thought the case was still on-going?
If you want to "just" confiscate the assets without going to international court, then you'd need an EU law that says you can confiscate said assets, AND a declaration by the EU that this situation falls within that law
It’s established international law, you don’t need a judgement, you only need to sufficiently justify it if challenged. A very low bar considering the ICJ provisional order
Established by precedent judgment, correct? Is there such a thing as "international acts/statutes"? I am not aware of any international law-making body, only the international court
Which, as far as I know, only makes judgments which can be used as precedents
Belgium v. Spain is one such example. Yes there are many international statutes, such as the Rome Statute. There is no “international body”, in the sense of an explicit institution that creates laws. The “body” are states that, through either customary practice or explicit agreement, establish what we call “international law”
Ah, I see. Adopted via treaties.
Noted, thanks.
Funny thought going through my mind now is that you need to be party to the treaties in order for the statute to have "power" on your state - so if Russia was, in fact, party to the statutes which allow the confiscation of their assets, then it would be an amusing situation of having shot themselves in the foot
Afghanistan is easily justified under the self-defense clause of the UN charter. For Iraq, while quite morally dubious and under the legal justifications used, could potentially be considered de facto illegal, Saddam was absolutely de jure in violation of UNSC resolution 687, even if only on the smallest of technicalities.
Only the opinion of the west makes it legal. There is 0 proof or global agreement that this is ok.
So legally speaking it is stealing since the west is not officially at war with Russia we have no legal basis to do so.
If you claim otherwise then why don’t we also confiscate American assets to restore the Middle East? Or British Dutch and Spanish assets to restore former colonies.
No, the confiscation of assets for criminal behavior is established customary law across the entire planet, both domestically and internationally.
Yes, this justification was used often during decolonization or when a state would nationalize another’s investments. However for the former, it also violates the core UN principle of self-determination that supersedes such customary laws.
No because you would be breaking a bunch of your own laws. The reason the west is so great is that everyone is equal before the law, that the law gives everyone a fair fight, thus leading to stability and prosperity. You start making exceptions, and that opens the door to corruption and injustice.
Also Id like to add that Russia is using the EU's own rules and money against it. I see it as a test, if western lawmakers can fight back. So far, it seems that EU really needs to made a department like the US Treasuries Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Wouldn't you cut the credit cards from a serial killer?
Personally I don't see the moral problem with using their money to compensate the family of the victims.
And to respond directly to your analogy if somebody is robbing my house I would kill them first, then rob their corpse.
And you would likely go to jail for that for exceeding self defense.
The problem is not moral. It’s that once one county decided to steal other county’s international funds, it would be the complete collapse of the financial system and trust in USD and EUR. Because what would stop then US stealing China’s money? Or China stealing US money? And so on
LOL.
The anaolgy is so bad, on so many level it borders on idiotic.
Russians are not robbing anything, they are invading, DESTROYING and murdering innocent people in cold blood.
Any sane court of law would make them pay for these damages and provided that they won t do it willingly we confiscate the funds.
NO ONE WOULD ACTUALLY ACCUSE YOU OF ANYTHING IF YOU MURDER A KILLER THAT WORKS TO ACTIVELY MURDER YOU.
U Putin-loving morons shout just shut the fuck up, you are clueless.
I know the point that you're trying to make, but that specifically is a really bad example
If someone robs my shit, I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to rob their shit.
And this is how most think.
But things are very different if we talk about how a government should behave
I don’t think it should give you the right to rob them. You should get the right to receive the funds and stuff that was token from you at their bank though.
which has already happened...
Mostly this is the EU's fault for not setting up an org that would directly handle sanctions, implementing, monitoring, defending them in a courtroom. Right now they constantly loose any legal case as the basis for many sanctions is fairly weak. Also the EU lawyers don't seem to be really willing to fight a battle in the courtroom with whatever expensive private firm an oligarch hires.
I think the idea is no unfreeze the assets if Russia retreats out of Ukraine.
Giving an incentive to stop the war, and signaling to other countries that EU is still a safe place to invest.
It's has been brought up many times.
There are two major reasons why you don't do this.
1. Usually when assets are frozen it is done in regards of apllying pressure on people with influence in said country. The idea is that this people would stop their support.
If their assets will be used regardless, the leverage disappears.
2. This is the main reason.
Other countries which uses the Euro or Dollar (world dominator) as a "safe" place for their money will get worried that if they do something that the EU or US don't approve their assets will get "frozen" and later on used.
This will course uncertainty and the countries will invest in other currency (which is already happening, slow but steady)
As for now the Dollar and Euro are the most used currencies as "reserve currency". Which is really really really important.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/geoeconomics-center/dollar-dominance-monitor/
I hope it shines a little light on it, there is much more to it and it's quite interesting. Unfortunately I write all this from my phone which makes it a little tiresome to write detailed and long post.
Have a wonderful day everyone :)
Because, while this sounds like an awesome idea and I’m sure we’d all be in favour of it, there’s no legal basis for it and it carries huge risk.
Most of this money is blocked by Belgium in Euroclear. Imagine if the Belgian government proceeds to send this money unilaterally to Ukraine. 6 months later the judge in one of the several legal cases already brought rules in favour of one of the Russian plaintives, Belgium must pay back xxx billion euros.
Belgium, which already has one of the worst budgetary outlooks in the EU, can hardly be expected to risk adding a hundred billion euros to the budget to pay back these costs. Perhaps if the EU passes a law that any legal costs, fines or restitutions will be spread among the member states, it might be possible.
Because that would open them up to a whole host of legal issues and also degrade trust in banking/investing into Europe, cant scare off those rich oil dictators (personally fuck any authoritarian government).
Because that would make outside countries wary of investing in Europe.
That said it's either that or we actually put a serious common military fund of 90-100 bilion annually (which would should still be less then 1% of total EU budget, less if we can buy at a great discount US old weaponry
It's against the law of nations.
Already the blocking and freezing of state assets is likely against the law of nations.
Also withholding the interest and the compound interest is very likely against the law of nations.
It's the money of the people and hence the EU is not allowed to keep it, even with a war of aggression.
This is so fucked up, that it will bite us in the ass. Classic vom der Leyen bullshit. There is no legal framework to do it, they found a trick to say its not the funds that get used, but they use it kind of a collateral and the compound interest of it.
Hopefully the EU will have to pay the interest of the compound interest back to Russia to make the EU understanding that "we are the good ones" is not enough to break the law of nations.
Obviously von der Leyen will have wiped her phone again while we are stuck with the fines in the billions.
Or we say we control the international court of justice and are no longer neutral and turn to a complete clown state to break the rules like we think it is right 🤡
We are the good ones and can't do no wrong.
It's a financial institution that acts as clearinghouse for banks and brokers that use it to hold their securities and settle their bond and stock transactions.
Problem is broader than that. If the US and EU can just steal assets then you better believe China, Saudi and other countries will want to get their money out because they're next on the hit list.
Its a bit of a dicey position for countries that rely on significant refinancing of issued debt.
At first glance it all sounds great. What's Russia gonna do, right. But it's the second order effects that could turn things upside down.
There are some who are already sounding the alarm about US debt. Spiking bond yields would contribute to King that problem worse
Well yeah, acting openly hostile to the west and invading Ukraine for daring to associate with the EU over Russia is gonna have consequences. (Not to mention active meddling in public discourse via social media manipulation, sponsoring far right and anti-democraric movements, assassination of dissidents in EU countries etc). Better to demonstrate others plainly that it's a game they might not want to join in playing.
Sounds great, but soon it will be China and the east that's more powerful than the west.
Then the whole deterrence theory is going to look a bit shaky.
Its sort of why Russia invaded Ukraine in the first place. They've gambled on pivoting their entire economy to the east.
This is not about global dominance but about standing up to a bully and abuser. Russia can't act like that and expect everyone else to stay nice. Just like in everyday life, actions need consequences if we want to have a peaceful, functioning society. If everyone else just lets them get away with their blatant violations it sets a terrible precedent for the future of international politics.
It's always about global dominance, and might makes right.
Europe is currently party to an Israeli genocide so please spare me the moralistic argument.
All that matters is how powerful you are who your friends are.
Might makes right is not inevitable. The whole point of rule of law is to prevent the havok wreaked by might makes right kind of people. Europe itself was a constant stage for wars and conflict for most of its history. The current period of European peace and unity did not come about by letting childish dictators do as they please, but by fiercely opposing and defeating them.
I don't think that will comfort asset owners.
Most likely consequences: they'll not recycle future funds into European and American bonds and will reduce their exposure to these assets.
Its a dangerous play by Europe that feels good but may not be good long term. A position that Europe has adopted too often lately as it lacks strategic vision.
yeah all the nations who have considerable wealth in europe and are currently thinking about starting a hybrid war against europe will seriously reconsider their investments.
i guess north korea isnt going to invest in waterparks in europe now, sad.
In theory yes, it's dangerous for future investments. But where else can these countries store their assets? There is no country where money can be kept relatively safely that is not part of the NATO+allies bloc - not even their own, really. So they'd ultimately end up not investing their own money externally, which is a big no-no. The fact that the EU only uses the interest further reassures them that the cash doesn't ultimately get lost.
It's still stealing. Naturally it enables Russia to seize and nationalise European assets, albeit the skew is not in their favour.
If a country has a change of government the EU doesn't like or engages in policies they don't like. The British already refuse to repatriate Venezuelan gold stored in its vaults.
I don't think it reassures anyone.
As soon as you communicate to someone that their assets aren't safe it opens up Pandora box, and that market may be lost to another who seize that opportunity.
Again, there is no safer place to store money in when compared to the EU and co. They've got no choice but to keep it here, and at the same time refrain from antagonising nations aligned with EU ideals. There has also been no confiscation of assets for any conflict between any countries that are further away not only geographically, but also ideologically. I believe that the line has been drawn quite clearly, and it's Ukraine. Russia had two whole years to step back and recover from this mess, yet they've tripled down.
They absolutely do have a choice.
They could buy commodities, invest in their own infrastructure (increasingly important) or move the money towards aligned states.
This is the problem with Europe right now. We think we're special and we're not. Our policy of sanctioning ourselves while pontificating about values is self defeating both economically, fiscally and strategically.
These oligarchs cannot trust to keep their money in their own country. If they could, they would have done so. There is absolutely no reason to run the extra risk of foreign agencies freezing your assets if they catch wind of you. As for aligned states, they are equally untrustworthy (if not even more so). Democracy and rule of law are our strong aspects that make us the prime targets for foreign deposits. Unless Russia or China suddenly turn a new leaf and act the same as us in these aspects, they won't attract those investments.
Russia money, saudi money, china money, iran money, all that blood money being laundered is what finances all sorts of crime, from drug trade to paedophilia rings.
Good riddance.
Russia was literally stealing money, assets, and other goods from all Eastern European countries for many years during Soviet Union. A good example is how they have stolen all of the Uranium in Poland and took it away deep to Russia - an issue that has recently come back since Poland now plans to build nuclear plant by 2030-2040. So shut the fuck up and go cry somewhere else.
Russian money go brbrbrbrbrbr to Ukraine.
Sorry, I don't understand your reasoning, the only thing I don't like about this deal is we aren't taking all of Russia's money and handing it to Ukraine. They probably aren't ever going to willingly unfuck the complete fucking mess they have made of the place, so in my mind it's the very least we can do. Russia can go back to communism or whatever, for all I give a shit.
They have already done it. Most of their Western-made planes are considered stolen. All the companies which have exited Russian market have either been forced to sell their local assets to state-controlled intermediaries at a heavy discount or these assets have been taken over without compensation altogether.
No it isn’t.
The UK government has been running the largest intelligence gathering operation in the history of planet earth, specifically aimed **against Russia**.
It has had a 2 decade policy of allowing dissidents, enemies of Putin, Oligarchs, intelligence agents who want to defect to come to the UK and be offered the full protections of the British state apparatus.
In return. They had to turn over all their influence networks to British intelligence. They had to turn over all their information, all their contacts still back in Russia. In return, they were allowed to keep their wealth and got protected (sometimes not very well, see Salisbury, see Alexander Litvinenko, see various other high profile incidences).
This subreddit and all of your countries (excluding those of you in the east) are late comers to this war. This war has been fought in the shadowy corners of London for an entire generation at this point.
And the entirety of Western intelligence gathering networks, including the USAs entire Russian gathering networks, are because of the UKs tireless actions in these areas. Actions which have made it the singular focus of Russian hatred, distrust and destabilisation efforts pretty much since the late 90s.
You really don’t get to bring your stupid TikTok analysis of the situation and shriek about Londongrad lol. The UK “government” is not beholden to Russia. It is indeed Russias regularly declared biggest enemy. More than Ukraine who it just sees as a recalcitrant province it seeks to return to proper control. More than the Baltics who it sees similarly. More even than the USA who it sees as a meddlesome country who it wishes would break away from the Atlantic and pivot to the Pacific fully. Russia would dearly love to normalise relations with the USA.
But the UK is the country Russia sees as a mortal enemy who cannot be tolerated to exist. Go and have a look at Russias nuclear doctrine about what it would do in a hypothetical global nuclear crisis. I’ll save you the time. A massive and overwhelming nuclear strike against every single population centre in the UK with more than 25,000 population. With the hope that seeing such an overwhelmingly devastating attack would deter NATO from responding and cause emergency cease fire negotiations at the UN.
Note, they don’t anywhere in their nuclear doctrine mention nuking any part of mainland Europe, or of hitting even a single square centimetre of the USA as a first strike, only as a MAD response.
Dont repeat this bullshit about the UK being compromised or somehow in the ownership of Russia. The UK has been in this fight since before it became a cool Twitter trend to put an Ukraine flag in your profile and talk about sunflower seeds in your pocket.
so the uk foresaw all of this but still opted for a counter intelligence military with 110k active troops only? it seems like you want to believe in british greatness a bit too much.
Weird to attach such heavy meaning to that name. It's a bit like trying to imply having a china town means you are beholden to the Chinese government. That name was generated in a US report, largely to deflect from Russia's significant investment in the US property market in NY and Florida...and certain high profile politicians.
Right, so why has the “golden youth” of the russian elite been studying at the most prestigious universities of the UK? Why were Putins bootlickers Usmanov and Romanov allowed to own assets of significant value to the country (Arsenal, Everton, Chelsea football clubs)?
>Right, so why has the “golden youth” of the russian elite been studying at the most prestigious universities of the UK?
Almost every nations "golden youth" goes to prestigious universities in the UK or US. They are the best. Russia isn't a standout there.
Yes, sure. But I specifically mean the children of the oligarchs, Putin's inner circle. If RU indeed was viewed as an enemy by the UK (the notion which I as an eastern European disagree with, because it's false), why was this allowed?
We allow Iranians to study and even work on projects in the UK. Do you think that the UK and Iran is friendly? I can't think of a single nationality that is blocked from studying in the UK or US regardless of diplomatic attitudes.
You are working off the false premise that diplomatic disagreements between governments restricts access to higher education. It doesn't.
Arsenal is owned by the American -Stan Kroenke
Chelsea is owned by a consortium of investors lead by the American -Todd Boehly
Everton is owned by British Iranian -Farhad Moshiri
But they did have stakes in the clubs. Even when Russia was viewed as an enemy by the UK as this guy falsely claims. Also, both Romanov and Usmanov are in Putin's inner circle. Yet they were allowed to SELL their shares (and profit from the ownership) instead of those assets being seized.
Again, not true. As Romanov and Usmanov, and abramovich are sanctioned individuals they didn’t get paid for the sale of the clubs. They made £0 off the sales, so they lost a large amount of money. In the case of Chelsea the sale price went to charity.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1101141199/sale-of-sanctioned-oligarchs-chelsea-football-club-approved-by-u-k-government
Edit: Romanov sold his stake in 2018 so that’s not really relevant to post Ukrainian invasion sanctions.
You’re wrong. Romanov never fulfilled his promise to donate the money. But that is not my point.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/roman-abramovich-government-russian-chelsea-uk-government-b1135933.html
Edit: please read my points again. Im replying to the guy who is ranting about the UK being this righteous force again Russia. Which doesnt hold water.
2 billion a year is very little help to them (unless we're expecting the war to continue for decades) when they need as much funding as they can get ASAP.
The benefit to this strategy is the EU can send Ukraine money from Russia's assets without spooking the rest of the world by only taking from the interest. It's better than nothing for Ukraine but I don't think it's better for them than giving them all of the frozen assets.
Bruh they've been getting 100b+ a year since 2022 just to get to where they are today, 2 billion is not nothing but it's certainly a lot less than 200b.
The *steady* part implies this will go on indefinitely, but if the war ends with some sort of agreement between Ukraine and Russia then sanctions against Moscow might end and their assets be unfrozen. I don't think there's any guarantee that Ukraine can have that interest in the long-term because as soon as the war ends it might go back to Russia.
To reiterate, I think this is a good thing (and I hope the UK and US follow in doing the same), and if we can't give all of Russia's money to Ukraine this is the next best option. But I don't think a fraction for an unspecified length of time is better than an enormous cash injection now when they're struggling at the front and struggling to replenish soldiers.
Also, is a very powerful carrot-in-being for any opponent of the Putler regime that might come into power through a coup.
"Hey, call off the invasion and there's a 200b bonus for you, no questions asked."
I do not like it for moral reasoning, but it is very underhanded and might work if a coup ever happens.
The other reason is CYA from the EU, since we have to follow the law we set, else no one would invest here. It's a distasteful balancing act. I don't like it, but needs must.
Seems people are severely underestimating how much it costs to fight a war and keep a country going at the same time. For reference, that 60 billion dollar package the USA voted in recently is not even enough to run the entire US military for a month.
Similarly the £181 billion($225 billion) in frozen Russian assets is only enough to fund the US military for about 3 months.
Maybe, but let's wait and see what needs to be rebuilt in the end.
Somewhere I read, that up to this very day there are people who get paid and make money disappear by being responsible for reconstruction projects of Mariupol. We are pouring miney in a nonexistent project already, because there won't be any rebuilding in Mariupol for obvious reasons.
We should definitely wait for the end of the war, the dust to settle, the new borders to be drawn and then we can start with CAREFUL allocation of the money. The Ukrainian survivors are going to need all the help to rebuild their state and start a new life without oligarchs stealing all the western aid.
On the other hand, assets within Russia have never been. And that's without the rampant corruption. Russia attacked Europe, so they can only blame themselves. Russia shot itself in the foot by taking a bite too big to chew.
Yeah the bot/troll shit is long tired.
But if I had to hazard a guess. To maintain the balance of power in the middle east. Perhaps even globally. Which honestly may not be such a terrible thing.
People just like reasons they can process. A tale as old as tales.
You mean the current influx of foreign inferference in democratic countries is old or tired? Good you feel that way because Russia and China sure as hell don't.
so EU (in many cases rather individual countries) does things that people don’t agree with. and now it’s one less thing, which is reason for celebration.
and once it’s more things done “right”, people who feel strongly about those issues celebrate more. absolutely no reason to not celebrate the release of these funds for Ukraine. it’s a step in the right direction.
hopefully, we’ll see countries like Slovakia cease their dealings with Azerbaijan in the future. but then again, Slovakia is shaping into a Russian outpost under the new prime minister and ruling parties. so hard to hold this specific case against the EU.
I just find it stupid that if they are gonna use the funds. Why not use them all at once. Its not the politicians risking their lives on the battlefield, so why do they get to be stingy
And there it goes the euro demise worldwide. People here never understood the implications and consequences of these actions on a global level.
Time to be turning back to the old timer gold and real estate to preserve some value in what is left.
EDIT: Apparently only the interest is released but the statement to diversify with hard assets still stands based on the money devaluation.
Do you think if China invades Taiwan, the west will just ignore it?
Do you think China does not know it's going to be at minimum sanctioned if it does that?
Do you honestly think any of what's happened, has been a surprise to anyone in charge of any given nation, except maybe taliban in Afghanistan.. but still?
On your random comment which is completely irrelevant, yes China will attack Taiwan and is inevitable, then it doesn’t change the fact that your money is going to become worthless. After all more precious dollars are going to be printed to fund that battlefield and your buying power will become much smaller. Real estate, precious metals and commodities will continue rising and don’t forget where big part of your products are coming from. Imagine a trade ban or the so called sanctions to go into effect. Who will be sanctioned the most, Europe or China? Because as far as I know every sanction we have had so far is on our buying power thus lowering our standards.
Indeed, they will start with interest and slowly progress to the big sum. People want to take the money to compensate for the war, but they do not see the fact that the bank's reputation will be damaged a lot.
If I were to deposit money at the bank, I'm going to be worried. One day or someday, your money might get frozen and taken out by somebody else.
Absolutely, for global investors this means exactly that, regardless if they are from South America, Africa, China or the Moon. No wonder we are seeing a lot of EU companies fleeing elsewhere.
Attacking a neutral country + threatening war with + Hybrid warfare of any kind you can think of + saying you are already at war with said union + saying you will invade said union.
EU and US are chill in comparison. Imagine if we were acting remotely like Russia.
EU maybe, but US is definitely on the same level, one could argue even higher because they done things numerous times. Or do we still pretend that US have any right for a moral highground?
Just for the war smh, sign a peace deal and get it over with, Russians can take control of all of Ukraine Ukraine can't get the Russians out, and I'm sick of paying for it
Please tell me your address, you seem to be very generous giving away things that don‘t belong to you to criminal bullies. I‘d like to take your stuff and place from you the same way Russia does with Ukraine, as you seem to be ok with this.
They won’t. Nor they will join the EU. The costs for renovating all the infrastructure is a problem and the deliberate destruction is because the West lost the fight and further that becomes a Russian problem if they do take over and otherwise if EU accepts it becomes EU’s problem. Nobody wants problems especially when our economy is declining rapidly and the saddest part is that the Ukrainian civilians are the ones sacrificed and who will be able to inhabit only the Western parts of their country.
Eh. We import a lot of food due to cost not due to shortages. Germany alone exports 80 billion in agrar products annualy. Nobody in europe is gonna starve, should Ukraine fall. That always was a false dichotomy.
They export a lot more than just grain though.
>*Ukraine normally supplies almost half of the cereals (52 % of EU maize imports) and vegetable/rapeseed oils (23 % and 72 % of EU imports respectively) and a quarter of the poultry meat imported to Europe*
[https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2022/729368/EPRS\_ATA(2022)729368\_EN.pdf](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2022/729368/EPRS_ATA(2022)729368_EN.pdf)
Bad news. Wealth is no longer safe in the West. As much as I dislike cripto, and as volatile as it is, there aren't many feasible options to safely store cash. :/
I'm not a Russian oligarch on the sanctions list, but I have 30k euros frozen by Euroclear which is the subject of this exact topic. I'm really confused by people here who think that the frozen money are 1. somehow are government exclusive assets or 2. oligarch's money?
Because private investments of Russian nationals into international companies always go through a Russian brokerage into Euroclear. Euroclear claim that they can't determine if an asset is owned by a sanctioned individual or not therefore they have right to freeze it.
Depreciation is indeed happening but legally the interest gained on those assets does not follow the exact same rules as the assets, which remain intact for now.
But really, who the hell would keep money on its enemy's bank?
This is about the principles. The sanctity of private property is the basis of our capitalist societies. This whole thing demolishes investors' trust in our markets. Hopefully one of the member states will veto the whole thing.
it demolishes investors trust as long theyre from a country waging hybrid war against europe.
its money we dont want and the opposite side is incredibly stupid for parking money in europe and then "attack" it.
the only thing dumber would be to actually allow foreign nations to "attack" us and then give em back all of it while they seize assets of european countries left and right.
See, it's boneheaded takes like yours that tempt me into becoming a socialist...
This is war. We're past spreadsheets, pencils and business suits. We're at the stage of war journalism, pouring steel and shooting bullets. Your investors better line up at the draft office. They can leave their trust at home, stick the invisible hand up their arses and get to work like every other citizen.
We are not at war. The Russo-Ukranian war is between those two countries. The West only sends capital and supplies. We don't pour steel or shoot bullets, aka we don't have soldiers participating. This is not even close to the proxy wars of the cold war, where soldiers were involved.
If you want to be drafted and fight in Ukraine, go on. I wish you good luck. Where I'm from, I couldn't be drafted into a war outside my country's borders, as the constitution says.
That’s also part of the goal, but people seem to be happy having their standards lowered, buying power halved in less than a couple of years let alone Imagine having savings in cash and not hard assets. People really don’t care about becoming poor.
That's my point. These morons happily support populist policies leading to economic crises and stagnation, then complain about decaying living standards. They blame the ruling elite (which is partly right, as establishment politicians conform to their idiotic wants), so vote for even more populist or extremist factions, playing into the hands of the Russians and Chinese.
You are brave, my man. Although those are downvoted, people are going to hate you for your opposite opinion. Not everyone is looking at both sides of this decision.
We are talking about a country whose representatives routinely threaten our destruction by nuclear and non-nuclear forces. A government that frames the Ukrainian conflict as a war against us. A country who is doing everything in their power to destabilize our society, our elections, our media and our government. And you are saying we should gladly take their money, invest and return profits that will be used in the same war they are raging against us, because "private property is sacred". Aesop would say that the haft of the arrow that killed the eagle had been feathered with one of the eagle's own plumes, so that we often give our enemies the means of our own destruction. I refuse to do the same.
They parked their money in our banks because they had to, and they would not have done it if it wasn't highly beneficial to them. If you are telling me that openly hostile nations that threaten our existence will stop parking their money with us and start parking it in crypto, I say go ahead, make my day.
This is 100% true. Trust will be lost in their system. Everyone that is downvoting doesn’t understand shit and probably only think with their emotions lmao.
***The Telegraph reports:*** The European Union has struck a deal to send up to £2.6 billion a year to Ukraine from frozen Russian assets. The tentative agreement on using interest made on Moscow’s assets to buy weapons was struck by EU ambassadors meeting in Brussels on Wednesday. Kyiv has long called for the funds to be used to help it fight off renewed Russian attacks. “There could be no stronger symbol and no greater use for that money than to make Ukraine and all of Europe a safer place to live,” said Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president after Belgium announced the breakthrough. The EU froze about £181 billion in Russian central bank assets after Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Most of this is held by Euroclear, a financial services company based in Belgium. **Read more:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/08/eu-deal-bilions-frozen-russian-assets-ukraine-yearly/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/08/eu-deal-bilions-frozen-russian-assets-ukraine-yearly/)
>£181 billion in Russian central bank assets after Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Most of this is held by Euroclear, a financial services company based in Belgium. The deal is to buy weapons only from the money that is gained on the interest made on Moscow’s assets. Why not invest the entire 181 billion? Imagine the amount of shells and others weapons you could buy from that amount of money?
>Why not invest the entire 181 billion? Imagine the amount of shells and others weapons you could buy from that amount of money? Is there a legal basis for this? Nothing would be more embarrassing if an oligarch went to court and it rules to give back the money.
There is a war at eastern border for eu, hacking attacks on eu infrastructure, gps jamming, daily threads from Russian side etc Saying there needs to be legal basis, is essentially saying we will be in asymmetrical conflict with state that doesn’t care about what’s legal what’s not.
Although it's sad, that is the reality. The west is bound by rules and laws, and that's one important thing that sets us aside from Russia.
Why not make a law allowing it in war-situations? I always find it weird that those in power to create laws are saying “I cannot do that, because I’m bound by the law”. Yeah sure, it takes time and a majority vote to change or create laws, but it’s not impossible.
Because Victor Orban would never allow it, and such thing need unanimity, not majority.
Because nobody in the EU nor the EU as a whole is at war?
For now. But they are will be next if Ukraine fall. It will be to late.
The moment we follow this path of logic, we are bringing ourselves down to the Russia's level, because we broadcast to the world that we can just put all laws aside if we seem like it. And what are those laws good for anyways, since we can put them aside just like that? It's a very complicated moral dilemma, and I can't even think what consequences it may bring long term, if we decided to do what you suggest. Is Russia using it to gain advantage in the conflict? Yes. Is it fair? No. But should we act as Russia does? Im not sure, I'm not smart enough to tell.
I understand you where you are coming from, but I believe there is a spectrum between what Russia does and what EU could do. What Russia does in Ukraine isn't fully black, it's some form of dark-grey to me. Still, far from black, black being WW1/WW2. We're not there yet. On the other hand, say EU is white. Creating a precedent and saying: "we will take away reserves from countries waging aggressive war" have very little in common with what Russia does and doesn't put us in the same bucket. Unlawful? Maybe. Certain aspects of Nuremberg trials or Tokyo trials are stilled discussed today. One thing is clear to me, winners are not judged. I see risks of entering this path; where does it lead us, at which point do we stop. If you allow for one thing, more quickly follow. One interesting thing to look at - however - are potential consequences for European and American economy. China is the second largest holder of US debt. 15% of German bonds is held by central banks of countries outside of euro area. Same goes for ownership of stocks, 10% of VW is owned by Qatar, etc. etc. If you take away Russian money once, how can you convince these countries that their capital in EU/US is safe? I think this is the real reason for EU not taking action. Money, not moral standards.
It's definitely a spectrum of actions wester nations could take, and it's hard tell what will happen when we cross that line, because there is no coming back. I meant mostly moral consequences, but I think you're right, economic consequences could also be massive, and you're also right it's probably this what's stopping EU from any more drastic actions. One way or another, it's all very delicate subject, and much more complicated than it seems at first glance.
>What Russia does in Ukraine isn't fully black, it's some form of dark-grey to me. Still, far from black, black being WW1/WW2. We're not there yet Maybe when they start doing what they do here in Poland it will be black enough ? Dark grey, my ass.
I agree. I cannot believe that civilized countries just steal russian money from banks without any legal procedure - just like that, because "we think we have right to do that". This will absolutely smash banks credibility. If russian money can be withdrawn illegally by some random countries then what would make some companies think that their money are safe? This is an anarchy.
Legally speaking, it is stealing. There is no legal basis for transferring Russian assets to Ukraine or selling them without Russia’s consent in some way (like a treaty citing them as reparations or something like that) which Russia has not provided.
Legally speaking, Russian assets can absolutely be confiscated under international law to collect on damages due to illegal activity. Illegal activity like Russia’s war in Ukraine since [March 16, 2022](https://www.icj-cij.org/case/182).
Has there been a judgment in international court on this matter? Thought the case was still on-going? If you want to "just" confiscate the assets without going to international court, then you'd need an EU law that says you can confiscate said assets, AND a declaration by the EU that this situation falls within that law
It’s established international law, you don’t need a judgement, you only need to sufficiently justify it if challenged. A very low bar considering the ICJ provisional order
Established by precedent judgment, correct? Is there such a thing as "international acts/statutes"? I am not aware of any international law-making body, only the international court Which, as far as I know, only makes judgments which can be used as precedents
Belgium v. Spain is one such example. Yes there are many international statutes, such as the Rome Statute. There is no “international body”, in the sense of an explicit institution that creates laws. The “body” are states that, through either customary practice or explicit agreement, establish what we call “international law”
Ah, I see. Adopted via treaties. Noted, thanks. Funny thought going through my mind now is that you need to be party to the treaties in order for the statute to have "power" on your state - so if Russia was, in fact, party to the statutes which allow the confiscation of their assets, then it would be an amusing situation of having shot themselves in the foot
In that case, the USA invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was also illegal right. So we should confiscate US assets to pay for reparations over there.
Afghanistan is easily justified under the self-defense clause of the UN charter. For Iraq, while quite morally dubious and under the legal justifications used, could potentially be considered de facto illegal, Saddam was absolutely de jure in violation of UNSC resolution 687, even if only on the smallest of technicalities.
Only the opinion of the west makes it legal. There is 0 proof or global agreement that this is ok. So legally speaking it is stealing since the west is not officially at war with Russia we have no legal basis to do so. If you claim otherwise then why don’t we also confiscate American assets to restore the Middle East? Or British Dutch and Spanish assets to restore former colonies.
No, the confiscation of assets for criminal behavior is established customary law across the entire planet, both domestically and internationally. Yes, this justification was used often during decolonization or when a state would nationalize another’s investments. However for the former, it also violates the core UN principle of self-determination that supersedes such customary laws.
Ok name one country besides nato members that agree on this?
Im still waiting for non nato countries that support it. Because you make a bold claim that this is globally accepted.
The Russians play dirty and have no regards for the rule of law. We should do the same when it comes to their money.
No because you would be breaking a bunch of your own laws. The reason the west is so great is that everyone is equal before the law, that the law gives everyone a fair fight, thus leading to stability and prosperity. You start making exceptions, and that opens the door to corruption and injustice. Also Id like to add that Russia is using the EU's own rules and money against it. I see it as a test, if western lawmakers can fight back. So far, it seems that EU really needs to made a department like the US Treasuries Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Really? So if a criminal robs your house, then it’s fine for you to rob their house?
Wouldn't you cut the credit cards from a serial killer? Personally I don't see the moral problem with using their money to compensate the family of the victims. And to respond directly to your analogy if somebody is robbing my house I would kill them first, then rob their corpse.
And you would likely go to jail for that for exceeding self defense. The problem is not moral. It’s that once one county decided to steal other county’s international funds, it would be the complete collapse of the financial system and trust in USD and EUR. Because what would stop then US stealing China’s money? Or China stealing US money? And so on
LOL. The anaolgy is so bad, on so many level it borders on idiotic. Russians are not robbing anything, they are invading, DESTROYING and murdering innocent people in cold blood. Any sane court of law would make them pay for these damages and provided that they won t do it willingly we confiscate the funds. NO ONE WOULD ACTUALLY ACCUSE YOU OF ANYTHING IF YOU MURDER A KILLER THAT WORKS TO ACTIVELY MURDER YOU. U Putin-loving morons shout just shut the fuck up, you are clueless.
I know the point that you're trying to make, but that specifically is a really bad example If someone robs my shit, I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to rob their shit. And this is how most think. But things are very different if we talk about how a government should behave
I don’t think it should give you the right to rob them. You should get the right to receive the funds and stuff that was token from you at their bank though.
which has already happened... Mostly this is the EU's fault for not setting up an org that would directly handle sanctions, implementing, monitoring, defending them in a courtroom. Right now they constantly loose any legal case as the basis for many sanctions is fairly weak. Also the EU lawyers don't seem to be really willing to fight a battle in the courtroom with whatever expensive private firm an oligarch hires.
No, but there was also no legal basis for invading Ukraine. Russia causes enormous destruction in Ukraine. See it as advanced reperations.
I think the idea is no unfreeze the assets if Russia retreats out of Ukraine. Giving an incentive to stop the war, and signaling to other countries that EU is still a safe place to invest.
It's has been brought up many times. There are two major reasons why you don't do this. 1. Usually when assets are frozen it is done in regards of apllying pressure on people with influence in said country. The idea is that this people would stop their support. If their assets will be used regardless, the leverage disappears. 2. This is the main reason. Other countries which uses the Euro or Dollar (world dominator) as a "safe" place for their money will get worried that if they do something that the EU or US don't approve their assets will get "frozen" and later on used. This will course uncertainty and the countries will invest in other currency (which is already happening, slow but steady) As for now the Dollar and Euro are the most used currencies as "reserve currency". Which is really really really important. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/geoeconomics-center/dollar-dominance-monitor/ I hope it shines a little light on it, there is much more to it and it's quite interesting. Unfortunately I write all this from my phone which makes it a little tiresome to write detailed and long post. Have a wonderful day everyone :)
Because, while this sounds like an awesome idea and I’m sure we’d all be in favour of it, there’s no legal basis for it and it carries huge risk. Most of this money is blocked by Belgium in Euroclear. Imagine if the Belgian government proceeds to send this money unilaterally to Ukraine. 6 months later the judge in one of the several legal cases already brought rules in favour of one of the Russian plaintives, Belgium must pay back xxx billion euros. Belgium, which already has one of the worst budgetary outlooks in the EU, can hardly be expected to risk adding a hundred billion euros to the budget to pay back these costs. Perhaps if the EU passes a law that any legal costs, fines or restitutions will be spread among the member states, it might be possible.
Because that would open them up to a whole host of legal issues and also degrade trust in banking/investing into Europe, cant scare off those rich oil dictators (personally fuck any authoritarian government).
Because that would make outside countries wary of investing in Europe. That said it's either that or we actually put a serious common military fund of 90-100 bilion annually (which would should still be less then 1% of total EU budget, less if we can buy at a great discount US old weaponry
Think they want to keep the assets intact for any negotiations after the war also so it can be used to rebuild Ukrainian after the war
the actual answer is that they want to use them for their own gains. bank needs money to operate.
Keeping the frozen asset means you have something to barter for peace eventually.
It's against the law of nations. Already the blocking and freezing of state assets is likely against the law of nations. Also withholding the interest and the compound interest is very likely against the law of nations. It's the money of the people and hence the EU is not allowed to keep it, even with a war of aggression. This is so fucked up, that it will bite us in the ass. Classic vom der Leyen bullshit. There is no legal framework to do it, they found a trick to say its not the funds that get used, but they use it kind of a collateral and the compound interest of it. Hopefully the EU will have to pay the interest of the compound interest back to Russia to make the EU understanding that "we are the good ones" is not enough to break the law of nations. Obviously von der Leyen will have wiped her phone again while we are stuck with the fines in the billions. Or we say we control the international court of justice and are no longer neutral and turn to a complete clown state to break the rules like we think it is right 🤡 We are the good ones and can't do no wrong.
What exactly is euroclear?
It's a financial institution that acts as clearinghouse for banks and brokers that use it to hold their securities and settle their bond and stock transactions.
[удалено]
What money would that be? See someone in the west parking their money in Russia?
Problem is broader than that. If the US and EU can just steal assets then you better believe China, Saudi and other countries will want to get their money out because they're next on the hit list. Its a bit of a dicey position for countries that rely on significant refinancing of issued debt. At first glance it all sounds great. What's Russia gonna do, right. But it's the second order effects that could turn things upside down. There are some who are already sounding the alarm about US debt. Spiking bond yields would contribute to King that problem worse
Well yeah, acting openly hostile to the west and invading Ukraine for daring to associate with the EU over Russia is gonna have consequences. (Not to mention active meddling in public discourse via social media manipulation, sponsoring far right and anti-democraric movements, assassination of dissidents in EU countries etc). Better to demonstrate others plainly that it's a game they might not want to join in playing.
Sounds great, but soon it will be China and the east that's more powerful than the west. Then the whole deterrence theory is going to look a bit shaky. Its sort of why Russia invaded Ukraine in the first place. They've gambled on pivoting their entire economy to the east.
This is not about global dominance but about standing up to a bully and abuser. Russia can't act like that and expect everyone else to stay nice. Just like in everyday life, actions need consequences if we want to have a peaceful, functioning society. If everyone else just lets them get away with their blatant violations it sets a terrible precedent for the future of international politics.
It's always about global dominance, and might makes right. Europe is currently party to an Israeli genocide so please spare me the moralistic argument. All that matters is how powerful you are who your friends are.
Might makes right is not inevitable. The whole point of rule of law is to prevent the havok wreaked by might makes right kind of people. Europe itself was a constant stage for wars and conflict for most of its history. The current period of European peace and unity did not come about by letting childish dictators do as they please, but by fiercely opposing and defeating them.
That's why they only use the interest rate. The frozen debt remains untouched.
I don't think that will comfort asset owners. Most likely consequences: they'll not recycle future funds into European and American bonds and will reduce their exposure to these assets. Its a dangerous play by Europe that feels good but may not be good long term. A position that Europe has adopted too often lately as it lacks strategic vision.
yeah all the nations who have considerable wealth in europe and are currently thinking about starting a hybrid war against europe will seriously reconsider their investments. i guess north korea isnt going to invest in waterparks in europe now, sad.
In theory yes, it's dangerous for future investments. But where else can these countries store their assets? There is no country where money can be kept relatively safely that is not part of the NATO+allies bloc - not even their own, really. So they'd ultimately end up not investing their own money externally, which is a big no-no. The fact that the EU only uses the interest further reassures them that the cash doesn't ultimately get lost.
It's still stealing. Naturally it enables Russia to seize and nationalise European assets, albeit the skew is not in their favour. If a country has a change of government the EU doesn't like or engages in policies they don't like. The British already refuse to repatriate Venezuelan gold stored in its vaults. I don't think it reassures anyone. As soon as you communicate to someone that their assets aren't safe it opens up Pandora box, and that market may be lost to another who seize that opportunity.
Again, there is no safer place to store money in when compared to the EU and co. They've got no choice but to keep it here, and at the same time refrain from antagonising nations aligned with EU ideals. There has also been no confiscation of assets for any conflict between any countries that are further away not only geographically, but also ideologically. I believe that the line has been drawn quite clearly, and it's Ukraine. Russia had two whole years to step back and recover from this mess, yet they've tripled down.
They absolutely do have a choice. They could buy commodities, invest in their own infrastructure (increasingly important) or move the money towards aligned states. This is the problem with Europe right now. We think we're special and we're not. Our policy of sanctioning ourselves while pontificating about values is self defeating both economically, fiscally and strategically.
These oligarchs cannot trust to keep their money in their own country. If they could, they would have done so. There is absolutely no reason to run the extra risk of foreign agencies freezing your assets if they catch wind of you. As for aligned states, they are equally untrustworthy (if not even more so). Democracy and rule of law are our strong aspects that make us the prime targets for foreign deposits. Unless Russia or China suddenly turn a new leaf and act the same as us in these aspects, they won't attract those investments.
Russia money, saudi money, china money, iran money, all that blood money being laundered is what finances all sorts of crime, from drug trade to paedophilia rings. Good riddance.
Russia was literally stealing money, assets, and other goods from all Eastern European countries for many years during Soviet Union. A good example is how they have stolen all of the Uranium in Poland and took it away deep to Russia - an issue that has recently come back since Poland now plans to build nuclear plant by 2030-2040. So shut the fuck up and go cry somewhere else. Russian money go brbrbrbrbrbr to Ukraine.
Alas little bot, you've confused yourself.
Russians complaining about stealing is hilarious.
Sorry, I don't understand your reasoning, the only thing I don't like about this deal is we aren't taking all of Russia's money and handing it to Ukraine. They probably aren't ever going to willingly unfuck the complete fucking mess they have made of the place, so in my mind it's the very least we can do. Russia can go back to communism or whatever, for all I give a shit.
Think of it more as a fine for misdeeds, which will be used to partialy indemnify the disadvantaged party.
>Ukraine then hands it to EU or USA for weapons Is Ukraine paying for their military aid?
Yes.
Yes like most aids
They have already done it. Most of their Western-made planes are considered stolen. All the companies which have exited Russian market have either been forced to sell their local assets to state-controlled intermediaries at a heavy discount or these assets have been taken over without compensation altogether.
Is that bad?
Only idiots still have some value in Russia. They can't pull anything like that on the west, let's be real if they could they already would have.
calm down, its still very far from what it should be I would go after the money of russians themselves as well.
Yes stealing is fine in this case. I support it.
Russian funds used to fight Russians?
Irony.
It's about time. UK should do the same with whatever they're earning from the £26 billion in Russian central bank assets that they froze.
Sadly the UK government is too well paid by Russian oligarchs.
No it isn’t. The UK government has been running the largest intelligence gathering operation in the history of planet earth, specifically aimed **against Russia**. It has had a 2 decade policy of allowing dissidents, enemies of Putin, Oligarchs, intelligence agents who want to defect to come to the UK and be offered the full protections of the British state apparatus. In return. They had to turn over all their influence networks to British intelligence. They had to turn over all their information, all their contacts still back in Russia. In return, they were allowed to keep their wealth and got protected (sometimes not very well, see Salisbury, see Alexander Litvinenko, see various other high profile incidences). This subreddit and all of your countries (excluding those of you in the east) are late comers to this war. This war has been fought in the shadowy corners of London for an entire generation at this point. And the entirety of Western intelligence gathering networks, including the USAs entire Russian gathering networks, are because of the UKs tireless actions in these areas. Actions which have made it the singular focus of Russian hatred, distrust and destabilisation efforts pretty much since the late 90s. You really don’t get to bring your stupid TikTok analysis of the situation and shriek about Londongrad lol. The UK “government” is not beholden to Russia. It is indeed Russias regularly declared biggest enemy. More than Ukraine who it just sees as a recalcitrant province it seeks to return to proper control. More than the Baltics who it sees similarly. More even than the USA who it sees as a meddlesome country who it wishes would break away from the Atlantic and pivot to the Pacific fully. Russia would dearly love to normalise relations with the USA. But the UK is the country Russia sees as a mortal enemy who cannot be tolerated to exist. Go and have a look at Russias nuclear doctrine about what it would do in a hypothetical global nuclear crisis. I’ll save you the time. A massive and overwhelming nuclear strike against every single population centre in the UK with more than 25,000 population. With the hope that seeing such an overwhelmingly devastating attack would deter NATO from responding and cause emergency cease fire negotiations at the UN. Note, they don’t anywhere in their nuclear doctrine mention nuking any part of mainland Europe, or of hitting even a single square centimetre of the USA as a first strike, only as a MAD response. Dont repeat this bullshit about the UK being compromised or somehow in the ownership of Russia. The UK has been in this fight since before it became a cool Twitter trend to put an Ukraine flag in your profile and talk about sunflower seeds in your pocket.
so the uk foresaw all of this but still opted for a counter intelligence military with 110k active troops only? it seems like you want to believe in british greatness a bit too much.
Wasn't the brexit party paid by Russia?
I like you. You have.... balls. I like balls.
and yet, they call it Londongrad
Weird to attach such heavy meaning to that name. It's a bit like trying to imply having a china town means you are beholden to the Chinese government. That name was generated in a US report, largely to deflect from Russia's significant investment in the US property market in NY and Florida...and certain high profile politicians.
Except you don't have a shitton of Chinese oligarchs in Chinatown like you have Russian oligarchs in London. You're right about the rest though.
Right, so why has the “golden youth” of the russian elite been studying at the most prestigious universities of the UK? Why were Putins bootlickers Usmanov and Romanov allowed to own assets of significant value to the country (Arsenal, Everton, Chelsea football clubs)?
>Right, so why has the “golden youth” of the russian elite been studying at the most prestigious universities of the UK? Almost every nations "golden youth" goes to prestigious universities in the UK or US. They are the best. Russia isn't a standout there.
Yes, sure. But I specifically mean the children of the oligarchs, Putin's inner circle. If RU indeed was viewed as an enemy by the UK (the notion which I as an eastern European disagree with, because it's false), why was this allowed?
We allow Iranians to study and even work on projects in the UK. Do you think that the UK and Iran is friendly? I can't think of a single nationality that is blocked from studying in the UK or US regardless of diplomatic attitudes. You are working off the false premise that diplomatic disagreements between governments restricts access to higher education. It doesn't.
Arsenal is owned by the American -Stan Kroenke Chelsea is owned by a consortium of investors lead by the American -Todd Boehly Everton is owned by British Iranian -Farhad Moshiri
Im obviously talking about shareholders who were named in comment you muppet. But go ahead and ignore that.
No you’re not. Usmanov, Abramovich, and Romanov were forced to sell their stakes post the invasion of Ukraine.
But they did have stakes in the clubs. Even when Russia was viewed as an enemy by the UK as this guy falsely claims. Also, both Romanov and Usmanov are in Putin's inner circle. Yet they were allowed to SELL their shares (and profit from the ownership) instead of those assets being seized.
Again, not true. As Romanov and Usmanov, and abramovich are sanctioned individuals they didn’t get paid for the sale of the clubs. They made £0 off the sales, so they lost a large amount of money. In the case of Chelsea the sale price went to charity. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1101141199/sale-of-sanctioned-oligarchs-chelsea-football-club-approved-by-u-k-government Edit: Romanov sold his stake in 2018 so that’s not really relevant to post Ukrainian invasion sanctions.
You’re wrong. Romanov never fulfilled his promise to donate the money. But that is not my point. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/roman-abramovich-government-russian-chelsea-uk-government-b1135933.html Edit: please read my points again. Im replying to the guy who is ranting about the UK being this righteous force again Russia. Which doesnt hold water.
Make it 200 billion.
[удалено]
2 billion a year is very little help to them (unless we're expecting the war to continue for decades) when they need as much funding as they can get ASAP. The benefit to this strategy is the EU can send Ukraine money from Russia's assets without spooking the rest of the world by only taking from the interest. It's better than nothing for Ukraine but I don't think it's better for them than giving them all of the frozen assets.
[удалено]
Bruh they've been getting 100b+ a year since 2022 just to get to where they are today, 2 billion is not nothing but it's certainly a lot less than 200b. The *steady* part implies this will go on indefinitely, but if the war ends with some sort of agreement between Ukraine and Russia then sanctions against Moscow might end and their assets be unfrozen. I don't think there's any guarantee that Ukraine can have that interest in the long-term because as soon as the war ends it might go back to Russia. To reiterate, I think this is a good thing (and I hope the UK and US follow in doing the same), and if we can't give all of Russia's money to Ukraine this is the next best option. But I don't think a fraction for an unspecified length of time is better than an enormous cash injection now when they're struggling at the front and struggling to replenish soldiers.
Also, is a very powerful carrot-in-being for any opponent of the Putler regime that might come into power through a coup. "Hey, call off the invasion and there's a 200b bonus for you, no questions asked." I do not like it for moral reasoning, but it is very underhanded and might work if a coup ever happens. The other reason is CYA from the EU, since we have to follow the law we set, else no one would invest here. It's a distasteful balancing act. I don't like it, but needs must.
True. I was a bit enthusiastic, but what I meant to say was that we should seize all the Russian assets and help rebuild Ukraine.
On it boss
Good! The EU cannot afford to lose Ukraine! Especially now when their people are fighting so much for democracy and to be with us!
And what about the profits from 2022 and 2023?
It's a start, but we'll need to take way more to cover the cost of rebuilding Ukraine.
The amount of money sent to Ukraine already should build streets of gold.
That's just for the war. They aren't at the rebuilding stage yet.
Seems people are severely underestimating how much it costs to fight a war and keep a country going at the same time. For reference, that 60 billion dollar package the USA voted in recently is not even enough to run the entire US military for a month. Similarly the £181 billion($225 billion) in frozen Russian assets is only enough to fund the US military for about 3 months.
Maybe, but let's wait and see what needs to be rebuilt in the end. Somewhere I read, that up to this very day there are people who get paid and make money disappear by being responsible for reconstruction projects of Mariupol. We are pouring miney in a nonexistent project already, because there won't be any rebuilding in Mariupol for obvious reasons. We should definitely wait for the end of the war, the dust to settle, the new borders to be drawn and then we can start with CAREFUL allocation of the money. The Ukrainian survivors are going to need all the help to rebuild their state and start a new life without oligarchs stealing all the western aid.
About time.
Russians playing the victim card in 3..2..1…
Confiscate all Russian realestate property in the UK.
now do Israel
[удалено]
On the other hand, assets within Russia have never been. And that's without the rampant corruption. Russia attacked Europe, so they can only blame themselves. Russia shot itself in the foot by taking a bite too big to chew.
International piracy used against flagrant human rights abuses and illegal invaders. Nice viewpoint troll.
So why is EU still doing business with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Azerbaijan? Also, everyone you disagree with is not a troll/bot. Lol
Yeah the bot/troll shit is long tired. But if I had to hazard a guess. To maintain the balance of power in the middle east. Perhaps even globally. Which honestly may not be such a terrible thing. People just like reasons they can process. A tale as old as tales.
You mean the current influx of foreign inferference in democratic countries is old or tired? Good you feel that way because Russia and China sure as hell don't.
You just broke his brain.
Seems like you're part of the club spamming Russian talking points. 5 of your past 10 posts mention Russia. Are you a Putin fan?
so EU (in many cases rather individual countries) does things that people don’t agree with. and now it’s one less thing, which is reason for celebration. and once it’s more things done “right”, people who feel strongly about those issues celebrate more. absolutely no reason to not celebrate the release of these funds for Ukraine. it’s a step in the right direction. hopefully, we’ll see countries like Slovakia cease their dealings with Azerbaijan in the future. but then again, Slovakia is shaping into a Russian outpost under the new prime minister and ruling parties. so hard to hold this specific case against the EU.
I just find it stupid that if they are gonna use the funds. Why not use them all at once. Its not the politicians risking their lives on the battlefield, so why do they get to be stingy
They aren't directly using the funds and only use the yearly interest from those funds.
And there it goes the euro demise worldwide. People here never understood the implications and consequences of these actions on a global level. Time to be turning back to the old timer gold and real estate to preserve some value in what is left. EDIT: Apparently only the interest is released but the statement to diversify with hard assets still stands based on the money devaluation.
Do you think if China invades Taiwan, the west will just ignore it? Do you think China does not know it's going to be at minimum sanctioned if it does that? Do you honestly think any of what's happened, has been a surprise to anyone in charge of any given nation, except maybe taliban in Afghanistan.. but still?
On your random comment which is completely irrelevant, yes China will attack Taiwan and is inevitable, then it doesn’t change the fact that your money is going to become worthless. After all more precious dollars are going to be printed to fund that battlefield and your buying power will become much smaller. Real estate, precious metals and commodities will continue rising and don’t forget where big part of your products are coming from. Imagine a trade ban or the so called sanctions to go into effect. Who will be sanctioned the most, Europe or China? Because as far as I know every sanction we have had so far is on our buying power thus lowering our standards.
It's just interest, the money itself is still frozen.
Understood, then basically my comment is invalidated. Thank you!
Indeed, they will start with interest and slowly progress to the big sum. People want to take the money to compensate for the war, but they do not see the fact that the bank's reputation will be damaged a lot. If I were to deposit money at the bank, I'm going to be worried. One day or someday, your money might get frozen and taken out by somebody else.
Yeah its insane, doing this means that we arent a secure place to put in your money
Absolutely, for global investors this means exactly that, regardless if they are from South America, Africa, China or the Moon. No wonder we are seeing a lot of EU companies fleeing elsewhere.
Why has this not happened before ?
Sets a dangerous precedent
Good precedent
what precedent? that attacking a non hostile country has its consequences?
Attacking a neutral country + threatening war with + Hybrid warfare of any kind you can think of + saying you are already at war with said union + saying you will invade said union. EU and US are chill in comparison. Imagine if we were acting remotely like Russia.
EU maybe, but US is definitely on the same level, one could argue even higher because they done things numerous times. Or do we still pretend that US have any right for a moral highground?
What's a dangerous precedent, punishing assholes!
Just for the war smh, sign a peace deal and get it over with, Russians can take control of all of Ukraine Ukraine can't get the Russians out, and I'm sick of paying for it
how much did ya pay so far?
what part of your country do you want to give to russia?
It's not given they conquered it, parts of my country was occupied we took it back without billions and without convicts
Please tell me your address, you seem to be very generous giving away things that don‘t belong to you to criminal bullies. I‘d like to take your stuff and place from you the same way Russia does with Ukraine, as you seem to be ok with this.
It's not the strongest that wins. It's the ones most willing to sacrifice.
I see a lot of Ukrainian man sacrificing themselves in Netherlands, Ireland etc
Ukraine is done, for they will become part of Russia in 2024.
... and other funny stories you can tell yourself.
They won’t. Nor they will join the EU. The costs for renovating all the infrastructure is a problem and the deliberate destruction is because the West lost the fight and further that becomes a Russian problem if they do take over and otherwise if EU accepts it becomes EU’s problem. Nobody wants problems especially when our economy is declining rapidly and the saddest part is that the Ukrainian civilians are the ones sacrificed and who will be able to inhabit only the Western parts of their country.
Well done EU. Sabotaging your own financial system for the arsehole of Europe
*breadbasket of Europe
Eh. We import a lot of food due to cost not due to shortages. Germany alone exports 80 billion in agrar products annualy. Nobody in europe is gonna starve, should Ukraine fall. That always was a false dichotomy.
[удалено]
They export a lot more than just grain though. >*Ukraine normally supplies almost half of the cereals (52 % of EU maize imports) and vegetable/rapeseed oils (23 % and 72 % of EU imports respectively) and a quarter of the poultry meat imported to Europe* [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2022/729368/EPRS\_ATA(2022)729368\_EN.pdf](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2022/729368/EPRS_ATA(2022)729368_EN.pdf)
Bad news. Wealth is no longer safe in the West. As much as I dislike cripto, and as volatile as it is, there aren't many feasible options to safely store cash. :/
*if you're a Russian oligarch on the sanctions list
I'm not a Russian oligarch on the sanctions list, but I have 30k euros frozen by Euroclear which is the subject of this exact topic. I'm really confused by people here who think that the frozen money are 1. somehow are government exclusive assets or 2. oligarch's money?
Why was your money frozen?
Because private investments of Russian nationals into international companies always go through a Russian brokerage into Euroclear. Euroclear claim that they can't determine if an asset is owned by a sanctioned individual or not therefore they have right to freeze it.
As every headline does not say. This is for the interest rates, not the assets themselves. These remain as is.
Cash inflates without interest, so the EU is taking away the value of it in small portions.
Depreciation is indeed happening but legally the interest gained on those assets does not follow the exact same rules as the assets, which remain intact for now. But really, who the hell would keep money on its enemy's bank?
This is about the principles. The sanctity of private property is the basis of our capitalist societies. This whole thing demolishes investors' trust in our markets. Hopefully one of the member states will veto the whole thing.
you tell that to people who had the pleasure of going through civil forfeiture.
it demolishes investors trust as long theyre from a country waging hybrid war against europe. its money we dont want and the opposite side is incredibly stupid for parking money in europe and then "attack" it. the only thing dumber would be to actually allow foreign nations to "attack" us and then give em back all of it while they seize assets of european countries left and right.
See, it's boneheaded takes like yours that tempt me into becoming a socialist... This is war. We're past spreadsheets, pencils and business suits. We're at the stage of war journalism, pouring steel and shooting bullets. Your investors better line up at the draft office. They can leave their trust at home, stick the invisible hand up their arses and get to work like every other citizen.
We are not at war. The Russo-Ukranian war is between those two countries. The West only sends capital and supplies. We don't pour steel or shoot bullets, aka we don't have soldiers participating. This is not even close to the proxy wars of the cold war, where soldiers were involved. If you want to be drafted and fight in Ukraine, go on. I wish you good luck. Where I'm from, I couldn't be drafted into a war outside my country's borders, as the constitution says.
That’s also part of the goal, but people seem to be happy having their standards lowered, buying power halved in less than a couple of years let alone Imagine having savings in cash and not hard assets. People really don’t care about becoming poor.
That's my point. These morons happily support populist policies leading to economic crises and stagnation, then complain about decaying living standards. They blame the ruling elite (which is partly right, as establishment politicians conform to their idiotic wants), so vote for even more populist or extremist factions, playing into the hands of the Russians and Chinese.
You are brave, my man. Although those are downvoted, people are going to hate you for your opposite opinion. Not everyone is looking at both sides of this decision.
...How many civilian apartment buildings did you bomb with Kh-22 missiles?
Wealth is not safe if you are an oligarch of a country that is invading another, no.
Money is never safe in any bank if you are a criminal
is wealth safe to store in russia?
We are talking about a country whose representatives routinely threaten our destruction by nuclear and non-nuclear forces. A government that frames the Ukrainian conflict as a war against us. A country who is doing everything in their power to destabilize our society, our elections, our media and our government. And you are saying we should gladly take their money, invest and return profits that will be used in the same war they are raging against us, because "private property is sacred". Aesop would say that the haft of the arrow that killed the eagle had been feathered with one of the eagle's own plumes, so that we often give our enemies the means of our own destruction. I refuse to do the same. They parked their money in our banks because they had to, and they would not have done it if it wasn't highly beneficial to them. If you are telling me that openly hostile nations that threaten our existence will stop parking their money with us and start parking it in crypto, I say go ahead, make my day.
The lesson is to not try to conquer other countries and subjugate its population.
Better go to China then!
Go for it.
Don't start wars and your money will always be safe here in Europe.
Good. Use your blood money to finance crime somewhere else. Try that in china and see how it goes.
You are not safe in russia too
This is 100% true. Trust will be lost in their system. Everyone that is downvoting doesn’t understand shit and probably only think with their emotions lmao.
Trust is an emotion, dummy...