By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has announced that European countries are nearing a decision regarding the transfer of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. He indicated that once this decision is made, it will be irreversible regardless of future political shifts. Zelenskyy emphasized that this financial support from Western partners is critical to pressuring Russia and sends a message that Ukraine will not be financially exhausted. Although the European Council removed a direct reference to using frozen assets in its recent conclusions, the EU maintains the issue remains under consideration, with a final decision expected by December 2025.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy: Europe close to a decision on transferring frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. This situation has been a hot topic for quite some time now, hasn’t it? It feels like we’ve been hearing whispers and rumblings about this for ages. And now, the talk is that a decision might be imminent, which, frankly, brings a whole lot of complex questions to the forefront. It’s a complicated matter, to be sure.
The core of the issue, as I understand it, isn’t about giving away the frozen assets themselves immediately. The initial plan seems to be more about providing Ukraine with the accrued interest that has accumulated on those frozen assets. However, even this simple approach opens up a Pandora’s Box of legal and ethical considerations. Some argue that this sets a dangerous precedent. The concern is that seizing funds, even those belonging to a nation like Russia, could erode trust in the international financial system and open the door to all sorts of future problems. Who, after all, would want to park their money somewhere if they feared it could be taken away based on political circumstances? It’s a valid point, and the potential for long-term damage is definitely something to think about.
However, there’s another side to this story, a side that points out that the situation has evolved. We’re not just talking about ordinary circumstances here. This is a response to a country that has, according to some, behaved in an egregious manner, ignoring international law and invading a neighboring country. In such cases, there is an argument to be made that actions have consequences. If a country chooses to behave like an “uncivilized barbarian,” as some have put it, then maybe, just maybe, they shouldn’t expect the same protections as everyone else.
The idea of expropriation isn’t entirely new. It’s legally permissible, provided certain conditions are met, such as acting in the interests of national security and following the law. It’s important to note, the European Court of Human Rights allows this in specific circumstances. The message is clear: your funds are safe as long as you’re not planning to invade your neighbors. This approach is intended to signal that land-grabbing through unprovoked invasions is not acceptable in this day and age.
Then there’s the question of potential repercussions. Some worry that such a move would damage relationships with other countries, potentially even future ones. But is that really true? Surely, the potential damage would be limited to dictatorial regimes or those that are actively engaged in acts of war and illegal territorial expansion. What it does is send a clear signal: your money is not safe if you’re violating international norms. If someone damages what you own, do you still owe them their money back? It’s a very simple concept.
Interestingly, this whole debate is playing out against the backdrop of other financial instruments that are available. In addition to releasing the money, there’s the idea of issuing Eurobonds. That’s another avenue, but it is also highly controversial within European governments. Thus, it seems to be more likely that the transfer of interest will eventually happen. This implies it might not be a quick process. We are not talking about a matter to be settled in a few days, but certainly not one that should drag on for three years either.
There are also points about the importance of considering the context, it’s not simply a matter of freezing assets for the sake of it. The key question is this: who decides what sets the precedent? The EU, for example, isn’t freezing the assets of all countries, despite the fact that some have also been involved in aggressive actions.
The bottom line is that while it’s understandable why some might be wary of setting a precedent, there is also a good case to be made for action. This is the argument that a country that starts a war should face consequences. It’s a balancing act, and it’s far from simple. It’s safe to say that even freezing the assets, without further action, does have an impact.