By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The use of Russia’s frozen assets to aid Ukraine has become a contentious issue for Ukraine’s allies, with Belgium particularly hesitant due to concerns about financial liability and Russian retaliation. The EU proposed using the assets to facilitate a loan for Ukraine, but Belgium’s hesitations have stalled progress. A new proposal by a former U.S. administration, seeking to profit from the assets held in Europe, could further complicate the situation and pressure the EU to unfreeze the assets, potentially leaving European taxpayers to cover the loan repayment to Russia. The proposal includes a U.S. investment in Ukraine’s reconstruction with the U.S. receiving 50% of the profits.
Read the original article here
‘Witkoff needs a psychiatrist’: Europeans fume at Trump’s plan to profit from frozen Russian assets. The core of this whole thing is just infuriating, isn’t it? It seems like this proposal, the one involving frozen Russian assets, has just ignited a firestorm of outrage, especially across Europe. The idea, as it’s been painted, is that a Trump administration would essentially broker a deal with Russia, aiming to return a portion of the frozen assets in exchange for, well, let’s say a “favorable” resolution.
It’s a plan that’s being described as nothing short of absurd. The sentiment is that the world has gone mad and that this is a participation trophy for a situation that demands so much more. The perception is that the US, under Trump’s leadership, would be angling for a cut of the deal, with the remainder potentially going straight back to Russia. It’s perceived as blatant corruption, a double-dealing scheme that would benefit Trump’s cronies, possibly including a real estate developer named Witkoff, who apparently has no relevant experience. The general consensus appears to be that Witkoff, given his lack of experience, was only picked because of his personal connection to Trump.
The feeling is that this whole scheme is nothing more than extortion, pure and simple, targeting both Europe and the war-torn Ukraine. Some are wondering what the point is beyond a flimsy excuse for a complete betrayal of Ukraine. The underlying thought is that no one in Ukraine or Europe would accept such a plan unless they were, shall we say, aligned with the Kremlin. There’s a palpable frustration, too, with the perceived lack of backbone from European nations and a plea for them to stand up for themselves. This entire plan appears to be seen as one designed for failure, with the intention to betray Ukraine entirely.
There is a sentiment that Europe is too reliant on the US and may struggle to take action to defend itself as a result of that over reliance. There is a sense of betrayal that America is now turning its back on its allies. The frustration extends to the American people, too, with a sense that many are either indifferent or, worse, supportive of a plan that would benefit Russia at the expense of Ukraine. The plan is even described as an open betrayal and capitulation to tyranny. There’s a lot of anger directed at Trump. He’s seen as a threat to American values, a person who wants to replicate the Russian oligarchy in the US, and a master manipulator.
What is happening is that American voters are viewed as not paying attention to foreign policy and that the American leadership is prioritizing short-term profit over long-term alliances. Many Americans can’t find Ukraine on a map. This administration seems to be running on ill will, greed, and delusion. Many Americans aren’t aware of this problem.
There’s the question of protests and whether the American people will actually show up to show disapproval of this plan. It’s implied there hasn’t been enough action against this particular issue and a call to protest against it. Many people are worried that the majority of American voters are apathetic and that the US has been moving towards isolation and division.