By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On Tuesday, December 16th, thirty-five countries convened in the Netherlands to sign a convention, creating the International Claims Commission for Ukraine. This commission, operating under the Council of Europe, will address damages caused by Russia’s invasion, building upon the foundation laid by the Register of Damage established in 2023. The Commission will assess and process claims alongside the Register of Damage. The final stage of this mechanism is the development of a compensation fund, largely funded by frozen Russian assets, to provide financial relief for those impacted by the conflict.
Read the original article here
‘Historic Step’ – 35 States Back New Claims Body to Make Russia Pay for War Damage is a monumental declaration, signaling a strong commitment from the international community. This initiative, backed by 35 nations, isn’t just symbolic; it’s a firm stance in support of international law, the principles of sovereignty, and the need for accountability. The core message is clear: Russia will be held responsible for the devastation caused by its actions in Ukraine. This move emphasizes a unified front against aggression and reaffirms the importance of a rules-based global order, essential for achieving lasting peace and stability.
The mechanics of this ambitious plan are multi-faceted, with the creation of a dedicated compensation fund forming the crucial third stage. The aim of this fund is to facilitate the payment of reparations for the damage inflicted during the war. However, it’s worth noting that the details surrounding the funding sources are still under discussion. The current expectation is that a significant portion of the money will come from the frozen Russian assets, or the interest generated from these assets, which are held by various nations.
The ambition here is enormous, especially when dealing with a nuclear power. The challenge lies not just in sending an invoice, but in the intricate and complex process of actually collecting the debt from a state like Russia. There’s a pragmatic understanding that the success of this entire endeavor hinges on Ukraine’s ability to prevail in the ongoing conflict. This is highlighted by reports that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has expressed intentions to utilize the funds to offset the recent funding shortfalls, diverting from the earlier goal of reconstruction to meet the immediate needs of the war effort.
Many are understandably skeptical. The historical precedent often dictates that war damages are typically only paid by the losing side. This is why the initiative faces skepticism about its ability to deliver the stated goals. The fact that there isn’t yet any firm consensus on how to use Russian assets adds a layer of uncertainty and fuels the pessimism. The scale of the challenge is massive, considering that a significant portion of the Russian state budget is allocated to military spending, potentially hampering their ability to meet financial obligations.
A key point of discussion centers on the potential use of tariffs and taxes. One suggested approach involves applying tariffs to Russian imports and export taxes to Russia. The revenue generated would then be earmarked for Ukrainian reconstruction. This approach would be indirect, potentially making Russia pay reparations by influencing its trade relationships with the West. The intention here is to incentivize compliance by making trade with the West contingent upon fulfilling reparation obligations.
However, the application of such measures introduces its own complexities. For example, tariffs are typically taxes borne by the importer, which, in this scenario, would primarily be the European people rather than Russia. The debate about the actual effectiveness of these strategies is ongoing, particularly given the historical complexities surrounding international trade and finance.
There’s an undeniable feeling that this has all been discussed for quite some time, without significant action. The slow pace of progress understandably breeds frustration and impatience. The political realities are complex, and the execution of this plan will require delicate navigation of competing interests and legal hurdles.
The sheer scale of Russia’s economic and military capabilities presents a formidable obstacle. Despite the economic strain, Russia’s budget allocations demonstrate its continued commitment to its military. This raises questions about the long-term impact on the Russian people, who are likely to face decades of economic hardship as a direct result of this conflict. While the aim is to ensure accountability and achieve justice, the path ahead remains exceptionally challenging and will require consistent international solidarity.