By Matt Underwood Zelenskiy tells Europe: Use frozen assets to end Russia’s appetite for war. Here’s the core of it: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is calling on European leaders to take a bold step: use the frozen assets of the Russian state to financially back Ukraine. He’s essentially saying, “Use that money – nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars – to show Moscow that continuing this war into next year is a losing strategy.” He believes it will underscore the unwavering support Ukraine has from its partners, sending a strong message of deterrence.
However, some European leaders are hesitant. They’re wary of the potential legal pitfalls. Even though the EU has decided to keep these assets frozen indefinitely, the idea of *using* them is causing some serious deliberation. It’s a complicated situation, and the legal ramifications are definitely at the forefront of their concerns.
Adding to the urgency of Zelenskiy’s call, he’s also challenging the narrative that Russia is looking for an off-ramp. He points to their actions and military orders as evidence that Russia intends to keep fighting. This directly contradicts any notion of peace talks or de-escalation that Moscow might be putting forward. So, Zelenskiy’s message is clear: the time to act is now, and the stakes are high.
It’s understandable why this is a sensitive issue, especially the legal concerns. The idea of seizing assets, even those belonging to a state acting aggressively, raises complex questions about international law and financial systems. It’s a precedent-setting move, and every country has to consider the potential repercussions, the “what ifs,” and how it could impact them. Could this open the door for other countries to seize assets in the future? Could it destabilize the global financial system? These are all legitimate anxieties.
The counterargument is that doing nothing is also a risk. Russia’s aggression and its continued war on Ukraine pose a threat to international stability and human lives. Proponents would argue that the EU has ample justification to do this given Russia’s threats to nuke and invade EU countries. Given the evidence of Russia’s actions, they would argue that retaliation is not only justified, but potentially essential to prevent the situation from becoming worse.
And then there’s the question of alternatives. What else could the EU do? Some argue that continuing to buy Russian gas indirectly supports the war effort, effectively funding Russia’s aggression. The alternative of giving Ukraine a stake in the banks, where the funds are held, is not seen as the best solution, since it’s just a legal maneuver.
The reality, as always, is far more complex. The discussions about using frozen assets are not, or at least shouldn’t be, thoughtless. They involve many meetings and discussions over several months by dozens of countries, their diplomatic, defense, and finance departments, on the merits and ramifications of this course of action. It’s a careful balancing act, trying to weigh the potential benefits against the risks, considering the long-term impact on international relations, and trying to find the most effective way to support Ukraine and deter further aggression. The stakes are immense, and the decisions being made now will shape the future of Europe and beyond.