Confiscation is difficult, but Western publics may find it hard to accept an open-ended call on their cash while Russian money lies dormant
28 December 2023 •
Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, some £60 billion has been committed in aid and military equipment to the defenders. Western leaders have assured Kyiv that it will be supported for however long it takes to push back the aggressor. Yet almost two years into the war, that resolve seems to be weakening, colliding with domestic political realities and the pull of the Middle East conflict on resources, especially American.
A long-running dispute over the budget in Washington has led to an effective Republican veto over further help for Ukraine. The White House has just released further US military aid from Pentagon stocks worth some £200 million. But without the fresh approval of Congress, that is the final tranche from the Americans, while aid from Europe is slowing. A £40 billion EU package was blocked by Hungary earlier this month.
This comes at a time when Ukraine has a record deficit and is running out of equipment while Russia rearms ahead of launching an expected counter-offensive in the spring.
There is an obvious alternative source of funds – the $300 billion of Russian assets frozen when the invasion started. Confiscating these, which include central bank funds, would be a huge step to take and has so far been resisted by democratic leaders.
It risks playing into Russia’s – and China’s – hands by giving the impression that the international financial system is based not on the rule of law, but on the whim of Western governments. Moreover, under international law, such a move needs a vote in the UN Security Council, a judgment by the International Court of Justice, or a post-war settlement. Each of those would require Russia’s agreement and Moscow would retaliate by confiscating any foreign assets.
President Biden has, however, proposed establishing three working groups to see if a way through can be found. They would examine the legal issues; the method of applying such a policy and mitigating the risks; and how to best channel the support to Ukraine, culminating in a G7 summit in February to mark the second anniversary of the invasion.
If the West is no longer prepared to bankroll Ukraine’s defence, what is the alternative beyond managing its inevitable defeat? Confiscation is fraught with difficulty but Western taxpayers may find it increasingly hard to accept an open-ended call on their cash while so much of the aggressor’s money lies dormant.
Selected comments from DT readers:
Patrick Ibbertson:
“Would it be worth the UK exploring the idea of an Ukraine victory bond to raise the money internationally to fund the defensive war effort? The City has the expertise and credibility, and the UK government along with other Western countries could promote the fund and sweeten the pie to make it attractive to potential bondholders.
Investors, governments and individuals rather than taxpayers could show their solidarity and at least co-finance the effort required. Ukraine might offer a privileged opportunity to large scale investors in future reconstruction and development projects. Perhaps this idea is not practical, but we need to do something to avoid the catastrophic impact of a western failure of nerve.”
Looney Tunes:
“Simple answer , spend ALL Western withheld Russian assets/money in order to aid the Ukrainian war effort, it’s as simple as that. Forget the legal aspects as that went out of the window as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine.”
John Reeves:
“Take all the Russian state assets, plus those of the ‘oligarchs’.
Spend it all on war materials for Ukraine
The Russians will moan and the oligarchs will ‘scream like stuck pigs’.
But who will be listening …. or give a S /t.”
Percy Blakeney:
“Why are we even having this discussion? Or perhaps the DT is hard up for articles! Russia is now on the back foot and Ukraine out thinks and out performs the feeble Russian forces for 99% of the time. 2024 will see the former ‘superpower’ turn and run; as it did in Afghanistan.”
Sincero Renato:
“Why should the British people, already weighed down by the cost of living crisis fund this conflict in East Europe?”
Reply to this piece of slime came from :
Patrick Ibbertson:
Reply to Sincero Renato
“The same reason that commonwealth and empire forces, the United States and other allied nations contributed a massive and far greater sacrifice to save the United Kingdom and liberate Western Europe from authoritarian Nazi fascism just 80 years ago, within actual living memory. For many years, while enjoying unprecedented prosperity, the UK and other allies have underspent on military forces and depended on the US to fund our security. Now it’s time to step up.”
A filthy, scum-sucking kremtroll; calling itself Mr S Redfern writes :
“In this Editorial in para. 5 you set out why what you would like to happen, deploying frozen Russian assets, is fraught and subject to international law. But that Biden is looking to find a way around it.
This is entering even deeper into the destabilising vortex that Ukraine is becoming: if the West is now to be a circumventer of international law, no matter how cleverly or ‘lawyerly’ contrived, it can no longer maintain that it is in Ukraine nor indeed anywhere else in the world upholding it.
This path, should it be taken, will make no difference to the outcome of the war in Ukraine, which is lost, and will merely hasten the West’s weakening grip on the international levers of power.
America, The West, the DT among others as a mouthpiece and Zelensky have made blunder after blunder and are in danger of bringing the whole house down.”
This troll vermin is almost certainly from Trump’s UK bagman Nigel Farage’s party; Reform UK, which is currently polling at 10%.
Talking about money and the legalities of confiscation when such a massive and illegal war is being waged is about the stupidest thing anyone can do. They will see it this way at the very latest on the day when their own sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers must be sent to the trenches. Hindsight is always a bitch.
What do you call a situation in which one side – mafia land – has, is, and will break every law and international rule there is, killing, murdering, maiming, destroying, and committing every war crime there is, yet the other side – the collective West – argues about paragraphs?
Commenters Looney Tunes and John Reeves have it right.
Also, Patrick Ibbertson’s suggestion is not without merit. Indeed, I could see investors going for it big time, given the enormous mineral wealth that lies underneath Ukraine’s soil and ocean bed. There is an abundance of gas, shale gas, oil, white hydrogen and of course Ukraine’s famously rich black soil, just to mention a few things. Plus Ukraine is a rising power in the field of IT and of course arms manufacturing.
The rat nazi simply CANNOT be allowed to thieve even one centimetre of this land.
And, in contrast to those two and others, Mr S Redfern writes a bunch of nonsensible gobbledygook. This mafia advocate is clearly desperate to help defend the criminal nation to hang on to its filthy money.