As Russia’s war against Ukraine continues to wreak havoc regionally and globally, the Ukrainian people and their allies are showing remarkable resolve and courage. But nearly two years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, it is increasingly clear that the international community can and must do more to help.
G7 countries and governments around the world have been very generous in supporting Ukraine’s war effort, but there are signs of growing fatigue in some quarters, a development that appears to have been anticipated by Russia. The idea of Western countries seizing frozen Russian assets has resurfaced as a possible solution after the United States and European Union failed to commit to more than $100 billion in aid to Ukraine in December.
Seizing these assets would boost Ukraine’s morale and finances, but policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic are cautious.as the new york times It was recently reported that U.S. government officials fear that setting such a precedent could deter other countries from depositing their funds at the New York Fed or holding them in dollars. Are concerned.
But concerns that other governments will be wary of keeping funds in the United States for fear of future seizures miss several important points. Seizing Russia’s frozen assets would not change the incentives of a government that does not affect the assets of other countries or is not planning a major war. Moreover, by not seizing these funds, Western countries could potentially violate international law by governments waging brutal wars of aggression, while at the same time allowing governments to profit from international law in order to escape the consequences of their actions. This indicates that there is a possibility of obtaining it. Instead, G7 leaders need to send a clear message. No country can have both positions. By deterring other bad actors from violating international law, such seizures could serve as a peacebuilding tool.
10 books to help you better understand wartime Ukraine
Ukrainian writers should have devoted their lives to honing their art. Rather, many of them are actively working to contribute to the war effort and counter Russian aggression. Like other members of society, Ukrainian writers have lost loved ones and colleagues to Russian attacks.
The negative impact that the seizure of Russian assets would have on other countries’ willingness to deposit funds into the United States and Europe would have been evident by the time those funds were frozen in early 2022, if true. In particular, there has been no capital flight from the United States. Or Europe. Part of the reason is that there are few safe alternatives to established financial systems. Assuming that governments become wary of storing assets in the US, Europe, or Japan, where else will they store them? Even if we set aside concerns such as capital controls, for example China’s Would it be safer to hold funds in institutions?
Additionally, if other potentially “rogue” countries decide not to keep their deposits in the United States, European and Japanese institutions may benefit, but the financial impact would be negligible. In fact, many economists argue that such capital inflows are a cost, not a benefit. The argument is that it would lead to a stronger currency, making it harder to export goods and compete with imports, thereby destroying jobs.
To be sure, some financiers may face losses. However, most of the money held in the United States is just reserves held at the Federal Reserve and does not directly benefit Wall Street. The same applies to Euroclear, the Belgian financial institution that holds most of the Russian assets.
Another related argument against asset seizure is that it can only be carried out once, since no country would leave reserves or other assets in the US or the EU if carried out only once. is. But even if that were true, this argument is not convincing. A tool you can’t use is essentially worthless, and there’s never been a better time to use it than now.
Ultimately, Russia must take responsibility. Russia cannot fully compensate Ukraine for the devastation it caused, but it should at least pay for the physical damage and cover the costs of reconstruction. When an individual commits a tort (an act that causes damage to another person), he or she has an obligation to compensate. In many cases, an individual’s assets are seized to ensure that the individual meets this obligation. The same principle applies to countries. While asset seizures are often complex endeavors, Russia’s case may be an exception, given that the assets being seized are already frozen.
Book excerpt reveals details of Zelenskiy’s daily life in the bunker during the first weeks of the invasion
Zelenskiy and his team reportedly live in a bunker beneath the presidential palace with little sunlight and “little to eat” other than sweets, canned meat and stale bread. It is said that “I survived for days on chocolate,” one pastor told Shuster.
Legal experts believe that a better approach would be to provide loans to Kiev and use frozen assets as collateral, since Russia would be forced to choose between directly compensating Ukraine or confiscating these funds. You might argue that it is. However, such specialized matters are best left to a lawyer.The reality is that Ukraine needs money now, Money is under the control of the West, And it would be unconscionable not to use it to help Ukraine win this war and rebuild. It is unreasonable to expect European, American, and Asian taxpayers and donors to foot the bill for rebuilding Ukraine when Russia itself could make a significant (albeit involuntary) contribution. be.
However, the specific use of the confiscated funds is a secondary concern. Although 90% of U.S. security assistance allocated to Ukraine will be spent in the U.S., seized Russian assets could be used to support Ukrainian forces on the ground and finance large-scale reconstruction efforts. There is sex.
Of course, seizing Russia’s frozen assets does not absolve the West of its responsibility to provide military aid to Ukraine. There is no rebuilding without victory. Nevertheless, the fact that rebuilding Ukraine could ultimately cost $1 trillion, more than three times the value of the assets, still makes some people reluctant to use the value of their assets to finance the reconstruction. It may relieve the.
Of course, no amount of money can undo the enormous damage that Russia’s war of aggression has caused to Ukraine’s economy and people. But the frozen Russian assets could also be seen as a down payment on the reparations the Kremlin would eventually have to pay.
Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in the editorial section are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Kyiv Independent.
