President Trump’s rancorous threat to abandon Ukraine is stoking support for a long-debated proposal to use billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets to buy weapons for Ukraine and finance its reconstruction.

The money — roughly $300 billion owned by Russia’s central bank — was frozen by the United States, the European Union, Britain and others after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. The aim was to punish President Vladimir V. Putin for his unprovoked attack and to cut off funds he could use to wage war.

As the war grinds on into its fourth year, a growing number of officials in Europe and elsewhere have been calling for the money to be released to directly compensate Ukraine.

MBFC
Archive

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 hours ago

    If the assets remain frozen then they can be used as bargaining chips.

    A partial transfer could be useful, but a full transfer of assets to Ukraine would be counterproductive.

    • meliante@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Bargaining chips for what? Negotiating peace? A truce? A cease fire? There’s been ample time to do that and here we are.

      • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I think their point is that at some point there will have to be some form of peace negotiations

        If you get less value from using the money for weapons than for using it as leverage in negotiations, then it’s a bad trade-off

        • meliante@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Ah yes, because negotiations for peace with Russia worked so well for Ukraine before…

          And now the USA are tagging in so they can also get the spoils.

          • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here, are you arguing that we should aim to keep the war going indefinitely? Because the only way a war ends without a negotiated settlement is with the total dissolution of one of the sides in the war. I don’t see Ukraine fully annexing Russia any time soon, frankly.

            The war does need to end sometime, even if that time isn’t now, and creating a peace treaty that’s self-enforcing is the only way that works. If using that money as leverage (e.g. the funds are gradually unlocked as the treaty phases progress) makes a lasting peace viable that otherwise wouldn’t be, then it’s an option worth considering.

        • Ixoid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          What if there is great value in repelling foreign invaders from your country? Ukraine needs all the funds, especially after a certain shithole country has withdrawn financial aid.

          • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I’m not saying it’s necessarily the wrong choice to give the money to Ukraine, just pointing out that there is a tradeoff to be made.