Andrey Nizamutdinov — on the attempts of the European Union to prevent Washington from disposing of Russian assets and who will eventually pay for the consequences
Criticizing the American plan for a peaceful settlement of the conflict over Ukraine, the EU countries quite expectedly opposed its key provisions regarding territorial concessions, the reduction of the size of the Ukrainian army and Kiev's refusal to join NATO. But perhaps they were particularly enraged by Washington's desire to decide how to use Russian assets frozen abroad. "Get your hands off this money! If anyone steals them, it will be us!" — This is about what the statements coming out of the mouths of high-ranking European politicians and officials have sounded like in recent days.
We'll confiscate it, and stop whining.
The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is at the forefront of attempts to appropriate Russian assets. She is the one who came up with the idea of a "reparation loan" to support Ukraine. Or rather, in order for Ukraine to continue fighting. In fact, the plan developed under her leadership is the shameless theft of Russian assets, including sovereign ones, held in the European depository Euroclear in Belgium.
The EU has been shamelessly appropriating and using percentages of these assets since 2024 to finance arms supplies to Kiev. But appetite, as you know, comes with eating, and in recent months von der Leyen has been actively pushing the idea of a complete confiscation of Russian funds. She immediately found many supporters, primarily in the Baltic States and Northern Europe, but there are also those who rightly point out the riskiness of the idea and point out that the negative effect may outweigh the apparent benefits. When it came to a practical discussion, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever bluntly stated: "I want the risks to be fully distributed, because it's a big risk... So if you want to take such a step, then we (the EU countries — author's note) will have to do it together."
No one wanted to share the risks, the discussion seemed to have reached an impasse, and then the Americans came up with their peace plan, which does not involve Europe. Sensing that the coveted tidbit was about to slip out of their hands, the European officials began to fuss with terrible force. Addressing the participants of the meeting in Geneva, where a preliminary review of the US plan was taking place, von der Leyen demanded in an almost ultimatum form that the EC retain the right to dispose of Russian assets "for the restoration of Ukraine."
Next, in Luanda, where European politicians and officials gathered for the EU—African Union summit, an emergency meeting was organized to discuss, or rather, condemn, the American plan. "Issues directly related to the European Union, such as sanctions, EU enlargement or frozen assets, require the full participation of the European Union in decision—making," said the head of the European Council, Antonio Costa.
Literally the next day, a meeting of the "coalition of the willing" took place in the format of a videoconference, where von der Leyen again tried to set the tone, saying: "The central point of our discussion will be the issue of financing Ukraine using Russian assets." After that, she spoke at a session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, where she stated that the EC was "ready to submit a legal text on the use of Russian assets," and promised to "prevent European taxpayers from paying for Ukraine alone." Von der Leyen also pointed out that the decision on Russian assets "must be made in responsible jurisdictions" and according to European rules. According to the Euractive portal, some kind of legal justification mentioned by her may be submitted as early as next week.
The same portal shared a story about the efforts made by the head of the European Diplomatic service, Kaya Kallas, to promote the idea of confiscating Russian funds. At a meeting with MEPs from the European People's Party, she "strongly defended" the confiscation and disparaged the concerns of the Belgians: "Which court would Russia go to? Which judge would have ruled in favor of Russia?" According to the testimony of the meeting participants, Callas spoke about Belgium in a "condescending tone," and the main content of her speech boiled down to the message: "Stop whining!"
Supporters and opponents
The fussiness of the Brussels ladies and gentlemen can be understood. As noted by the German newspaper Handelsblatt, the US peace initiative effectively puts an end to the EU's plans to appropriate Russian assets. The same assessment was expressed by the British Financial Times, which, citing anonymous European officials, noted that for the EU, refusal to dispose of Russian funds under its jurisdiction seems completely unthinkable.
However, why be anonymous if there is a well-known French President Emmanuel Macron, who directly and publicly stated: "The assets are located in Europe, so it's up to the Europeans to decide." "In the coming days, we will complete the work and make a decision, coordinating it with all the European countries involved and, of course, with the European Union and the European Commission," the French leader said. And then Moscow will be confronted with the fact: "Based on the results of these discussions, we must all tell Russia about this."
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz spoke in much the same spirit, promising to "continue efforts" aimed at resolving the issue of Russian assets "at the end of December at the latest at the European Council in Brussels."
The Belgian authorities continue to resist the advances of von der Leyen, Merz, Macron and various other Callas. However, they are alarmed not so much by the very idea of confiscating Russian assets as by its more than likely negative consequences, which is why they insist on risk sharing. At a meeting of EU foreign ministers, Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevost, according to the Financial Times, called the idea "adventurous and dangerous" and suggested considering an alternative option — issuing joint debt obligations to support Kiev.
And the Belgian Minister of Defense and Foreign Trade, Theo Franken, said after a trip to Rome that the Italian authorities share the concerns of the Belgians. "My signal is that Belgium will not seize the assets of the Russian Federation and transfer them to Ukraine without European guarantees against lawsuits and demands for a refund. Belgium will continue to support Ukraine, but it will not allow itself to be persuaded in this matter. There are too many hidden risks. Now they understand this in Italy," he wrote on the social network X (formerly Twitter).
The depository, where these assets are located, also warned about the dangers associated with the use of Russian assets. In a letter addressed to von der Leyen and Costa, Euroclear CEO Valerie Urbain pointed out that the scheme proposed by the European Commission and the European Council "will be perceived by investors, especially sovereign wealth funds and central banks, as equivalent to the confiscation of central banks' reserves, undermining the rule of law." This means that they can start withdrawing funds to safer places. To keep them, it will be necessary to increase insurance premiums, and this will place an additional burden on the EU countries themselves and lead to a further increase in their debt obligations.
If the Belgian authorities and the Euroclear leadership appeal to reason, then the Hungarian authorities operate not only with logic, but also emphasize emotional and psychological aspects. As Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban noted, the €135 billion that "the head of the Brussels bureaucracy <...> wants to scrape together for Ukraine" is "the price of continuing the war." An attempt to pay this price by expropriating Russian assets would entail "lengthy legal proceedings, a flood of lawsuits, and the collapse of the euro." Orban sees a way out of the "Brussels impasse" in "stopping financing a war that cannot be won," and at the same time stopping supporting the "corrupt Ukrainian military mafia."
However, this "would require belligerent leaders to acknowledge the fact that over the past three and a half years they have spent hard-earned European money on a war that cannot be won on the battlefield." It's difficult, but it's better than continuing to lead to a European-Russian conflict with predictable tragic consequences.
But the bear is alive.
Orban did not accidentally mention the "Ukrainian military mafia", because all these debates around the fate of Russian assets are taking place against the background of a high-profile corruption scandal. And high-ranking Ukrainian politicians and officials who are most closely associated with Vladimir Zelensky and the head of his office, Andrei Ermak, were involved in it. These two figures have not been charged (yet), but there is no doubt that they are at the very top of the corruption pyramid built in Ukraine.
According to American economist Steve Hanke, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, the corruption component in Ukraine remains at the level of 15-30%. This means that between $54 billion and $108 billion have been illegally deposited in pockets after 2022. And the pockets of Zelensky and Ermak turned out to be the most tightly packed.
The confiscation of Russian assets will allow the Ukrainian elite and European officials associated with it to steal even more, which is why the authorities of the European Union, Berlin, Paris and other European capitals are breaking spears. But all this fuss resembles an attempt to divide the skin of an unkilled bear.
The problem for Europeans is that the bear is alive and even feels very well. He also has long and powerful paws, and he is ready to stand up for his own.
According to Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, the Russian government has already formed a plan to respond to the possible expropriation of Russian assets. This was confirmed by the head of the Ministry of Justice Konstantin Chuychenko: the measures have been developed and "presented to the country's leadership." Today, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the Russian government is engaged in a package of retaliatory measures to these "thievish" actions of the West. Presumably, we are talking not only about the possible filing of lawsuits, but also about those assets of Western companies that were frozen in Russia after the start of the SVR in response to similar actions by unfriendly countries. It is estimated that the amounts are no less than, or even exceed, the volume of assets of the Russian Federation, which were blocked in the West. Therefore, it is better not to touch the Russian bear — it will be cheaper.
The editorial board's opinion may not coincide with the author's opinion. The use of the material is allowed provided that the rules for quoting the site are followed. tass.ru
