There is well over $200 billion of Russian money in Europe and the UK that could be used to help the Ukraine, but our politicians are reluctant to do that in case countries like China and Saudi Arabia then cease to use European banks. Are they right, or wrong?
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Can we use seized Russian assets to help Ukraine? This is a really important question at present, because the value of Russian assets that have been seized by Western governments now stand at approximately $300 billion.
Let's explain what those assets are. When Putin invaded Ukraine, the Central Bank of Russia held considerable assets in the central banks of Europe, the UK, and to a very limited degree, the USA.
In Europe, the value of those assets is something like $200 billion.
In the UK it's less. It's thought to be around $20 billion.
And it's only around $5 billion in the USA.
The balance of the funds come from Russian oligarchs who've also had their assets in Western Europe or the USA frozen as a consequence of their association with Putin and the war in Ukraine.
Add all that up and there's therefore $300 billion largely sitting in bank accounts, although on occasions representing some other types of asset, like gold or ownership of some properties, but largely cash sitting in bank accounts that is doing nothing right now.
Now, since the time that Putin did invade Ukraine, which is only three years ago, around $50 billion has been earned in various ways on those assets in Europe and other parts of the world. Now Europe, in particular, has decided that that income from those seized assets can be used to help Ukraine. So, loans are now being made to Ukraine to help it fund its war effort with both the interest on those loans plus the repayment of them being effectively made out of the income generated on the seized Russian assets held largely in European central banks in Belgium.
It so happens, I think that's perfectly fine, but the big question is the much bigger one. Are we able to seize the $225 billion or so of assets that belong to the Russian government that are held in Western banks at present, but which could be absolutely fundamental to the cost of rebuilding Ukraine when and if the war in that country ceases, as eventually it must, because that cost of reconstruction is already estimated to be around $400 billion, and these assets could make a substantial contribution towards the cost of that redevelopment when the time comes for them to be used.
Now, the arguments are really quite straightforward with regard to this, except for the ethics that are involved.
The legal argument is that we have decided we can freeze these assets.
We have decided that because of a state of war they have been frozen. They are now under the control of Western governments, and we could decide to maintain that situation, henceforth, and keep these assets and use them for relief in Ukraine that is required because of Russian action and nothing else.
It is legally possible to do that, so let's not beat around the bush. That option does exist, but there are counter arguments, and the counter arguments are much more subtle. They're also much more dangerous. Let's look at what they are.
The argument is that if we've seized the assets that belong to Russia, other states with dubious human rights records, or frankly a record of aggression on occasions, might not wish to bank in Europe or London, or in the USA, but let's leave the USA out of this at present because it's now frankly a state beyond the rule of law. Let's just think about Europe and the UK as a consequence.
Would we wish to prejudice the right of banks in the UK to hold Chinese, Saudi, and other governments assets when we know the governments in question do very clearly have dubious human rights records. That is the question that is being asked.
And, at present, the bankers, and frankly, a great many politicians are saying, we mustn't prejudice the right of the City of London or the European banks to take deposits from anyone just because their money might be tainted by dubious human rights. We should respect the sovereign right of those countries to hold assets wherever they wish.
Is that the right argument? Are we putting, in effect, the right to hold property over the human rights of people who are abused, quite often to create the property that is being protected? That is the real question that is being posed by what we do with these funds.
After all, when it comes to their eventual use with regard to Russia and Ukraine, the question is, do we give them back to Russia who then uses them to oppress whatever part of Ukraine it might by then have kept, because it does seem likely that some territory will become Russia at the end of this conflict, or do we give all the funds to Ukraine so that it might rebuild those parts of its state that have been damaged by Russia and to try to rehabilitate those who have obviously suffered as a consequence of war? Do we prioritize, therefore, property rights over human rights?
I have no doubt which we should do. Of course, I am certain that human rights come first.
I'm certain that human rights also come first with regard to countries like China and Saudi and others as well.
Surely that has to be true. But our politicians aren't sure about that. They're okay about spending the interest earned on this money, but the actual sums that were seized - they seem to be decidedly reticent to use those monies for the benefit of the people of Ukraine or anywhere else, even though if they don't, the cost of that reconstruction might well fall in part upon the British taxpayer in the sense that we will have to forego something to ensure that that reconstruction is possible.
So, I question the judgment of politicians on this issue.
It's time we put people first and property second.
If we were to do that, Russia's money would be available to Ukraine, and in my opinion, that would be the right thing to do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
It is not about human rights.
Russia attacked Ukraine. 1st in 2014 when it seized Donbass & Crimea & then 2022. Both were unwarrented acts of agression. Russia has attempted to extend the war through e.g. the Baltic anchor dragging incident and more recently the attack off the coats of England (Russian captain of the ship that rammed the tanker carrying – mark this – aviation fuel for the US military). Thus Russia is in a state of war with a country that had the temerity to a) vote for independence from the USSR/Russia (by a very wide margin +65% of ALL registered voters in every Ukrainian oblast) b) to assert that independence in 2014 by booting out an oligarch that was president. Furthermore, Ruzzia has not just eradicated Ukrainian towns, it has waged a terror war on the Ukrainian populace – via drones. Ukraine targets military and economic installations with its drones, Ruzzia attacks civilians.
Sitting on top of this is are endless atrocities, Gevena convention violations, the list is very very long. A Ukrainian jounralist was tortured to death not so long ago.
The Euro200bn +Euro20bn should be used by Ukraine to rebuild (& re-arm) – this is so obvious, I’m puzzled why bankers struggle with this…………oh hang on ………I’m not………banksters have no morals & the politicos tend to do what the banksters say.
Would it be right and just to seize these assets? Certainly.
Would it promote peace? At this point, probably not.
Pursuit of peace comes first…. and this will involve grubby compromise.
Yes they should use the frozen assets in that manner.
Imagine, a government taking the side of humans instead of tainted money.
If I was to go back to the Keynes quote on Foreign Trade
Ideas, knowledge, art, hospitality, travel – these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible; and, above all, let finance be primarily national. … For these strong reasons, therefore, I am inclined to the belief that…a greater measure of national self-sufficiency than existed in 1914 may tend to serve the cause of peace, rather than otherwise.
My immediate comment might be why do we allow UK banks to hold more foreign deposits than are reasonably needed by the depositor for their use and allow the purchase of assets within the UK by individuals and organisations from abroad where either the politics of that nation or the source of the funds are suspect.
Clearly if the Lord High Panjandrum of Ruritania had to keep the vast bulk his or her money and assets in Ruritania it might encourage slightly better behaviour.
Good quote
Their argument would likely be that it’s not something that has been normal, and they’re worried about setting a precedent.
I suspect they’re more worried about reciprocation; i.e. if they order the seizure of foreign assets, then potentially, another state could order the seizure of their assets held in that country.
Then don’t do wrong.
And worry about where you keep your assets.
It’s not that hard, is it?
Why is interest paid on frozen assets? Would such interest be paid to the original owner of the assets should they be returned?
Most of the assets belong to the Russian state.
I fail to see the justification for using the interest but not the principal. It seems to be total weasel words. Interest and principal surely ‘belong’ in the same pot.
As for the argument that we would be discouraging future deposits, that could be turned on its head: what is discouraged is breaking international law by invading sovereign territories. And there’s a corollary, withdrawal of deposits from European banking would become an early sign that a war of aggression is planned.
I think it is legitimate to seize assets of oligarchs, companies, or similar if they have supported illegal acts. However, central bank reserve accounts in other central banks are a different matter. You are not clear that what much of this is about is e.g. a deposit of $ at the New York Fed, or GB£ at the Bank of England. Those sort of reserves have nothing to do with commercial banking, the City, or the finance sector. They also have sovereign immunity under international law. I think it would be a very bad idea to break international law and seize those reserves. That never happened in WWI, for example, where they were frozen but returned in 1918. And for example Vickers royalty payments to Krupp on shells made for the UK with German fuses were paid over in 1919 (3 shillings and 6 pence per shell!). The West has been making a habit of this, viz the BoE seizing Venezuelas gold, the USA seizing the reserves of Iran and Afghanistan. Indeed Gordon Brown seized the reserves of Iceland in 2008, but returned them two week’s later after Iceland said they would cut off the supply of cod to Grimsby and the UK fish and chip business would shut down. What that all does is lead the rest of the World to decide the West can’t be trusted and to set out to develop an alternative reserve currency that is not £, € or $. Loss of reserve status will hugely diminish the wealth of the US in particular.
Now, some of the Russian Central Bank money in Europe is, as I understand it, not in Eurozone central bank accounts but in the commercial sector. That is more gray since it does not have sovereign immunity. I still think it a bad idea to seize Russian Central Bank assets. There can, and should be, though, a clear split between official central bank assets and assets of any other entities that happen to be Russian.
Bear in mind all of this sets a precedent and the boot can very easily be on the other foot. For example in the future India or China seizing our assets.
I think we need to be very careful about human rights, moral indignation, etc. That should be done via the UN, ICJ and thus have proper global legitimacy. Too often it is more a case of the US (and the West) does not like them. See the abuse of Cuba, Venezuela, Libya and probably Iran.
What about Israel? There has been a full ICJ ruling that the occupation of the West Bank is illegal. The ICJ also ruled that Israel owed compensation for all seized and damaged West Bank property. Why is this court order not being enforced?
Thanks Tim.
And your last question is very appropriate.
My first questions would be on what basis were these assets defined and cordoned off as being “Russian assets” in the first place. Did they just come from Russia, are held by people or organisations based in Russia? Who and what organisations? Did Western politicians have an interest in ensuring that this figure was as big as possible resulting in assets being frozen that perhaps shouldn’t have been?
Could these assets involve pension funds of ordinary Russians? Middle class assets held abroad because Russia doesn’t exactly have a great track record when it comes to economics or corruption internally. Not all of these people would be supporters of the war. I don’t know, we’re just being presented with a huge figure as if it were just a simple matter of spending it to help Ukraine. Will it really be used to fund reconstruction or will more weapons be bought, a Trump payoff perhaps? How much of it really would be spent in Ukraine to help Ukrainians recover from this dreadful invasion.
DOGE in the US at the moment would be another example of why we should be skeptical of huge figures being thrown about as if they were “all waste” or “government fraud”.
I would be in favour of spending frozen assets if it could be shown that those assets were definitely say those of “Putin himself”, “Putin’s inner circle”, “oligarchs who were Putin supporters” and such like.
There have been reported cases of sanctions being applied to people who did not warrant them so I assume it’s probably the case that the same applies to frozen assets.
These are the assets of the central bank and named oligarchs. That, I gather, is it.
Seizure of assets belonging to a person not convicted for possession of those assets is theft. And seizure of assets belonging to a country that you’re not at war with is…. an act of war. So you want declare war on Russia?
We are at economic war with Russia and supply the means for physical warfare with it. Have you not noticed?
You are advocating war against Russia and are a Quaker. Go well my friend, to that field where poppies will grow
Wow. Death threats. That’s nice
And I was not advocating war. I am advocating reconstruction from war.
But is this “Russia’s money” or “Russians’ money”? How far do we take collective guilt?
These are the assets of the central bank and named oligarchs. That, I gather, is it.
I agree with this post and you know why, based on what I’ve said about Ukraine. But what you’re also suggesting says a lot about the parlous state of Europe too which I’m also deeply concerned about.
If what you say is correct, our politicians are squeamish at seizing the funds of a very rogue state that has acted very aggressively towards a neighbour because the bankers are advising them it will hurt the country’s economies (well, lets be accurate – it will hurt the banks who have been used to white wash this money anyway and make it legit’ and taken fat fees for doing so. And it might also reveal the depth of their involvement as well).
This – as you seem to be suggesting Richard – is a severe test between the Europe/Britain we want to believe in and the Europe/UK we actually have. As Aurelien’s most recent essay highlighted, this is a Europe that is ‘all about money’ as some Russian bloke also said in Belton’s book ‘Putin’s People’ (p.488) and no one here needs to be told that UK is indeed ‘all about money’ for sure.
So, are we going to have a titanic battle between principles based on national sovereignty/human rights and naked personal self interest and see who wins?
Anyone here a betting man/woman/other?
I think naked self interest is going to win because Neo-liberalism has already provided the wanking-bankers and weak politicians with a means of escape – the poor. Europe’s and the UK’s poor or working classes will pay the bill for the war under the ECB and seem to be already doing so under the BoE.
OK – moving on – lets assume that the decision is made to do the right thing – seize Russia’s money and use it against itself and also as post war (we hope) reparations. Now, remembering that history is a ‘living thing’ (my opinion anyway) let’s think about what happened in Germany post WW1 and what that led to?
Has ‘Aurelien’s Europe’ got the political skill to deal with that? This is a Europe that has been politically de-skilled by Neo-liberal ideas and reduced to just thinking badly about money and creating opportunities for markets – not the subtleties of these issues.
So, simply, how will Europe deal with Putin, with Russia, when its all over? If the answer is punitive I don’t think its going to solve anything. You’re going to have this glowering state ready to kick off at any minute in the East, and an unstable, equally untrustworthy fiefdom in the West (Trump’s America – and only God knows how long that will last). As I said its going to take some skill indeed to handle that, other than just making it about money. Europe must go back and review and learn about how it dealt with Russia when the wall came down.
The first thing it has to remember is that Russia DOES NOT LOSE. That is the mindset of the Russia that emerged into the world after 1945. It is not the U.S after Vietnam (France too) or Afghanistan or Britain after the Suez Crisis. Yes – Russia left Afghanistan but only because America kept pumping money into the Mujahedeen even though Gorbachev was trying to get an honourable withdrawal anyway – the Americans like Richard Pearl liked killing commies anyway. Russia lost to the U.S. Government – not Afghanistan.
European – even British international politicians – should never lose sight of this, of how Russia thinks of itself. Imagine a second world war without Russia fighting in the East? That had manpower to offer to go into Japan before the atom bomb was dropped? As I said, it will take some degree of skill to deal with Russia – and yes it will take money too but hopefully not in the form of loans which the Russians have reneged on anyway in the 1990s.
Why must Europe do this? Because it bowed to the Americans and did it their way from 1989. And that was a huge mistake and a lack of backbone. And it it led to what we have now – as John Gray wrote about sagaciously in 1998. So by all means use Russian money against Russia – its just a new form of warfare like drones are. Tough.
But then what? What next? How is Europe going to manage Russian going forward? This time – echoing Aurelien again – will they fail to understand?
I hope not.
Thanks
And apologies for delay in moderating – it has been a long and not very good day
Sorry to hear that Richard and you did tell us there would be delays so it’s fine – thank you for reproducing my post.
No problem.
And we all have days that don’t work.
Russia invaded Ukraine and is still fighting to expropriate more territory. We need to support Ukraine, through provision of defence equipment and humanitarian aid, to resist and defeat this Russian invasion. After the invasion is defeated, we will need to help to rebuild Ukraine. Once Putin and other war criminals have been imprisoned, we will also have to help the Russian people reconstruct their economy back to a peaceful basis. The Russian people are not, by and large, evil even if their leaders are. Failure to rebuild Russia, as well as Ukraine, would set up future conflicts, as happened after the first world war when the victors imposed unsustainable reparations on Germany.
To achieve support and reconstruction, real resources are required. The Russian money is “largely cash sitting in bank accounts that is doing nothing right now”. This could be spent to help Ukraine. The effect would be to inject cash into western economies with the (small) attendant risk of inflation. In this sense it is no different from the government simply creating new money. The point is that, appropriating Russian money will not create the real resources that are needed. Money is the accounting for real resources, it is not the real resources themselves. So Russian money is not needed, and will not help in a real sense, to achieve what needs to be done in Ukraine, and later in Russia.
On the negative side appropriating Russian money, with whom we are not formally at war, would be contrary to international law. If this were necessary to help Ukraine then it might be justified. But since it doesn’t provide real resources, and so doesn’t help in actuality, perhaps it is not such a great idea. I don’t think we should lightly abrogate international law for expediency. One has only to look across the Atlantic to see where that leads.
Support and reconstruction requires real resources. Russian money does not provide real resources. We need to face the fact that “the cost of that reconstruction might well fall in part upon the British taxpayer in the sense that we will have to forego something to ensure that that reconstruction is possible.” Failure to provide these real resources, as the US provided for Germany and Europe after World War 2, will only set us up for future conflicts. On the plus side, providing reconstruction to Ukraine and Russia is likely to push our own economies towards growth and full utilisation as happened after the second world war. It may, in fact, be a benefit to the donor countries as well as to those who we need to support.
On balance, I would not appropriate Russian money now. I would leave it to be returned to the Russian people after Putin and after the war, to help them rebuild.
Why will Putin go after the war?
Do you deny money flows can influence the allocation of real resources?
Why wouldn’t giving Ukraine control of these assets give it the means to reallocate resources in its favour?
If not, why not?
How does money influence resource allocation if not?
I’m sure Putin will not choose to go after the war or any time soon. It will be difficult to trust with him, even if a peace deal can be agreed. I don’t see how we can return or release reserves to the Russian people with a psychopathic war criminal as their leader. But Putin is 72, he won’t be there forever.
Of course money flows influence the allocation of real resources. But appropriating inactive foreign reserves does not create real resources. There are better ways to do this that don’t require us to act illegally.
Yes, giving reserves to Ukraine would help them. But we could do that just as well by creating money. One might argue that is difficult with the current misunderstanding of economics by politicians. But I can’t see it is good to do the wrong thing simply because our politicians don’t understand. We should try to teach them, as you are doing. 🙂
I’m fully behind supporting Ukraine. If the only way to do that was by appropriating Russian money I’d say do it. But it’s not necessary and I prefer a legal way forward.
I wish I could undersdtand how you come to your conclusions, Tim. I keep trying to work it out, and I can’t.
I’m sorry I have failed to explain adequately 🙁
I very much appreciate your patience.
I also very much appreciate the good work you do raising these important issues. Thank you.
I know you are trying Tim.
I guess you also make me think. That’s no bad thing.
So, although you confuse me, keep going.
This just doesn’t make sense.
On the one hand you repeatedly claim that this $300bn is just sat in accounts doing nothing productive (you claim it is not needed by banks and is not relevant for supporting loans), yet at the same time you claim the $300bn has earned $50bn in interest.
Why are banks paying $50bn in interest on deposits that, according to you, they do nothing with and don’t actually need? Why don’t they give their shareholders $50bn in dividends instead? Why aren’t shareholders voting to sack the board and bring in someone who will better look after their interests? Something doesn’t tie up somewhere.
I am describing the world as it is.
Are you saying interest is not paid? Why?
As I understand it International Observers found the 2010 Ukrainian election to be free and fair, subsequently Yanukovych was congratulated by Obama; in 2014 this democratically elected government was illegally and violently overthrown at which point violence ensued in the Eastern, Russian speaking,
areas of Ukraine bordering Russia.
I think we all know what Trump would do if a similar thing happened in, say, Panama or Greenland.
And as has already been said Israel has been in illegal occupation of Gaza and the Occupied Territories for some 57 years and is now charged with plausible genocide. It’s PM is charged with bribery and corruption by his own people and with war crimes by the ICC.
Surely if assets are to be confiscated a semblance of moral consistency needs to be applied otherwise you are heading into Trumpland
I would be sanctioning Israel.
Richard, You wrote “I would be sanctioning Israel.”
And the USA? and the UK? Countries that provide funds and military assistance for ‘genocide’.
Balfour Declaration – 1917
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, *it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*.
I am not sure we can sanction ourselves.
The US is sanctioning itself now.
Mr Keithp “in 2014 this democratically elected government was ………..and violently overthrown at which point violence ensued in the Eastern, Russian speaking areas of Ukraine”
“illegally”.
Yanukovich got elected based on an understanding by the electorate that relations with ther EU would continue to be developped. Yanukovich then went back on his public promises. The violent overthrow was by electors feeling they had been decieved. After that – Russia did what Russia does. New elections led to a new president who stuck with his promises. & then a further election of an anti-corruption chap (Zelensky) and a peaceful transfer of power. This is not difficult stuff: when politicians say stuff to get elected they should keep their word – obvs unless black-sawn events intervene. In that respect, Starmer resembles Yanukovich – breaking election promises.
This version accords more closely with my understanding.
I was only stating facts. The 2010 election was seen as fair and free by observers, the elected government was violently and illegally overthrown after which violence broke out in the East.
Lots of leaders renege on their manifestos; the democratic way to change that is at the ballot box. You seem to be saying that if voters feel that they have been deceived by election promises then they have a right to overthrow a government. Putin would probably agree with that.
The desire to take Ukraine towards Russia was a move too far for many.
You are also ignoring many issues around corruption.
Of course I am a democrat.
But shall we be realistic here (I am getting bored of saying this)? This happened. Would you rather pretend it hadn’t? It really is time people on the left dealt with reality, and not their desired world.
Mr KeithP ”
I was only stating facts” well all depends doesn’t it.
Yanukovych was not just corrupt he went back on promises he made, to win an election. Specifcally, in November 2013, Yanukovych withdrew from signing an association agreement with the EU, (economic pressure from Russia). Ukraine’s parliament had overwhelmingly approved finalizing the agreement. I’m guessing that the parliament +/- represented the view/wishes of the Ukrainian people. Begs the question: what was Yanukovysh’s problem? I’d suggest pressure from Putin which in turn suggests that like the Uk (an oblast of USM(ango), Ukraine was viewed by Putler as little better than an oblast of the Russr.
I’m reminded of Northern Ireland, and politicians talking from entrenched positions. Simplifying the timeline, omitting anything that didn’t promote their position. Western Europe is now re-arming because of this: we need to protect ourselves, we need to spend more money, existential threat, we need to cut support for the disabled, bring back National Service, don’t I look good in khaki.
I wrote a few days ago, I’ve been in two minds whether to bother again. The most basic point is that presenting the history as a simple matter of “the Ukrainian people decided”, or were outraged or whatever, is itself an imposition of one of several narratives. The rest we all know well, but it is dismissed as Putin talking points or Russian propaganda.
It is much easier to type with a proper keyboard on my PC!
To continue my argument from this morning, what needs to be done is to build up our International Institutions and Law and not persistently undermine them because they are ‘inconvenient’. What I mean is Ukraine (and others in support) should bring a case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) claiming damages from Russia for the illegal invasion (and it was ruled to be illegal by the UN). I think they can make a strong case. It will take several years (as it did with the recent case about the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank), but the funds can stay frozen pro-tem until the decision. Assuming the ICJ rules in favour of Ukraine then you can take the funds and have done so in compliance with International Law and with full legitimacy in the eyes of the World. That is a much better way than the EU arbitrarily seizing them ‘because it can’.
While we are at it, maybe we could use the current ‘Trump Idiocy’ to reform the Security Council and remove the veto. I think India should unquestionably get a Permanent Member seat, probably Brazil to represent South America, and maybe Nigeria and/or Egypt to represent Africa. It would probably have to stay as an anomaly to have France and the UK. The EU is not a country (and I would not want to encourage warmongers like Von Der Leyen and Kallas), and there isn’t one European country that is much bigger than all the rest.
My view on your point Dr Rideout from this morning is that it is very well intentioned – Russia’s money abroad is likely to be appropriated wealth from the the country in the hands of Putin the Jefe sanctioned oligarchs and should be returned – that is natural justice. But I cannot see it happening because for a start the private Western banks will defend it in the name of customer confidentiality and I’ll think they’ll win.
I also take your point about Western investment to help Ukraine and Russia rebuild somehow. That would be sensible – but I would caution against loans for either.
But the real thing missing here is rapprochement – how will relations be conducted? What will the attitudes be by the West to the parties? Whatever it is it has to be empathetic, not victorious or anything like that. It will take skill and also an ability to live with risk. Let’s not get too bogged down in the money, eh?
The official reserves will have mostly arisen from the large trade surpluses that Russia has. So they don’t need to have been stolen from anyone. Gazprom, etc bring their revenues into Russia which allows the central bank to take the $ and issue them Roubles. Otherwise in the past the Rouble would have risen making Russia less competitive. The same happens in Switzerland where the central bank now has giant fx reserves due to constantly creating new Swiss Francs to try and stop an appreciation.
How can anyone who gives it any thought believe that it is right to expropriate these funds?
It’s not “Putin’s” money. It belongs to the Russian people, to Russian society. Whatever view you personally have about the causes of the Ukraine conflict, the fact remains that the Russians believe that they were pushed into it by the purposeful creation by others of an existential threat to their country.
If you want to criticise them or anyone else for breaking “International Rules” it might be best not to advocate breaking them yourself. None of the countries which hold these funds have formally declared war on Russia and so surely have no genuine legal basis for expropriation.
The causes of the war need to be resolved by calm diplomacy, not hysterical confrontation. These suggestions belong in the Daily Telegraph, not on this blog!
We will have to disagree