While the G7 countries and other governments around the world have been extraordinarily generous in supporting the Ukrainian war effort, there are signs of growing fatigue in some circles – a development Russia appears to have anticipated.
With the US and the EU failing to commit more than $100bn (£80bn) in aid to Ukraine in December, the idea of seizing Russian assets frozen by western countries has re-emerged as a potential solution.
Moreover, by not seizing these funds, western countries are signalling that governments waging brutal wars of aggression can violate international law and simultaneously benefit from it to escape the consequences of their actions.
Legal experts may argue that offering Kyiv loans and using the frozen assets as collateral is a better approach, since it would force Russia to choose between directly compensating Ukraine and forfeiting these funds.
It is unreasonable to expect taxpayers and donors in Europe, the US, and Asia to bear the costs of Ukraine’s reconstruction when Russia itself could make a significant (albeit involuntary) contribution.
While 90% of the American security assistance allocated to Ukraine is spent in the US, the seized Russian assets could be used to support Ukrainian forces on the ground and finance the massive recovery effort.
The original article contains 980 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
While the G7 countries and other governments around the world have been extraordinarily generous in supporting the Ukrainian war effort, there are signs of growing fatigue in some circles – a development Russia appears to have anticipated.
With the US and the EU failing to commit more than $100bn (£80bn) in aid to Ukraine in December, the idea of seizing Russian assets frozen by western countries has re-emerged as a potential solution.
Moreover, by not seizing these funds, western countries are signalling that governments waging brutal wars of aggression can violate international law and simultaneously benefit from it to escape the consequences of their actions.
Legal experts may argue that offering Kyiv loans and using the frozen assets as collateral is a better approach, since it would force Russia to choose between directly compensating Ukraine and forfeiting these funds.
It is unreasonable to expect taxpayers and donors in Europe, the US, and Asia to bear the costs of Ukraine’s reconstruction when Russia itself could make a significant (albeit involuntary) contribution.
While 90% of the American security assistance allocated to Ukraine is spent in the US, the seized Russian assets could be used to support Ukrainian forces on the ground and finance the massive recovery effort.
The original article contains 980 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!