How Europe can capture frozen Russian assets to finance Ukraine

President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has completely moved America’s position to support Ukraine, which forced European countries to consider new options for strengthening the Kyiv military support.

Last month president US accused Ukraine at the beginning of the war. called President of Ukrainian Volodzimir Zelensky dictator . that have not been included.

Tension grew last week after Television explosive collision In the oval office between Trump Vice President JD Vance and Zelenskyy. Since then, the United States has stopped military support for Ukraine until the situation is being assessed.

European leaders Leaving together to stand behind Ukraine Among the decrease in US support. One of Europe’s mechanisms has at its disposal to draw up American support Completely capture frozen Russian assets held in the region.

There was a lot of discussions about the war as to whether these assets could use to support Ukraine. In June 2024, G7 basically agreed to issue $ 50 billion In Ukraine, which was supported by the income, received from approximately 300 billion euros frozen Russian assets.

Since then, the European countries have refrained from the complete capture of such assets with the concern of the legal and economic consequences.

Last escalation tensions between the block and the US made the EU explore more aggressive actions, Bloomberg reported. The idea is not to create an international commission on reparation requirements in Russia, and if they do not agree to fully seize them, Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the negotiations.

Several EU figures expressed support for full capture, including the head of foreign policy Kaja khas and authorized by economy Waldis Dombrovskis.

At the EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting in late February, stated Kalas This work on the achievement of the asset seizure agreement was “continuing” and “in the end, especially in the situation where we are now, we all come to the conclusion that our taxpayers should not be the ones who pay for it. He must come from a country that destroys Ukraine.”

Also, by the end of last month, Foreign Minister in the UK David Lami said in the British Parliament that that “Europe must act quickly, and I believe we should move from freezing assets to seize assets.” Estonia and Poland They also expressed support for asset capture.

In A statement Published earlier this week, after reports of US military assistance, Estonian Foreign Minister pushed Europe to strengthen: “claims that there are no legal ways of using frozen Russian frozen assets. Invested on Russia, which should be made on political decisions, which should be made on political decisions that should be made on political decisions. “

Nigel Guld Davis, Senior Employee of Russia and Eurasia International Strategic Studies Institute (IISS), said CNBC by email that “many Central European states sympathize with the attack, although they do not say so publicly in the absence of a common EU position.”

However, several states fear, and he particularly noted Germany and France as “basic content”.

Now it may change, With FT -Complained Both countries open for discussion Desterols of assets.

The second option will be for Belgium to seize assets separately if EU sanctions without updating, Steinbach said. However Belgium seems unlikely to do it as it is justify He warned about the legal and economic risks that proceed to the eurozone.

Steinbach also commented that it will be “morally convincing for Europe, but it is legally difficult” to seize Russian assets, since Europe is limited to the adoption of counter -violations of international legislation, which should be “temporary” and “reversible” under international legislation.

However, “at the same time, Ukraine has the honoring of Russia to pay war injuries. The question is whether the EU can apply this statement about damage to Ukraine by seizing Russian assets,” the professor said.

He referred to a “creative proposal” in which Ukraine submits its “lawsuit against Russia to G7”, which would then force the claim to Kyiv, “going” against Russian assets. Steinbach noted that “such a broadcast has never been in accordance with international law” and that the issue of protection against immunity for sovereign assets is also maintained.

Iiss’ Gould-Davies noted this Wide Studies of International Lawyers He demonstrated that “there is a safe legal path” to confiscation, and that the fears of economic consequences were blocked.

“When the assets were first frozen – at the moment when Russia lost their access to them – there was no unfavorable effect on European economic or financial stability.

Russia also previously expressed this will avenge if its assets are confiscated.

The US support and urgent need to intensify the defense costs “makes the Russian seizure of assets even a rational and urgent” Guld Davis said, “Why not take free money from the aggressor?”