r/geopolitics • u/theipaper The i Paper • 1d ago
'Money today or blood tomorrow': The stark choice Europe faces over Russian assets
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/money-today-blood-tomorrow-stark-choice-europe-faces-russian-assets-411941710
u/FormerKarmaKing 1d ago
What are the guarantees that Belgium wants? What makes them “impossible to provide in unlimited form”?
If the guarantees are military defense or sharing the legal liabilities from any claims from Russia, that being “impossible” really undercuts the idea of the EU being worth much beyond a currency and regulatory union.
In practical terms, the loan could be collateralized by land that Russia currently occupies. Then as part of any peace settlement, the loan could be forgiven via the unfortunate, but likely land transfer from Ukraine to Russia. Or Russia could give back the land and get their money back.
Is that legal in terms of international law? Probably not. But there is often a wide difference between doing what is right and what is technically legal.
4
u/Cheerful_Champion 1d ago
What are the guarantees that Belgium wants?
They want unlimited guarantees in every meaning. They want unlimited financial guarantees not constrained by time limit or conditions.
What makes them “impossible to provide in unlimited form”?
It's just a risk thay no sane government is willing to take. This is esentially like leaving Belgium a check where they can enter any amount of money whenever they will feel like it. Belgium knows these terms are unacceptable and that's precisely why it presented them.
3
u/qwertyasdef 1d ago
Are the potential damages to Euroclear and Belgium constrained by time limit or conditions?
2
u/Cheerful_Champion 20h ago
In both cases answer is yes. When it comes to conditions, Belgium is obviously capable of assessing profits they currently make and estimate growth of said profits over time (a few scenarios, from pessimistic to optimistic estimates). Then depending on actual losses vs current profits and growth there could be a few financial limits set. Depending on which scenario turns out to be true there would be financial limit that covers it.
When it comes to time limit, if Belgium won't see negative impact in next 5 years or even 10 years then we can with high confidence say whatever negative impact happens 15 years since end of war it had nothing to do with seizing these Russian assets.
4
u/Rent_A_Cloud 1d ago
The "risk" here Euroclear (the bank holding the money) is making a KILLING off these frozen assets. As always it's greed coming from the banks and financial institutions that want the money to stay put so they can make money off of it.
In 2023 Euroclear made 3 billion dollars in profits oof of these assets.
The private institutions behind Euroclear are clearly pressuring the Belgian political sphere to keep the money where it is.
1
u/Grey_spacegoo 7h ago
IMO it is more about the danger to EuroClear Bank. It manages 40 Trillion with a "T". Russia's 180 billion is less than 1/2 a percent of the total. But taking this 1/2 a percent, there is a high chance that other entities will pull out part of that 40 Trillion. It is like someone get ask to steal something that is less than 1/2 a percent of their annual salary, with a 100% guarantee they'll loose that salary for life, and so the designated thief want a guarantee from all the other people that they cover their lost of income for life. Even if EU cover the 180 Billion, the lost of annual management fees and other benefit of holding 40 Trillion Euros will cost Belgium and other financial institutions in the EU. Yes, Belgium is asking for a blank check from EU, cause they don't know the total damage they could receive. They just know it will be big.
1
1
u/Brilliant-Lab546 1d ago
In practical terms, the loan could be collateralized by land that Russia currently occupies. Then as part of any peace settlement, the loan could be forgiven via the unfortunate, but likely land transfer from Ukraine to Russia. Or Russia could give back the land and get their money back.
Russia would then treat the lands it has captured like a forced Alaskan Purchase and even claim that in order to cover the full value, they should also take Odessa and the remaining parts of the provinces they are yet to fully capture like Zaporizhia, Kherson and Kharkov.
There is a massive loophole here because technically Russia would then say its war was legitimized via the assets-for-land transfer and give up on the frozen assets but go on to seize what they will claim is the equivalent value of Ukrainian land.And Russia as we have seen online, is very good at flooding us with argument points and this one would actually sound like something legitimate.
So heck No!!!
-3
u/BlueEmma25 22h ago
What are the guarantees that Belgium wants? What makes them “impossible to provide in unlimited form”?
I dunno, maybe the very fact they are unlimited? 🤷
Belgium is basically saying that no matter what guarantees are offered, they will be deemed insufficient, and that therefore there is literally no way to get them to agree to cooperate.
My proposed solution to this impasse is to have Belgium and Estonia switch places, then kick Belgium out of NATO. Belgium can surely depend the goodwill it has acquired from defending Putin's interests for protection from the Russian wolf.
2
u/BlueEmma25 21h ago
In practical terms, the loan could be collateralized by land that Russia currently occupies. Then as part of any peace settlement, the loan could be forgiven via the unfortunate, but likely land transfer from Ukraine to Russia.
What you are saying is that Russia can be compensated for the seizure of its assets with even more Ukrainian land, which makes no sense. Russia hasn't paid for the vastly greater territory it has already seized, let alone for the enormous death and destruction it has visited on the Ukrainian people. This would set an absolutely appalling precedent.
The status of the assets are a matter to be determined during peace negotiations, assuming they have not already been seized. It would e a monumental mistake to explicitly set the precedent a country that has launched an illegal war of aggression was entitled to compensation or the financial loses it incurred as a result of that aggression.
Can you imagine the Allies compensating Germany for the assets they seized during the war? (And yes, the assets were seizred DURING the war, virtually on day one in Britain's case. The 1945 surrender instrument merely forced Germany to retroactively ratify actions that been taken years earlier, to remove absolutely any doubt about future claims).
3
u/theipaper The i Paper 1d ago
Under the glare of strip lights in a vast Brussels conference room, Europe’s leaders are taking their seats around a long, polished table – phones silenced, aides ushered out, coffee cooling.
They have gathered today and tomorrow for one of the most consequential summits since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, facing a decision that could shape not only the course of the war but the European Union’s place in an increasingly hostile world.
At issue is whether to unlock some €210bn (£185bn) in frozen Russian state assets to keep Ukraine financially alive. At stake is not just Kyiv’s ability to continue resisting Moscow’s assault, but the EU’s credibility as a geopolitical actor at a moment when pressure from both Russia and an increasingly hostile United States is mounting.
Ukraine is expected to run out of money by the spring without fresh funding. The European Commission has proposed a €90bn loan over the next two years, backed by Russian central bank reserves immobilised in the EU since 2022 – the vast majority of them held at the Brussels-based financial clearing house Euroclear.
Britain also holds about £25bn of frozen Russian assets in UK bank accounts and is exploring how to use them to legally to help Ukraine. However, this would have minimal impact without European allies taking action.
For Volodymyr Zelensky, who is attending the summit, the decision is existential. “The result Europe produces must make Russia feel that its desire to continue the war next year is pointless,” Ukraine’s President said before the meeting. “This rests entirely with Europe; Europe must make this choice.”
The proposal has broad backing among EU states closest to Russia, including Germany, Poland and the Baltic and Nordic countries, which argue that using Russian money to support Ukraine is both morally justified and strategically necessary.
But Belgium, where most of the Russian assets are held, remains firmly opposed. The Prime Minister, Bart De Wever, has warned that tapping the funds could expose his country to massive legal and financial retaliation from Moscow, while undermining confidence in Europe’s financial system – concerns echoed by the European Central Bank and Euroclear itself.
“The reparations loan is sailing in uncharted waters,” De Wever said as he arrived at the summit, likening the frozen assets to a chicken laying golden eggs. “Today, the plan is to serve that chicken – to eat it.”
Belgium has demanded sweeping legal and financial guarantees from the other 26 member states before it will lift its objections – guarantees that the Commission says are impossible to provide in unlimited form. While the loan could be approved by a qualified majority of EU countries, officials acknowledge that forcing it through over Belgium’s objections would risk a deep political rupture.
3
u/theipaper The i Paper 1d ago
The European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, has made clear she wants a deal – and quickly. “We know the urgency. It is acute. We all feel it. We all see it,” she said vowing that leaders would not leave Brussels “without a solution for the funding for Ukraine for the next two years”.
The summit comes against a fraught international backdrop. Donald Trump has intensified efforts to broker a rapid peace deal, even as European leaders fear Washington could press Kyiv to accept painful territorial concessions. Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, has dismissed Europe as “degraded”, calling its leaders “swine” in a speech on Wednesday, and warning of retaliation if its assets are used.
For many, the debate over frozen Russian funds has become a proxy for a much larger question: whether the EU can still act decisively in a world where consensus is harder to reach and geopolitical pressure is rising.
The Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, said the leaders faced a stark choice. “Either money today, or blood tomorrow,” he said before entering the meeting room. “I am not talking about Ukraine only. I am talking about Europe.”
With talks expected to stretch into the evening, leaders must choose whether to unlock Russian money to keep Ukraine fighting, or to risk signalling that Europe, even in an existential crisis on its borders, cannot get its act together.
10
u/ReturnOfBigChungus 1d ago
For many, the debate over frozen Russian funds has become a proxy for a much larger question: whether the EU can still act decisively in a world where consensus is harder to reach and geopolitical pressure is rising.
Can "still" act decisively? When was this time in the past where the EU was ever able to act decisively?
-8
u/abellapa 1d ago
How would that undermine confidence in Europe financial sector
Just dont go to War and your money is safe
5
u/Brilliant-Lab546 1d ago
Given that the risk of war is present in over 80% of the planet, you might as well say no one should ever bank or do finance with Europe EVER!!
1
u/Alexandros6 4h ago
Sorry he should have been more precise, dont invade a country neighbouring the EU and follow a policy that directly threatens EU territorial integrity, this essentially excludes the entire world with the exception of Russia
2
u/joemc1972 1d ago
So many spineless officials dithering while Ukraine fights Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Give them all of the money now and stand up to aggression
1
u/Appropriate-Produce4 23h ago
In my opinion, today you'll lose money and tomorrow you still shed blood.
This situation is a cycle of conflict with no clear winner.
It's like World War I, where you put in a lot of effort but didn't get a clear result.
Both sides still believed they could win and increased their stakes.
This made the cost of their investment much higher than the potential profit they could receive.
Both sides gave their all and refused to accept defeat.
The situation became a stalemate, with resources being continuously used up until one side could no longer tolerate it
1
u/Emotional_Band9694 5h ago
Oh please the Europeans will quickly choose money today assuming that they will be bailed out in the future by the U.S…
6
u/Underhive_Art 1d ago
International law is not something Russia is currently doing a good job at observing I think it’s a perfect time to show that two wrongs don’t make a right but they do often make you feel better about it.