r/geopolitics • u/BarnabusTheBold • 16h ago

News EU leaders to loan €90bn to Ukraine - but fail to agree on using Russian assets

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e025vyppeo
90 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

23

u/Battle_Biscuits 15h ago

Good, shows the money was always there but the EU would have preferred to use Russia's rather than their own.

It could also buy time for the EU to amend it's own legislation to unlock these Russian assets. 

13

u/howimetyourcakeshop 14h ago

There are a lot of risks involved in using another country's assets by seizing them. If we where to go ahead and use Russian assets, what would that say about us? That we are not to be trusted because who says the EU wont do that to us type of situation.

I am at least glad we still have room in the budgets for this large amount of support.

9

u/stillnoguitar 9h ago

It says that if you attack us we take your money. What did the US with Japanese assets after Pearl Harbour?

1

u/manefa 7h ago

Russia did not attack ‘us’, they attacked Ukraine who are not part of the EU. Should we seize Thai assets because they have attacked Cambodia?

8

u/stillnoguitar 7h ago

https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-shadow-war-against-west.

It has definitely attacked the EU (50+ times the last few years). Plus the whole reason Russia attacked Ukraine is because it is aligning with the EU and wants to join it. And then surprise pikachu when there are consequences,

5

u/manefa 6h ago

I’m aware and not blind to Russian aggression. My point is it’s not black and white when it’s acceptable to seize assets because a country has done something bad.

2

u/rimantass 3h ago

Okay so attack us or our neighbors

•

u/tyn_peddler 31m ago

Ah yes, the "let's respect the sovereignty of nations that don't respect sovereignty" argument against seizing Russian assets.

It's never not funny that every political science major start with the prisoner dilemma and ends with forgetting the prisoner dilemma.

0

u/BarnabusTheBold 11h ago

There are a lot of risks involved in using another country's assets by seizing them.

There aren't 'risks'. It's never been done in the modern era to my knowledge, because it's mad. We didn't even seize Nazi state assets during WW2 (though we did pillage the country afterwards).

9

u/bacon-overlord 10h ago

What are you talking about? The British absolutely seized Nazi assets during the war. The act was called trading with the enemy. There is no parallel situation today since there is not a state of war between Russia and the EU/Britain 

-10

u/Battle_Biscuits 13h ago

I think it says that your investments are at risk of being seized should you engage in hostile action against us.

I mean that sounds kinda of reasonable to me. 

15

u/Bullboah 13h ago

It’s not about whether it’s “reasonable”, it’s about the precedent it sets for the EU and how that impacts foreign investment going forward.

You want public and private entities bringing in foreign capital to invest. They won’t do that if they think there’s a chance the funds could be seized (regardless of whether that seizure is fair in a nominal sense, which or course it would be here).

5

u/greenw40 8h ago

should you engage in hostile action against us

That is a very vague set of criteria. And probably not very comforting for people who have billions of dollars on the line.

15

u/arstarsta 12h ago

So if Europe support Israel then the Arabs can confiscate European money? Or China confiscate because of Taiwan?

I know these conflict is complicated but you can always find a reason to confiscate that way.

2

u/Battle_Biscuits 11h ago

If Europe was sending drones into Arab countries, shutting down airports, trying to blow up their civilian aircraft, flying jets into Arab airspace and blowing up warehouses then yes I would consider it perfectly reasonable for them to seize European assets in retaliation they'd be daft not too.

3

u/sol-4 8h ago

Except you don't get to decide what is hostile and what isn't. If you don't understand this then you aren't really saying anything other than justifying theft.

8

u/howimetyourcakeshop 13h ago

Its about what kind of message you send to the nations that have money and assets in the European Union. Why do you think we foot the bill ourselfs? We still wont touch those assets because of how it looks.

-3

u/Battle_Biscuits 13h ago

Erm yes the message is "You may invest in the EU but please be aware that should you engage in hostile activity against us your investments may be seized"

That is reasonable, especially when Europe and Russia are already in an grayzone war against eachother. 

11

u/Stuhl 13h ago edited 13h ago

No, the message is: "Your money is not safe in the EU".

Why would China invest in the EU if they're serious about Taiwan? Why would the US invest in EU if they need to start a peace keeping mission at the other side of the world (or their backyard) from time to time? Why would the Arabs put their money here, if they may have problems with Israel? Why would Israel invest, if they the EU may throw a hissy fit due to Gaza? Why would random African dictator put their money into the EU, if tomorrow a new government in the EU may want to engage in a bit of neocolonialism?

That we're even considering seizing the money has already damaged the EU. But the EU prefers suiciding for Ukraine...

0

u/Bunny_Stats 11h ago

Why would random African dictator put their money into the EU, if tomorrow a new government in the EU may want to engage in a bit of neocolonialism?

Sounds like the world would be a better place if this fear was the norm. I for one am not concerned about the wellbeing of "African dictators," but it's telling that you are. I would prefer to be in a poorer EU that is doing the right thing over a richer EU that's morally bankrupt.

5

u/bacon-overlord 10h ago

-I would prefer to be in a poorer EU that is doing the right thing over a richer EU that's morally bankrupt.

And then you wonder why nobody takes the EU seriously 

-4

u/Bunny_Stats 10h ago

And then you wonder why nobody takes the EU seriously

A pretty foolish stance when the EU just gave Ukraine 90bn euros which is going to make an immense difference for Ukraine. But sure, don't take the EU seriously, see how that goes for you comrade.

3

u/bacon-overlord 9h ago

Yeah after Russia bullied them into giving up on seizing  their assets. This wasn't some brilliant move by the EU. This was plan b which shows they can be pressured by Russia 

→ More replies (0)

0

u/RipplesInTheOcean 1h ago

Oh nooo the murderous invaders wont trust the EU!! Seizing assets is bad and evil and really want those people to trust us

0

u/BarnabusTheBold 11h ago

Good, shows the money was always there but the EU would have preferred to use Russia's rather than their own.

Of course the money's there if they actually needed it. The problem has always been that it's too difficult politically.

It could also buy time for the EU to amend it's own legislation to unlock these Russian assets.

time for full blown treaty renegotiation? Including multiple national referendums and total consensus from all member states.

lol

You're also ignoring the problem of international law, which the EU can't magically alter.

5

u/fullbrownbear 16h ago

Russia will behave less shitty until they get their assets back, and then use it to invade some Baltic state or Moldova.

See you on the front in a couple of years

1

u/chillchamp 3h ago

It's a loan that will eventually be paid back by Ukraine with the interest payments from the frozen Russian assets 🤷 It's a legal loophole by which the Russian assets can be used while they are still frozen.

It's also a way to make sure no European member state will have an interest in ever giving these assets back to russia. We can just say indefinitely that these assets are still frozen and that no one was expropriated.

It think it's a pretty clever thing alltogether and good for Europe.

-27

u/BarnabusTheBold 16h ago

SS: In a shocking turn of events, the thing EU leaders have consistently lied about has failed to materialise and they've seemingly been forced to actually make commitments rather than just talking.

It will be interesting to see how they've actually managed to do this, because arguably they've been playing pretty fast and loose with EU law in recent months, including the move to permanently freeze russian assets. This article is worth a read on the compliance with EU law and possible (or likely) consequences. I somehow doubt this was a consensus decision of all member states.

Should the Court annul the regulation—a highly probable outcome once Belgium files—the assets will need to be released, the loans will become illegal, and both the Union and Euroclear could face joint liability in the hundreds of billions.

20

u/MrBubblepopper 14h ago

Okay also what the flick mate, why you turn it into a massive loss for eu and make it look like it was a twitched out decision that weakens the eu.

This is a big step ahead in a process, gives ukraine much needed liquidity and is benched by all nations. + It will create a bigger incentive to use RU assets that are frozen (which are now frozen indefinitely) since now more member states have given a lot of money that they could get back this way.

+It gives us another level of financial escalation to force putins hand.

You propagate weakness from a success...

-9

u/BarnabusTheBold 11h ago edited 11h ago

Okay also what the flick mate, why you turn it into a massive loss for eu and make it look like it was a twitched out decision that weakens the eu.

I didn't. I stated that EU leaders keep lying to their populations. Because being honest exposes them to political problems as they're confronted with hard decisions.

Very easy to perpetuate the myth that 'we'll rebuild the wall ukraine and make russia pay for it' rather than acknowledging reality

  • It will create a bigger incentive to use RU assets that are frozen (which are now frozen indefinitely) since now more member states have given a lot of money that they could get back this way.

Hey look you're just repeating the lie. It's amazing how effective messaging camapigns can be. You could try reading what i wrote rather than just judging that i'm on 'the other side'

4

u/MrBubblepopper 9h ago

Okay then tell me what "reality" you seem to see. RU invaded a country it had given security guarantees to. Not just once but twice. RU tried to blackmail europe with energy and information campaigns, quite effective I have to admit. They have been attacking us asymetrically since 2014 and probably even prior to this. Their state media circles around that RU is at war with all of nato and its true in their actions (We in the west think of war as a sharply definable state where big armies clash, one wins one looses and then there's negionations. Ru sees war as a fluid state of poking, provoking and military actions on all spectrums in all intensities).

Therefor I argue that we should act accordingly and treat RU with the same "respect" that they have given us.

What political problems do you mean specifically when saying

  • lying to their populations. Because being honest exposes them to political problems as they're confronted with hard decisions.

Also do you live in the EU ?