President Trump’s rancorous threat to abandon Ukraine is stoking support for a long-debated proposal to use billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets to buy weapons for Ukraine and finance its reconstruction.
The money — roughly $300 billion owned by Russia’s central bank — was frozen by the United States, the European Union, Britain and others after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. The aim was to punish President Vladimir V. Putin for his unprovoked attack and to cut off funds he could use to wage war.
As the war grinds on into its fourth year, a growing number of officials in Europe and elsewhere have been calling for the money to be released to directly compensate Ukraine.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here, are you arguing that we should aim to keep the war going indefinitely? Because the only way a war ends without a negotiated settlement is with the total dissolution of one of the sides in the war. I don’t see Ukraine fully annexing Russia any time soon, frankly.
The war does need to end sometime, even if that time isn’t now, and creating a peace treaty that’s self-enforcing is the only way that works. If using that money as leverage (e.g. the funds are gradually unlocked as the treaty phases progress) makes a lasting peace viable that otherwise wouldn’t be, then it’s an option worth considering.
Do you know what happened last time Ukraine had an agreement with Russia and USA?
Why would they make the same mistake?
Why are you pressing for that as it is it a valid option? Why are you ignoring what Russia and the USA did not so long ago? Are you of the opinion that trump can bring peace to Ukraine quickly?
Why are you so opposed to giving free money to Ukraine?
Well yes, I am aware that Russia has violated numerous treaties. But I’m not arguing for the treaties to be the same, not even for a peace treaty to happen now. Nor am I saying we shouldn’t give some portion of that money to Ukraine.
I feel like I’m being pretty clear that I don’t think anything close to this, no? But your questions seem to be on the basis that I do.
The point I am actually making is that at some point in the future there will be some form of peace negotiations to end the war. That’s not coming from a Trump-esque “peace now because I say so” angle, but from a “every conflict ends in some form of settlement eventually” angle. The fact that this money would act as significant leverage in that scenario means that this isn’t just magic free money, but a tradeoff to be made.
That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong tradeoff, necessarily, just that to actually decide whether or not that’s the case, you do need to consider that it is one.
My point is that history shows it’s not really wise to negotiate, or go for treaties or agreements with Russia.
Whilst strategically it would be good to make the war stop it would only be a temporary and remedial solution not really solving the root cause of the problem.
So why do it?
Well because every war ends with a peace treaty. Ignoring that fact now and making it harder to do so in the future just because a peace treaty isn’t viable now.
All I’m arguing for is making decisions while aware of all the factors? I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with, really