The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
We are afraid that that if they confiscate this cash and one day, Trump comes to the EU and commands everyone to just accept that Russia is cool now and suck it up.
Which let's be real this is a possibility and most of these countries will stand up and say, "YES DADDY!".
At that point Russia is going to look to Belgium and say, "where's my money bitch?" and Belgium will sure as hell be liable for that shit. Then all the other daddy boys and daddy girls will look the other way because they are not liable while we get cuckle-fucked by Russia.
Shared legal risk and responsibility would be the right way to go about this. But that would be time consuming and would require a unanimous vote which VonderCuck doesnt like.
I dont't get it why EU wants to seize those assets so much , aren't they using them as collateral and their income for loans? Wouldn't seizing them just hurt them and create new problems with old loans?
they could always pull it out of their collective Treasuries
what happened to "Your fight is our fight." does the EU really think Ukraine is fighting for/with Europe for European security? Or was that just hot air that sounded strong?
The EU doesn’t have a big sovereign treasury like a normal state. It has a small common budget that it usually isn’t allowed to finance with borrowing, and the ECB is banned from directly printing money for EU or national governments. The big national treasuries still belong to the member states themselves. the EU can’t just tap them without their consent.
yeah I understand the EU cant take money out of members at will, but why cant the countries pass the hat around regardless of an EU vote?
If Ukraine needs €80b for 2026 then you just go by % of GDP of the EU. Germany coughs up 20b for being ~25% of the EU GDP, and down the list you go. the EU has nothing to say if Germany decides to cut Kyiv a 20 billion euro check
of course some countries(hungary, slovakia, bulgaria maybe, etc) will probably refuse, but its up to the leader countries to make that up or at least try to get as close to the 80b as possible. even 20b is better than nothing
Like the others said, they don't have anything, really. The only way is to cut their budgets by 2%, no one wants to do that. That's political suicide for them.
Individual countries in the EU claim to be completely broke, they claim to be poor. They have no money. They insist they can't raise taxes, they can't go into debt, and they can't cut social welfare programs either.
They've tried nothing and they're all out of ideas.
Yet they also insist they stand with Ukraine forever, in all ways except for financially or militarily.
Individual countries in the EU, which haven't claimed to be poor as they are members of what we call the G7 which is a group of the 7 largest economies, not the 7 poorest economies.
These EU nations, have contributed 187 billion euros to the war effort so far.
So you could say they've tried plenty, and are ready to do more by seizing Russian assets from Belgium bank accounts.
It's evident at this point that the goal is to mitigate direct costs for EU member states as much as possible, and the problem is that Ukraine will need 80 billion a year for more than just 2026. The EU doesn't want to go through this routine year after year when it isn't clear when this conflict will end.
They're very willing to have someone else pay the bill (Belgium) and someone else do the fighting (USA).
Notice that they keep trying to volunteer other countries to do all of the heavy lifting for them. Any time the topic of peacekeeping comes up they insist on an American "backstop" to any peacekeeping force.
No I hadn't noticed that, can you show us a few articles of them having the USA do any sort of fighting for them?
Did you notice them asking for an international peacekeeping force not just American? You know as a deterrent against Putin attacking a better equipped nation than the Ukraine?
And did you notice that its also not Belgium paying a bill, it's Russia paying for the war it started with it's funds currently held in Belgium
Excuse me? Romania lost 80% of it's emergency reserve fund after a corrupt bout two years ago. We didn't even have money to continue to float our currency to upkeep eur/ron price.
What happened to supposedly having the second most powerful currency in the world? The EU has less debt than the US, and the US just uses its reserve currency status to endlessly print money with no care that it's already underwater in debt.
Well they could ask 1:1 a ressource deal from Ukraine like US did it.
Or Ukriane could start selling their silverware like land. The same that ever-single-european-city has done to refinance their debt (very few exceptions who didn't do it): they sold land and soil to investors and public funds.
Ukriane could sell it's prime real estate to European nations. No better way for a win-win. Europea can reinvest after the war and rebuild everything, Ukriane gets new real estate and cities and the retirement system of EU is fixed with constant income.
Because it's a political process. That's the idea.
While it's ongoing, there's no need to address any other issues. And since seizing assets is difficult and no one really believes it, the process can continue indefinitely.
The interest isn't enough to fund Ukraine, they need significant funding increases from the EU now that Trump looks pretty much set to not send any money going forward. Its something like 150 billion that the EU has to come up with but there isn't any support for raising taxes, cutting spending elsewhere, or bigger deficits to come up with the money.
The EU wants the war to continue but wants others to pay for it.
First the USA, now belgium.
I cant stress this enough. Even the german money during WW2 was NOT confiscated. It was only frozen and only after the war ended was used for reparation.
what situation changes? Belgium is worried that they would be liable if situation on the battlefield won't change. If Russia losses, then they can be pressured into signing those funds off as reparations, otherwise Belgium will have to restore money stolen from the Russian sovereign fund.
Worst case you endure some short term pain and reduction in asset prices from warlords, dictators, and oligarchs pulling investments.
People saying this would lead to the collapse of the EU banking system are being hyperbolic. The "it won't happen to me" cope is strong.
Even the fact that the assets were able to be frozen at all shows that Putin had such an extreme level of delusion that he didn't think the assets would be frozen. If he thought there would be such a response, he never would have invaded in the first place.
More like, friend A asks if he can park his car in your garage. He'll pay you some rent, because he doesn't have a garage and wants his cars paint to stay glossy.
Friend A then goes, burns down friend B's car and beats him up. Now friend B is having to walk to work on crutches. Friend A was arrested and is in jail.
Do you give your former Friend A's car to Friend B? Or do you leave it in your garage, because you're scared that if you give it to Friend B, all of former Friend A's shady drug dealer friends won't want to pay you rent to park their cars in your garage in future.
There’s also this problem that no rich foreigner will ever deposit their money in Belgium ever again. Foreign capital will dry up, and there’s a lot of money coming in from the gulf states (ahem ahem Qatar) for example.
We live in a world where Ukraine's biggest ally switched to become Russia's biggest ally and is now pressuring Ukraine to give up land, their army and what not.
Understandable but then again we already have Russia doing covert operations across Europe either by themselves or by criminals or cyber attacks. Merz is the biggest issue here he keeps making excuses for trump every time he says something about Europe
Not a very attractive option given that leaves the US as the only game in town, and the US is now openly calling for regime change across Europe (to stop "wokeness" or whatever).
And who's gonna put money into Belgium if they have a law that they can confiscate the money if something happens to an unrelated third party country ?
Good luck operating outside the EU. And getting money into the EU after that.
Where would you go else? The US? Saudi Arabia? Hong Kong? Stop kidding yourself. The EU is by far the most stable place on this planet to put your money into.
You know the rules. They'd be stated out clearly and when Belgium is done kicking around in their fake drama, I'd be gone. Just following orders. Just like with all those yachts, houses, etc. they gave away.
Its so stable that they are gambling on an open war with Russia while the US is taking steps to get out of NATO, all the at the same time that the EU wants to step all over each member country's internal decisions.
I'm quite bearish on the European Union, I love Europe but the European Union seems to be run by idiots and warmongering women
Russia is such a weird country. For how much it likes to bully the little guys, they do not hesitate whatsoever to go crying to mommy Trump and daddy Xi for help.
I hate to be defending Russia here, but it upsets the natural order to just seize a sovereign nation's assets and hand it to another nation. It is a legally dubious thing to do. Imagine that being done to France, Belgium, Italy, the U.S., China, African nations, etc. It's just a ridiculous premise. Now understandably if it was done by Russia as part of a peace treaty where they agreed to have it released to Ukraine for rebuilding as a token gesture as one of the things they had to give up to make the peace happen that is a completely different situation.
Edit: Thanks, I guess....? to all the russians upvoting me? End the war, it's a needless waste of life, resources and good will among men. Here's a song for you to listen to in the meantime:
The natural order is that nations with EU assets can engage in war without fear of seizure. Why should we protect that? Doesnt that incentivize more conflict?
You want to protect it for the same reason the bank wants to protect the norm that your deposits won't be stolen at the whim of the CEO. The alternative is that anyone who thinks the EU might one day look at them sideways will steer clear. At minimum, this will be a disaster for Euroclear, a major financial institution in Belgium, but there's no telling how far reaching the consequences would be given that the EU is the driving force behind it.
There's also the issue of the "rules-based order" defenders making a mockery of international law and thereby discrediting the premise of their ideological fight with Russia.
Not a bot. I just assumed that's what you meant by suggesting they're crying for help. They shouldn't have to cry for help on this particular topic, it isn't a legal action to make off with their money.
EU top politicians, like Ursula or Kallas, are acting like populists making cool calls like ‘confiscate Russian money’, while they know perfectly that this is practically illegal, there is no clause in any document or law that allows you to do that. Yet, by making such calls they frame people who are actually responsible to see that these rules are respected as ‘traitors’ or ‘Russia supporters’.
Why exactly is EU law relevant when it's the EU making the call? It can make its own laws. And don't tell me international law. International law only matters as far as states are willing to let themselves be bound by it.
In modern democratic societies making retroactive laws is very much frowned upon. You can make traveling to Botswana illegal, but if you then go and jail people who went there before this law was made you would look like a madman.
Although technically possible it would destroy investors trust in the system and they would probably move their money elsewhere.
Difference is Nazis unconditionally capitulated after their capital was occupied by those, who later punished them for their actions. If EU and Ukraine captures Kremlin, they would no doubt do the similar kind of punishment to Russian top officers and commanders but I don’t see it possible in the near time.
the difference is that Nazis were defeated and were literally powerless. No one cared about their opinion on what's going to happen to them; while Russia, if it wins this war, will have all the resources possible to do as much pushback as possible, including collaborating with other BRICS states to effectively boycott European banks.
Middle East, USA, China, etc. While it may be not as profitable it’s still way better than getting al of your money confiscated over some trumped up nonsense.
Ah yes, the famously stable Middle East where you can invest your money in Israel or oil.
USA
The same USA that is starting a new trade war every 2 days and where the ruling clique openly and shamelessly manipulate the market with government backing to specifically enrich themselves and constantly demand huge bribes from everyone else. And which does the same to its enemies.
China
Who does and would do the exact same as the EU just to a way larger and more onerous degree.
getting al of your money confiscated over some trumped up nonsense.
Invading an ally of the confiscating nation is not "trumped up nonsense".
You know, I start to think you don’t entirely understand how it works. Belgian-based Euroclear is not just keeping your money, it has to pay your interest.
And where do they get the money to pay you? From investing your money into projects, like US tech giants and Food conglomerates, Saudi Arabian and Qatari energy and construction companies, Chinese home appliance manufacturers, Korean shipbuilding companies, etc you get the idea.
It’s just a convenient system to invest in all those places, like buying 5 different games from developers or getting them all on Steam in two clicks. Their one main thing is convenience and security of your money, that’s why they take their cut.
So what would be the point of going to them when you can invest your money directly, without a chance the some law would be written specifically to steal them from you?
The same as currently. Someone investing your money for you and not having to fight your own lawsuits. The fact is, you still won't get better security for it than in the EU, so that point is not relevant. Don't go around invading EU allies and you don't get your money taken away, it is that simple.
People don't abandon Steam either because they took away the accounts of hackers and scammers.
Nonsense. a) Retroactive laws are something actively wished for when for example they reduce or remove penalties (see drug reform), or when it's known that illegal stuff is happening but it's difficult to pursue legal action, like with organised crime. b) This isn't even about making something illegal that previously wasn't, and it isn't about individuals' rights (except those of the Ukrainian populace, I suppose). c) The criticism would be from the usual very obvious, biased, meaningless mouthpieces and could be ignored.
You think the EU seizing Russian state assets would spook the stock market? Why? What do these things have to do with one another? That's just a non sequitur.
being able to do something =/= something should be done. China already made a statement, that it'll basically pull out their funds from European banking systems, if Russian funds will be confiscated. In the eyes of several other nations, Russian funds being touched in any way, shape or form is a violation of contractual obligation, that promises to keep them safe at all times.
imagine yourself as a China in this situation - your ally just got it's money taken away, due to a political reason and a law that was quickly made up, just to allow said confiscation. How would you feel? you would think "oh wait, this could happen to me, they're making up bullshit to justify their actions, it's not safe anymore". Anyone with a reasonable line of thought will pull out their funds immediately, before anything happened to them.
a whole bunch of European nations rely on their service market and banking systems to make their economy work. Their services prosper, when other countries respect and trust them. If that trust is going to be broken, customers will look for other services somewhere else in the world, and your money will be essentially gone. You can't just make shit up and make everybody else oblige, if no one recognizes your decision as legal, you're just going to lose billions.
Nope, the state is allowed to take money from a criminal organisation. Or more precisely, to freeze and confiscate illegally acquired assets. I don’t see why Putin and his oligarch posse can’t be included in this.
The assets dont belong to the Russian state or government but they originate from private Russian individuals. I realize this distinction may be challenging for you to process, but
The assets dont belong to the Russian state or government but they originate from private Russian individuals.
They're foreign exchange reserves, which are government funds. There are some oligarch assets in there too, but the bulk (~200b euros) is money Russia formerly used for investment and trade. That's the whole point of Euroclear, to facilitate trade.
Exactly. And Ukrainians saying that Russians are not humans and should be eradicated to the last orc, women and children included, because "they are naturally, genetically predisposed to being evil" - I understand that they're angry and venting online, but it's jarring how supportive is Reddit of hate speech when it's aimed at "designated evil group of today".
The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a clusterfuck of fucking dehumanisation. Both sides should be studied at how easily the humans delve into civil war. You literally cannot tell them apart and yet they are willing to gas each other until no one is left.
And Ukrainians saying that Russians are not humans and should be eradicated to the last orc, women and children included, because "they are naturally, genetically predisposed to being evil"
You have a lot less of those than... the official Russian policy, and their resulting genocide in progress (kidnapping Ukrainian children to give for adoption to Russian couples, which is literally in the definition of genocide).
And it's vastly more understandable for the defenders in a barbaric attack that keeps striking civilians on purpose, and which tortures captured soldiers and civilians, to dehumanise their attackers. I totally get where they're coming from, they're fighting a war of survival against a genocidal regime that wants to eradicate them.
Not to be "that" guy but there's videos of Ukrainians using screwdrivers to puncture the eyes of POVs, that they themselves uploaded.
This is literally a "both sides" scenario and trying to paint one of them as "worse" won't work on me, as I said, they're fucking insane on both sides and has been for over a decade at this point.
Have you seen the 2014 Odessa Trade Union fire results? They burned the pro-russian protesters alive, the photos from there are haunting. It was well underway back then
And the thing is that makes it worse is that they were forcing people to stay inside, too. Like, you can find that. These people were protesters that were barricaded inside and the building was set on fire, and then those that were trying to escape were forced back. How's that for a barbaric attack?
So what you're doing is just painting a picture where one side is correct in their dehumanisation, even though they literally mean ALL Russians, which includes anyone abroad, or anyone identifying as Russian inside Ukraine, which is most of the Eastern parts as well.
Not to be "that" guy but there's videos of Ukrainians using screwdrivers to puncture the eyes of POVs, that they themselves uploaded
As part of the official government policy?
This is literally a "both sides" scenario and trying to paint one of them as "worse" won't work on me, as I said, they're fucking insane on both sides and has been for over a decade at this point.
The side that started the whole thing, and is committing a genocide, is worse. There is nothing to work, it's just pure objective fact. One side is committing genocide and on the offensive trying to force their torture on the other; the other is on the defensive.
Have you seen the 2014 Odessa Trade Union fire results? They burned the pro-russian protesters alive, the photos from there are haunting. It was well underway back then
What was under way? Ukrainians torturing Russians for fun as part of government sanctioned policy?
And while obviously a ton of traitors who attacked Ukrainians marching for freedom from Russian puppet state being burned to death is horrific, you're still comparing apples to oranges. The Russian policy is official, state ordered. The crime in Odessa was an incident that happened during a tumultuous time, and wasn't ordered by the Ukrainian government. Russia, the state entity, and all the people it represents, dehumanises every single Ukrainian. Ukraine does no such thing.
So what you're doing is just painting a picture where one side is correct in their dehumanisation
Not correct. Understandable. They're attacked by an enemy that wants to destroy them and dehumanises them, it's trivial to dehumnaise it themselves.
Last week, the European Commission proposed deploying €210 billion in frozen Russian state and central bank assets to finance a €90 billion loan for Ukraine, to be paid out over the next two years.
The central bank in Russia is an internal independent structure that is not a government. The government can borrow this money from the central bank of Russia at an interest rate, but it cannot withdraw it. Technically, this is money from Nabiullina's bank, and Putin and Mishustin can borrow money from her.
Even Euroclear has a legal claim on the money. One could also argue that confiscating the financial assets is not in the line of the general benefit of the country, which is the basis for confiscation. Consequently a constitutional court in Belgium could rule this action as illegal and unconstitutional. ( even the Raad van State could rule beforehand to not do this ).
Edit: Raad van State: is the Belgian advisory court that preemptively tests new laws or executive orders of their lawfulness.
I'm sorry, could you provide a single example of entire state being proclaimed as "criminal organization"? imagine yourself as a leader of a country, or at least a politician of one - could you imagine setting such a precedent, and what can of worms would it open?
would you create an entire new governing body to somehow differentiate "criminal" from "legal" states? who would constitute being a "criminal" and not? would US be considered a "criminal organization" because Trump is basically a half-convict himself? like what are you even talking about, this shit makes no sense, and to make sense that would require countries to have jurisdictions over other countries, to actually judge someone on the basis of being a "criminal" or not.
it doesn't matter, since those funds don't belong to one singular politician inside the government - president or not. Belgium is not worried about Putin personally throwing a tantrum, but about Russian state officially suing Belgium state for not fulfilling their contractual obligation to keep their money in one piece.
on the other note, EU government already confiscated a whole bunch of personal items from Russian elites, who got themselves sanctioned.
this is legal and accepted way, and there already is a legal framework for confiscations of personnel belongings; those Russian assets do not belong to Belgium or any other European country, they are just keeping and managing them. Just like you putting your money in your local bank doesn't mean that you're gifting money to a bank - it's still is your money, and bank promises you to return them any time you wish.
That was never an internationally-recognized state either at the UN level or by any other individual internationally-recognized country. It had as much international legal standing and presence as a state as Boko Haram, the Red Army Faction, or the Sinaloa cartel.
The point is that it was always recognized as a criminal organization, essentially from inception. And never recognized as a state by anyone internationally to begin with.
Quite a different situation than trying to apply that status to already recognized states presiding over large countries. Let alone of major powers and ones with UN clout. It's a non-starter.
Well, Haiti is a failed state, according to various indices, but the indices which monitor and gauge that to make some determination are more about if a country's government has lost control of its own recognized national territory to an insurgency or criminal gangs, has total inability to provide basic services to huge parts of its territory and population in terms of infrastructure and utilities, etc.
Basically if war (like civil conflict), natural disasters, crime, famine, disease, and/or severe mismanagement has effectively ended a government's ability to project power and govern within much of its own country.
Rather than say, a disagreement with or rejection of a government's policies like its foreign policy.
But I agree that it "could" be done in the sense of essentially anything being possible. The reason why it isn't is the same reason why Russia and all the other P5 members which routinely launch foreign invasions or other extrajudicial operations abroad (mainly the U.S., but followed by Britain and France; China much less so) aren't immediately expelled from the UNSC as a body if not the UN itself. Because it would lead to a total breakdown in diplomacy and recreation of the run-up to WWII League of Nations scenario.
There is no legal basis for the US to invade Iraq, bomb Iran and sink Venezuelan fishing boats. If all things were equal the EU should have frozen US assets too but instead too part in helping facilitate the invasion.
Well, if Russia violated a certain law, then it should be punished according to said law? No law says that a country’s asset in EU can be seized. When Russia allocated the money the signed a deal with Belgium or Euroclear - those deal contains rules. Asset seizure is not there and invasion is not too.
Belgium offered to consider it if the EU would share the financial burden when this inevitably has to be repaid to Russia - but the EU countries don't like that idea and are trying to force the issue. Everyone wants to take the money but no one wants to pay for it when the bill comes due.
That’s basically it. There’s been a slew of articles trying to paint Belgium as the bad guy here (I saw one calling Belgium ‘Russia’s greatest asset’) when all they’re asking is for other European countries to take on the same securities as them. Those other countries are refusing because they know the damage actually seizing this money could do, but they’re more than happy to puff their chests out and pretend because it sounds like common sense to take assets from a warmonger
They are realistic enough to refuse to take on any of the risks and leave Belgium holding the bag. If they really believed in what they were doing, they should have no problem signing up to pay the bill.
Thats not happening tho, only way is if europe or us gets involved and its been obvious neither bloc wants to get directly involved
Edit: ukraine is way too severely undermanned to be able to defeat russia militarily, especially with such a large front line. The best can do is drag out the fight unfortunately if things stay as they are now.
Why does anyone want to be fair to russia? We shouldnt treat violent criminals with the same care and respect we reserve for peaceful individuals. Laws that make us give fair treatment to war mongers are bad laws and should be ignored and then changed
The way it works right now is a nation can go to war and keep their EU assets. This is great for war mongers and defense industries and terrible for earth and the people that live there. Laws that protect war criminals assets are not good laws. Sorry I live in the fairy tale world of wanting to making war less profitable
It's not about that, Europe is already on a razor's edge. If they do this then they will no longer be seen as a store of wealth, which means that other countries will pull their money out of banks in Europe and move them somewhere else. There is no basis for confiscating these funds, Belgium knows that Russia is going to win and they're going to want their money back. It's not hard to understand the puts and takes.
By not punishing bad actors we are encouraging more war. Thats an impossible concept to understand the puts and takes of. What does that cost finland or the baltics over the next 50 years? What cost will taiwan or any nation in the south china sea pay? We risk free trade and economic stability by engaging in appeasement.
The way it works has led to russia starting another war. Therefore we didnt do enough to make that unpalatable. Laws that limit our power to dissaude despots from destabilizing everything are worthless and need to be ignored.
Your just agreeing with my point. The laws said what Russia is currently doing is illegal. But there wasnt enough military or economic power being used to stop Russia from doing that in the first place or even the will to dissuade Russia. Europe basically funded this war by buying russian natural resources for decades.
Edit: I reread your original comment and it seems were more in agreement than I originally thought. But if that money is taken from russia theyre will be consequences that Europe should prepare for and right now they aren't
Y'know it would be so easy if the EU just gave Belgium guarantees but they won't. This suggests that seizing those Russian assets would be a terrible terrible idea if they're not trying to take the risk but instead is opting to pressure Belgium.
Truly incredible that they (top inner circle of Eurocrats) clearly know full well that it's illegal, wrong, and destabilizing (hence the refusal to share liability and responsibility), yet want to pawn off the costs onto another (one of their own member states who in theory they are supposed to care for, represent, and protect the interests of) and when that other party refuses, try to browbeat and bully them into doing so.
EU is a pretty terrible organization to be member of if you have something the bigger states want or need something they don't want to give. This became clear when they gutted Greece over a decade ago, and clearly nothing has changed.
Yes seizing those assets would destroy the entire economic system. Seizing assets of criminal Russian oligarchs is a different thing. But from a state? Huge implications. No one would trust Europe anymore.
Bullshit. No one would start a war if they knew their assets would be forfeit. Stealing from murderers is an awesome idea. Maybe some despots would reconsider EU investment, but thats a good thing as much as its bad
Its not about starting a war rather then blowing up the entire basis of the economic system. Not even Nazi assets during WWII got seized. These assets of Russia can only be seized after war and if they lost if anything. If that goes ahead while war goes on, no one would trust anyone. Europeans relly on despots to for energy (Gulf, etc). Not liking them but that moral posturing is just ridicoulous cause it comes from a side who did as much damage as Russia did globally. No one would suggest seizing US/Euro assets for good reasons either.
It would not blow up our economic system. Thats silly. Russia didn't have enough reasons to avoid war. Stealing their stuff would be a deterrent for war. I understand that we are trading economic stability for Ukrainian lives. But thats wrong and if we keep doing that then we should expect more war from nations that invest in EU, because why not?
Despite the heavy industrial component, services dominate the country's economy and account for 77.2% of Belgium's gross domestic product (GDP)
more then 2/3 of their GDP consists of services. Service markets rely heavily on the trust that other countries have in them, and what happens if that trust is broken? that's right, customers don't need those services anymore.
if your personal bank just said to you "our new policy is to take money away from everybody with username u/jqpeub , and no, we're not giving them back" - would you trust them after that? wouldn't you fight them, would you just agree with that and continue using their services?
that's what is going to happen to Belgium, if Russian money is confiscated from them. Other nations will see that, say "fuck it" and just take their money elsewhere. And there is no point in banking systems with no customers in it, it's not going to be "safe investment" anymore, now it's just going to be a political clusterfuck.
Do you have any idea how much money in Europe comes from shady sources? The gulf, Africa, India, China. They all like to store their money in European banks.
Once you set the precedent that it’s okay to confiscate private money for political reasons, no rich foreigner will ever deposit their money in Europe again.
Yes they invest because its a stable environment. Will it still be stable when russia builds upon their war economy over the next 10-20 years? Appeasement has failed miraculously already in Ukraine. We didnt do enough to make conflict unpalatable. Not doing business with nations that destabilize the world is a sustainable and profitable platform.
Appeasement has failed miraculously already in Ukraine.
what?
they're literally on their 20th sanction package, who tf did anything good to Russia for the past 4 years? like all they did is withstood everything that was thrown their way
Please dont belittle anyone in this sub. This is a space for everyone, even children can participate. You should be willing to educate me or just keep the negative comment to yourself. Thanks
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
From Belgium's side
We are afraid that that if they confiscate this cash and one day, Trump comes to the EU and commands everyone to just accept that Russia is cool now and suck it up.
Which let's be real this is a possibility and most of these countries will stand up and say, "YES DADDY!".
At that point Russia is going to look to Belgium and say, "where's my money bitch?" and Belgium will sure as hell be liable for that shit. Then all the other daddy boys and daddy girls will look the other way because they are not liable while we get cuckle-fucked by Russia.
Shared legal risk and responsibility would be the right way to go about this. But that would be time consuming and would require a unanimous vote which VonderCuck doesnt like.
I dont't get it why EU wants to seize those assets so much , aren't they using them as collateral and their income for loans? Wouldn't seizing them just hurt them and create new problems with old loans?
They have no other ideas about how to give money to Ukraine.
they could always pull it out of their collective Treasuries
what happened to "Your fight is our fight." does the EU really think Ukraine is fighting for/with Europe for European security? Or was that just hot air that sounded strong?
The EU doesn’t have a big sovereign treasury like a normal state. It has a small common budget that it usually isn’t allowed to finance with borrowing, and the ECB is banned from directly printing money for EU or national governments. The big national treasuries still belong to the member states themselves. the EU can’t just tap them without their consent.
yeah I understand the EU cant take money out of members at will, but why cant the countries pass the hat around regardless of an EU vote?
If Ukraine needs €80b for 2026 then you just go by % of GDP of the EU. Germany coughs up 20b for being ~25% of the EU GDP, and down the list you go. the EU has nothing to say if Germany decides to cut Kyiv a 20 billion euro check
of course some countries(hungary, slovakia, bulgaria maybe, etc) will probably refuse, but its up to the leader countries to make that up or at least try to get as close to the 80b as possible. even 20b is better than nothing
Like the others said, they don't have anything, really. The only way is to cut their budgets by 2%, no one wants to do that. That's political suicide for them.
Individual countries in the EU claim to be completely broke, they claim to be poor. They have no money. They insist they can't raise taxes, they can't go into debt, and they can't cut social welfare programs either.
They've tried nothing and they're all out of ideas.
Yet they also insist they stand with Ukraine forever, in all ways except for financially or militarily.
They're raging hypocrites.
Individual countries in the EU, which haven't claimed to be poor as they are members of what we call the G7 which is a group of the 7 largest economies, not the 7 poorest economies.
These EU nations, have contributed 187 billion euros to the war effort so far.
So you could say they've tried plenty, and are ready to do more by seizing Russian assets from Belgium bank accounts.
It's evident at this point that the goal is to mitigate direct costs for EU member states as much as possible, and the problem is that Ukraine will need 80 billion a year for more than just 2026. The EU doesn't want to go through this routine year after year when it isn't clear when this conflict will end.
it will end up more than that between funding the ukraine government and buying weapons to keep them supplied
The coalition of the willing huh?
They're very willing to have someone else pay the bill (Belgium) and someone else do the fighting (USA).
Notice that they keep trying to volunteer other countries to do all of the heavy lifting for them. Any time the topic of peacekeeping comes up they insist on an American "backstop" to any peacekeeping force.
No I hadn't noticed that, can you show us a few articles of them having the USA do any sort of fighting for them?
Did you notice them asking for an international peacekeeping force not just American? You know as a deterrent against Putin attacking a better equipped nation than the Ukraine?
And did you notice that its also not Belgium paying a bill, it's Russia paying for the war it started with it's funds currently held in Belgium
Excuse me? Romania lost 80% of it's emergency reserve fund after a corrupt bout two years ago. We didn't even have money to continue to float our currency to upkeep eur/ron price.
Europe is bankrupt, they don't have any money and they are drowning in debt
What happened to supposedly having the second most powerful currency in the world? The EU has less debt than the US, and the US just uses its reserve currency status to endlessly print money with no care that it's already underwater in debt.
EU tried to make Norway tap their sovereign fund to back Ukraine. They got a pretty entertaining answer.
Well they could ask 1:1 a ressource deal from Ukraine like US did it.
Or Ukriane could start selling their silverware like land. The same that ever-single-european-city has done to refinance their debt (very few exceptions who didn't do it): they sold land and soil to investors and public funds.
Ukriane could sell it's prime real estate to European nations. No better way for a win-win. Europea can reinvest after the war and rebuild everything, Ukriane gets new real estate and cities and the retirement system of EU is fixed with constant income.
Because it's a political process. That's the idea.
While it's ongoing, there's no need to address any other issues. And since seizing assets is difficult and no one really believes it, the process can continue indefinitely.
The interest isn't enough to fund Ukraine, they need significant funding increases from the EU now that Trump looks pretty much set to not send any money going forward. Its something like 150 billion that the EU has to come up with but there isn't any support for raising taxes, cutting spending elsewhere, or bigger deficits to come up with the money.
The EU wants the war to continue but wants others to pay for it. First the USA, now belgium.
I cant stress this enough. Even the german money during WW2 was NOT confiscated. It was only frozen and only after the war ended was used for reparation.
No, they want Russia to pay for it with Russian assets herd in a Belgian bank.
Not a hard concept mate.
Euroclear and Belgium are liable for the money.
Not a hard concept mate.
No, Belgium is worried they would be liable if the situation changes.
Under current law they are liable.
If it is so easy and clear, why the eu does not want to share the liability?
Because they know what will happen afterwards.
what situation changes? Belgium is worried that they would be liable if situation on the battlefield won't change. If Russia losses, then they can be pressured into signing those funds off as reparations, otherwise Belgium will have to restore money stolen from the Russian sovereign fund.
You've already frozen the funds.
If you can freeze funds of states for violating international law, confiscation is not a far leap.
Hello you could do some "creative accounting."
Create a bond for funding Ukraine at zero percent interest, 200 years term.
Use funds to buy the bond.
Now Ukraine is liable, but pays no interest and only has to pay back the bond in 200 years.
Point is, if there's political will to make it happen, it can happen. And ultimately it is Russia paying the price, not Belgium.
And Russia should be paying the price, given that they fucking started the war.
Not sure why so many people lining up to suck Russian dick, but here we are.
No you can't do, no other countries will recognize that.
Ok, and? What are they going to do?
Worst case you endure some short term pain and reduction in asset prices from warlords, dictators, and oligarchs pulling investments.
People saying this would lead to the collapse of the EU banking system are being hyperbolic. The "it won't happen to me" cope is strong.
Even the fact that the assets were able to be frozen at all shows that Putin had such an extreme level of delusion that he didn't think the assets would be frozen. If he thought there would be such a response, he never would have invaded in the first place.
The EU is not in a position to endure some shot term pain
Wow, are you actually serious? And then your own explanation dumbs down to "people wanna suck Russian dick"?
Why don't you go rob the store down the street right now?
Even if you are found liable, it's some short term pain.
That's your argument here.
More like, friend A asks if he can park his car in your garage. He'll pay you some rent, because he doesn't have a garage and wants his cars paint to stay glossy.
Friend A then goes, burns down friend B's car and beats him up. Now friend B is having to walk to work on crutches. Friend A was arrested and is in jail.
Do you give your former Friend A's car to Friend B? Or do you leave it in your garage, because you're scared that if you give it to Friend B, all of former Friend A's shady drug dealer friends won't want to pay you rent to park their cars in your garage in future.
There’s also this problem that no rich foreigner will ever deposit their money in Belgium ever again. Foreign capital will dry up, and there’s a lot of money coming in from the gulf states (ahem ahem Qatar) for example.
Just as liable as Russia stealing the Romanian treasury, but yeah, only a show of force is gonna work.
We live in a world where Ukraine's biggest ally switched to become Russia's biggest ally and is now pressuring Ukraine to give up land, their army and what not.
Understandable but then again we already have Russia doing covert operations across Europe either by themselves or by criminals or cyber attacks. Merz is the biggest issue here he keeps making excuses for trump every time he says something about Europe
It sounds to me like the solution to prevent such a scenario is to commit to permanent total non-negotiable alignment against Russia.
Not a very attractive option given that leaves the US as the only game in town, and the US is now openly calling for regime change across Europe (to stop "wokeness" or whatever).
Belgium can pass laws making this legal, deferring to EU if that’s not the case.
Can pass whatever laws we want
But if the other EU states refuse help honor it when we defer to them, then we'll still get cuckle fucked
It's about trust and we dont trust the daddy's children to help out. Like who is going to be the next leaders in 4-6 years no one knows.
This is to protect ourselves.
Right way is to do it properly and give us the legal shield needed. Any which way else is the wrong way.
And who's gonna put money into Belgium if they have a law that they can confiscate the money if something happens to an unrelated third party country ?
Your local laws are not above international law or other major courts.
Yes they literally are.
International law doesn't exist beyond treaties between nations.
Dont forget there is Euroclear court in Hong-Kong, China can put a preasure on it for Russia to win the case
There is no Euroclear court...Euroclear is a private company.
China can't do shit.
Russia can sue in Belgium, in Russia or in Belgium/EU.
Well, some big economical court, that can sue Belgium, there are 3 of them
There are many courts.
None of them are Euroclear nor can they do shit.
Russia can sue in Russia or in Belgium/EU.
Good luck operating outside the EU. And getting money into the EU after that.
You sound like those third rate politicians saying "Hey we should confiscate this and that and pay nothing, what's the problem with it?"
Where would you go else? The US? Saudi Arabia? Hong Kong? Stop kidding yourself. The EU is by far the most stable place on this planet to put your money into.
You know the rules. They'd be stated out clearly and when Belgium is done kicking around in their fake drama, I'd be gone. Just following orders. Just like with all those yachts, houses, etc. they gave away.
Its so stable that they are gambling on an open war with Russia while the US is taking steps to get out of NATO, all the at the same time that the EU wants to step all over each member country's internal decisions.
I'm quite bearish on the European Union, I love Europe but the European Union seems to be run by idiots and warmongering women
You misspelled Switzerland
or some tax shelter in the caymans is probably safer than the EU
The same Switzerland which reports back to the US?
FATCA only matters if you are an American trying to dodge taxes, it doesn't apply to non-Americans and the Swiss aren't seizing any funds
Russia is such a weird country. For how much it likes to bully the little guys, they do not hesitate whatsoever to go crying to mommy Trump and daddy Xi for help.
I hate to be defending Russia here, but it upsets the natural order to just seize a sovereign nation's assets and hand it to another nation. It is a legally dubious thing to do. Imagine that being done to France, Belgium, Italy, the U.S., China, African nations, etc. It's just a ridiculous premise. Now understandably if it was done by Russia as part of a peace treaty where they agreed to have it released to Ukraine for rebuilding as a token gesture as one of the things they had to give up to make the peace happen that is a completely different situation.
Edit: Thanks, I guess....? to all the russians upvoting me? End the war, it's a needless waste of life, resources and good will among men. Here's a song for you to listen to in the meantime:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nurIbwBLEQU
The natural order is that nations with EU assets can engage in war without fear of seizure. Why should we protect that? Doesnt that incentivize more conflict?
What stops countries to just don’t put their assets in EU if there is slim chance they will be taken away?
Today it is aggression, tomorrow they will demand “European values”
There is already a slim chance. Russia wont be sending any more assets to europe while they plan their baltic and black sea conflicts
You want to protect it for the same reason the bank wants to protect the norm that your deposits won't be stolen at the whim of the CEO. The alternative is that anyone who thinks the EU might one day look at them sideways will steer clear. At minimum, this will be a disaster for Euroclear, a major financial institution in Belgium, but there's no telling how far reaching the consequences would be given that the EU is the driving force behind it.
There's also the issue of the "rules-based order" defenders making a mockery of international law and thereby discrediting the premise of their ideological fight with Russia.
Bro I'm not arguing anything, where in my comment did I do that?
I'm just laughing at the irony of a bully being a mammas boy, did you misinterpret something or just a bad bot?
Not a bot. I just assumed that's what you meant by suggesting they're crying for help. They shouldn't have to cry for help on this particular topic, it isn't a legal action to make off with their money.
EU top politicians, like Ursula or Kallas, are acting like populists making cool calls like ‘confiscate Russian money’, while they know perfectly that this is practically illegal, there is no clause in any document or law that allows you to do that. Yet, by making such calls they frame people who are actually responsible to see that these rules are respected as ‘traitors’ or ‘Russia supporters’.
Why exactly is EU law relevant when it's the EU making the call? It can make its own laws. And don't tell me international law. International law only matters as far as states are willing to let themselves be bound by it.
In modern democratic societies making retroactive laws is very much frowned upon. You can make traveling to Botswana illegal, but if you then go and jail people who went there before this law was made you would look like a madman.
Although technically possible it would destroy investors trust in the system and they would probably move their money elsewhere.
We made retroactive laws to punish the Nazis for their war crimes, an obvious precedent for this situation considering Russian actions.
Difference is Nazis unconditionally capitulated after their capital was occupied by those, who later punished them for their actions. If EU and Ukraine captures Kremlin, they would no doubt do the similar kind of punishment to Russian top officers and commanders but I don’t see it possible in the near time.
Europe already has possession of the money though. They do not need to defeat Russia to ask for permission to just take it.
I am talking about enacting retroactive laws to seize the cash, not punish the leaders of Russia for clarity.
the difference is that Nazis were defeated and were literally powerless. No one cared about their opinion on what's going to happen to them; while Russia, if it wins this war, will have all the resources possible to do as much pushback as possible, including collaborating with other BRICS states to effectively boycott European banks.
And where is this magical elsewhere?
Middle East, USA, China, etc. While it may be not as profitable it’s still way better than getting al of your money confiscated over some trumped up nonsense.
Ah yes, the famously stable Middle East where you can invest your money in Israel or oil.
The same USA that is starting a new trade war every 2 days and where the ruling clique openly and shamelessly manipulate the market with government backing to specifically enrich themselves and constantly demand huge bribes from everyone else. And which does the same to its enemies.
Who does and would do the exact same as the EU just to a way larger and more onerous degree.
Invading an ally of the confiscating nation is not "trumped up nonsense".
You know, I start to think you don’t entirely understand how it works. Belgian-based Euroclear is not just keeping your money, it has to pay your interest.
And where do they get the money to pay you? From investing your money into projects, like US tech giants and Food conglomerates, Saudi Arabian and Qatari energy and construction companies, Chinese home appliance manufacturers, Korean shipbuilding companies, etc you get the idea.
It’s just a convenient system to invest in all those places, like buying 5 different games from developers or getting them all on Steam in two clicks. Their one main thing is convenience and security of your money, that’s why they take their cut.
So what would be the point of going to them when you can invest your money directly, without a chance the some law would be written specifically to steal them from you?
The same as currently. Someone investing your money for you and not having to fight your own lawsuits. The fact is, you still won't get better security for it than in the EU, so that point is not relevant. Don't go around invading EU allies and you don't get your money taken away, it is that simple.
People don't abandon Steam either because they took away the accounts of hackers and scammers.
Anywhere where money are not stolen?
Nonsense. a) Retroactive laws are something actively wished for when for example they reduce or remove penalties (see drug reform), or when it's known that illegal stuff is happening but it's difficult to pursue legal action, like with organised crime. b) This isn't even about making something illegal that previously wasn't, and it isn't about individuals' rights (except those of the Ukrainian populace, I suppose). c) The criticism would be from the usual very obvious, biased, meaningless mouthpieces and could be ignored.
You think the EU seizing Russian state assets would spook the stock market? Why? What do these things have to do with one another? That's just a non sequitur.
That’s literally one of the reasons given by the Belgian authorities, go ask them
They're the ones who are already playing Quisling. Clearly I already disagree with them. If you agree with them give me your reasoning.
being able to do something =/= something should be done. China already made a statement, that it'll basically pull out their funds from European banking systems, if Russian funds will be confiscated. In the eyes of several other nations, Russian funds being touched in any way, shape or form is a violation of contractual obligation, that promises to keep them safe at all times.
imagine yourself as a China in this situation - your ally just got it's money taken away, due to a political reason and a law that was quickly made up, just to allow said confiscation. How would you feel? you would think "oh wait, this could happen to me, they're making up bullshit to justify their actions, it's not safe anymore". Anyone with a reasonable line of thought will pull out their funds immediately, before anything happened to them.
a whole bunch of European nations rely on their service market and banking systems to make their economy work. Their services prosper, when other countries respect and trust them. If that trust is going to be broken, customers will look for other services somewhere else in the world, and your money will be essentially gone. You can't just make shit up and make everybody else oblige, if no one recognizes your decision as legal, you're just going to lose billions.
Nope, the state is allowed to take money from a criminal organisation. Or more precisely, to freeze and confiscate illegally acquired assets. I don’t see why Putin and his oligarch posse can’t be included in this.
Edit: here is the most recent EU proposal for freezing and confiscation orders: https://commission.europa.eu/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/types-judicial-cooperation/confiscation-and-freezing-assets_en
The assets dont belong to the Russian state or government but they originate from private Russian individuals. I realize this distinction may be challenging for you to process, but
They're foreign exchange reserves, which are government funds. There are some oligarch assets in there too, but the bulk (~200b euros) is money Russia formerly used for investment and trade. That's the whole point of Euroclear, to facilitate trade.
It's easy, and has been tried and tested many times, see, you just designate a single race inferior and...
You mean like Russia saying Ukrainians don't exist, right? Right?
Exactly. And Ukrainians saying that Russians are not humans and should be eradicated to the last orc, women and children included, because "they are naturally, genetically predisposed to being evil" - I understand that they're angry and venting online, but it's jarring how supportive is Reddit of hate speech when it's aimed at "designated evil group of today".
The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a clusterfuck of fucking dehumanisation. Both sides should be studied at how easily the humans delve into civil war. You literally cannot tell them apart and yet they are willing to gas each other until no one is left.
You have a lot less of those than... the official Russian policy, and their resulting genocide in progress (kidnapping Ukrainian children to give for adoption to Russian couples, which is literally in the definition of genocide).
And it's vastly more understandable for the defenders in a barbaric attack that keeps striking civilians on purpose, and which tortures captured soldiers and civilians, to dehumanise their attackers. I totally get where they're coming from, they're fighting a war of survival against a genocidal regime that wants to eradicate them.
Not to be "that" guy but there's videos of Ukrainians using screwdrivers to puncture the eyes of POVs, that they themselves uploaded.
This is literally a "both sides" scenario and trying to paint one of them as "worse" won't work on me, as I said, they're fucking insane on both sides and has been for over a decade at this point.
Have you seen the 2014 Odessa Trade Union fire results? They burned the pro-russian protesters alive, the photos from there are haunting. It was well underway back then
And the thing is that makes it worse is that they were forcing people to stay inside, too. Like, you can find that. These people were protesters that were barricaded inside and the building was set on fire, and then those that were trying to escape were forced back. How's that for a barbaric attack?
So what you're doing is just painting a picture where one side is correct in their dehumanisation, even though they literally mean ALL Russians, which includes anyone abroad, or anyone identifying as Russian inside Ukraine, which is most of the Eastern parts as well.
As part of the official government policy?
The side that started the whole thing, and is committing a genocide, is worse. There is nothing to work, it's just pure objective fact. One side is committing genocide and on the offensive trying to force their torture on the other; the other is on the defensive.
What was under way? Ukrainians torturing Russians for fun as part of government sanctioned policy? And while obviously a ton of traitors who attacked Ukrainians marching for freedom from Russian puppet state being burned to death is horrific, you're still comparing apples to oranges. The Russian policy is official, state ordered. The crime in Odessa was an incident that happened during a tumultuous time, and wasn't ordered by the Ukrainian government. Russia, the state entity, and all the people it represents, dehumanises every single Ukrainian. Ukraine does no such thing.
Not correct. Understandable. They're attacked by an enemy that wants to destroy them and dehumanises them, it's trivial to dehumnaise it themselves.
Nope. State assets.
https://united24media.com/latest-news/eu-rushes-to-freeze-eur210b-russian-assets-permanently-to-stop-orban-from-blocking-aid-14155
The central bank in Russia is an internal independent structure that is not a government. The government can borrow this money from the central bank of Russia at an interest rate, but it cannot withdraw it. Technically, this is money from Nabiullina's bank, and Putin and Mishustin can borrow money from her.
Even Euroclear has a legal claim on the money. One could also argue that confiscating the financial assets is not in the line of the general benefit of the country, which is the basis for confiscation. Consequently a constitutional court in Belgium could rule this action as illegal and unconstitutional. ( even the Raad van State could rule beforehand to not do this ).
Edit: Raad van State: is the Belgian advisory court that preemptively tests new laws or executive orders of their lawfulness.
A ton of assets held by private Russian citizens have been frozen. Specifically because of their links to the Russian government.
If you can confiscate Russian government assets, you can confiscate frozen assets held by citizens with ties to the Russian Government.
Go troll somewhere else.
😂
But Russia is not an organization and those assets were not acquired illegally. Those money do not belong to oligarchs too.
I'm sorry, could you provide a single example of entire state being proclaimed as "criminal organization"? imagine yourself as a leader of a country, or at least a politician of one - could you imagine setting such a precedent, and what can of worms would it open?
would you create an entire new governing body to somehow differentiate "criminal" from "legal" states? who would constitute being a "criminal" and not? would US be considered a "criminal organization" because Trump is basically a half-convict himself? like what are you even talking about, this shit makes no sense, and to make sense that would require countries to have jurisdictions over other countries, to actually judge someone on the basis of being a "criminal" or not.
I wouldn’t suggest labelling a state as a criminal organisation. But for the head of state and its supporters is not unheard of.
Bolsanaro is accused of heading a criminal organisation to stay in power.
Or Maduro, who is considered by the US as head of a cartel.
I don’t know of all the legalities surrounding it, but to me it seems like a possible route.
it doesn't matter, since those funds don't belong to one singular politician inside the government - president or not. Belgium is not worried about Putin personally throwing a tantrum, but about Russian state officially suing Belgium state for not fulfilling their contractual obligation to keep their money in one piece.
on the other note, EU government already confiscated a whole bunch of personal items from Russian elites, who got themselves sanctioned.
https://marineindustrynews.co.uk/europe-seizes-russian-superyachts-as-oligarchs-flee/
this is legal and accepted way, and there already is a legal framework for confiscations of personnel belongings; those Russian assets do not belong to Belgium or any other European country, they are just keeping and managing them. Just like you putting your money in your local bank doesn't mean that you're gifting money to a bank - it's still is your money, and bank promises you to return them any time you wish.
You should probably learn the legalities of the things you suggest as solutions, instead of just saying what sounds good.
The Islamic State feels like a pretty obvious one.
That was never an internationally-recognized state either at the UN level or by any other individual internationally-recognized country. It had as much international legal standing and presence as a state as Boko Haram, the Red Army Faction, or the Sinaloa cartel.
Oh, as in it was denounced as criminal organization?
The point is that it was always recognized as a criminal organization, essentially from inception. And never recognized as a state by anyone internationally to begin with.
Quite a different situation than trying to apply that status to already recognized states presiding over large countries. Let alone of major powers and ones with UN clout. It's a non-starter.
Haiti then? Agreed that it's overwhelmingly unlikely to happen but that's more a matter of realpolitik than norms.
Well, Haiti is a failed state, according to various indices, but the indices which monitor and gauge that to make some determination are more about if a country's government has lost control of its own recognized national territory to an insurgency or criminal gangs, has total inability to provide basic services to huge parts of its territory and population in terms of infrastructure and utilities, etc.
Basically if war (like civil conflict), natural disasters, crime, famine, disease, and/or severe mismanagement has effectively ended a government's ability to project power and govern within much of its own country.
Rather than say, a disagreement with or rejection of a government's policies like its foreign policy.
But I agree that it "could" be done in the sense of essentially anything being possible. The reason why it isn't is the same reason why Russia and all the other P5 members which routinely launch foreign invasions or other extrajudicial operations abroad (mainly the U.S., but followed by Britain and France; China much less so) aren't immediately expelled from the UNSC as a body if not the UN itself. Because it would lead to a total breakdown in diplomacy and recreation of the run-up to WWII League of Nations scenario.
There was no legal basis for Russia to invade Ukraine, not sure why Russia is allowed to bend the rules but the EU can't.
There is no legal basis for the US to invade Iraq, bomb Iran and sink Venezuelan fishing boats. If all things were equal the EU should have frozen US assets too but instead too part in helping facilitate the invasion.
if the laws dont matter then why wont EU countries share in the risk with Belgium and give them guarantees?
EU can bend the rules, it's just that other countries and private individuals would rather have their money in places that don't
And Ukraine can confiscate Russian assets they control. There is no Russian invasion of Belgium.
Well, if Russia violated a certain law, then it should be punished according to said law? No law says that a country’s asset in EU can be seized. When Russia allocated the money the signed a deal with Belgium or Euroclear - those deal contains rules. Asset seizure is not there and invasion is not too.
Belgium offered to consider it if the EU would share the financial burden when this inevitably has to be repaid to Russia - but the EU countries don't like that idea and are trying to force the issue. Everyone wants to take the money but no one wants to pay for it when the bill comes due.
That’s basically it. There’s been a slew of articles trying to paint Belgium as the bad guy here (I saw one calling Belgium ‘Russia’s greatest asset’) when all they’re asking is for other European countries to take on the same securities as them. Those other countries are refusing because they know the damage actually seizing this money could do, but they’re more than happy to puff their chests out and pretend because it sounds like common sense to take assets from a warmonger
Europe is still stuck in its idealistic thinking of the world in my opinion. Their not being realistic about the consequences of taking that money
They are realistic enough to refuse to take on any of the risks and leave Belgium holding the bag. If they really believed in what they were doing, they should have no problem signing up to pay the bill.
There's a scenario where there is no bill
What scenario is that?
If Russia would lose the war and would be forced to sign a peace treaty where they relinquish those assets.
Thats not happening tho, only way is if europe or us gets involved and its been obvious neither bloc wants to get directly involved
Edit: ukraine is way too severely undermanned to be able to defeat russia militarily, especially with such a large front line. The best can do is drag out the fight unfortunately if things stay as they are now.
I never said it was realistic
Than why bring it up lol
The Danish guy above did.
Loll my bad I wasnt checking the usernames
Why does anyone want to be fair to russia? We shouldnt treat violent criminals with the same care and respect we reserve for peaceful individuals. Laws that make us give fair treatment to war mongers are bad laws and should be ignored and then changed
Because world isn't a playground. People like you live in a fairly tail world where magically x would happen. That's not how it works m
The way it works right now is a nation can go to war and keep their EU assets. This is great for war mongers and defense industries and terrible for earth and the people that live there. Laws that protect war criminals assets are not good laws. Sorry I live in the fairy tale world of wanting to making war less profitable
The EU could share the burden with Belgium, but they are refusing to… why?
It's not about that, Europe is already on a razor's edge. If they do this then they will no longer be seen as a store of wealth, which means that other countries will pull their money out of banks in Europe and move them somewhere else. There is no basis for confiscating these funds, Belgium knows that Russia is going to win and they're going to want their money back. It's not hard to understand the puts and takes.
By not punishing bad actors we are encouraging more war. Thats an impossible concept to understand the puts and takes of. What does that cost finland or the baltics over the next 50 years? What cost will taiwan or any nation in the south china sea pay? We risk free trade and economic stability by engaging in appeasement.
Thats not how the world works of has ever worked. At the end of the day power is what matters not laws
The way it works has led to russia starting another war. Therefore we didnt do enough to make that unpalatable. Laws that limit our power to dissaude despots from destabilizing everything are worthless and need to be ignored.
Your just agreeing with my point. The laws said what Russia is currently doing is illegal. But there wasnt enough military or economic power being used to stop Russia from doing that in the first place or even the will to dissuade Russia. Europe basically funded this war by buying russian natural resources for decades.
Edit: I reread your original comment and it seems were more in agreement than I originally thought. But if that money is taken from russia theyre will be consequences that Europe should prepare for and right now they aren't
Y'know it would be so easy if the EU just gave Belgium guarantees but they won't. This suggests that seizing those Russian assets would be a terrible terrible idea if they're not trying to take the risk but instead is opting to pressure Belgium.
Edit:typo
Truly incredible that they (top inner circle of Eurocrats) clearly know full well that it's illegal, wrong, and destabilizing (hence the refusal to share liability and responsibility), yet want to pawn off the costs onto another (one of their own member states who in theory they are supposed to care for, represent, and protect the interests of) and when that other party refuses, try to browbeat and bully them into doing so.
What a profoundly disgusting group.
EU is a pretty terrible organization to be member of if you have something the bigger states want or need something they don't want to give. This became clear when they gutted Greece over a decade ago, and clearly nothing has changed.
Yes seizing those assets would destroy the entire economic system. Seizing assets of criminal Russian oligarchs is a different thing. But from a state? Huge implications. No one would trust Europe anymore.
Bullshit. No one would start a war if they knew their assets would be forfeit. Stealing from murderers is an awesome idea. Maybe some despots would reconsider EU investment, but thats a good thing as much as its bad
Its not about starting a war rather then blowing up the entire basis of the economic system. Not even Nazi assets during WWII got seized. These assets of Russia can only be seized after war and if they lost if anything. If that goes ahead while war goes on, no one would trust anyone. Europeans relly on despots to for energy (Gulf, etc). Not liking them but that moral posturing is just ridicoulous cause it comes from a side who did as much damage as Russia did globally. No one would suggest seizing US/Euro assets for good reasons either.
It would not blow up our economic system. Thats silly. Russia didn't have enough reasons to avoid war. Stealing their stuff would be a deterrent for war. I understand that we are trading economic stability for Ukrainian lives. But thats wrong and if we keep doing that then we should expect more war from nations that invest in EU, because why not?
we're talking about Belgium:
more then 2/3 of their GDP consists of services. Service markets rely heavily on the trust that other countries have in them, and what happens if that trust is broken? that's right, customers don't need those services anymore.
if your personal bank just said to you "our new policy is to take money away from everybody with username u/jqpeub , and no, we're not giving them back" - would you trust them after that? wouldn't you fight them, would you just agree with that and continue using their services?
that's what is going to happen to Belgium, if Russian money is confiscated from them. Other nations will see that, say "fuck it" and just take their money elsewhere. And there is no point in banking systems with no customers in it, it's not going to be "safe investment" anymore, now it's just going to be a political clusterfuck.
Do you have any idea how much money in Europe comes from shady sources? The gulf, Africa, India, China. They all like to store their money in European banks.
Once you set the precedent that it’s okay to confiscate private money for political reasons, no rich foreigner will ever deposit their money in Europe again.
Yes they invest because its a stable environment. Will it still be stable when russia builds upon their war economy over the next 10-20 years? Appeasement has failed miraculously already in Ukraine. We didnt do enough to make conflict unpalatable. Not doing business with nations that destabilize the world is a sustainable and profitable platform.
The United States is first on that list.
what?
they're literally on their 20th sanction package, who tf did anything good to Russia for the past 4 years? like all they did is withstood everything that was thrown their way
I could never understand being this childish. So naive.
Please dont belittle anyone in this sub. This is a space for everyone, even children can participate. You should be willing to educate me or just keep the negative comment to yourself. Thanks
I wonder where Belgium stands on the Irish tax issue?
Regardless it will be interesting to see how this plays out and what implications it has for other countries