Since Russia launched its military offensive on Ukraine on February 24, Western countries, including the United States, have imposed a series of sanctions in an attempt to stop the war machine, which has not happened so far.
After incurring huge material losses, Ukraine needs regarding 600 billion dollars to rebuild what was destroyed by the war, and here began to think regarding confiscating Russian assets abroad instead of just freezing them.
and warns Ecowest Magazine The British in her report of the risks involved in this “tempting” idea, and said it would be a “mistake”.
Western countries imposed sanctions on Moscow, including a ban on its assets in Western banks and the balances of businessmen in Western banks, and the European Union imposed a partial embargo on oil exports.
These steps have caused major turmoil in the Russian economy, the effects of which are expected to continue in the coming years. However, these sanctions have “clear limits.” The regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin has benefited from high energy prices to increase its revenues.
Many of Russia’s customers continue to buy oil, and its crude production is expected to be only 20 percent lower by the end of 2023 from pre-war levels.
Kremlin-linked tycoons are still free to travel to most parts of the world, while Russian missiles continue to kill civilians in Ukraine and destroy its economic capacity.
Given that Ukraine’s epidemic might cost more than $600 billion, it has prompted us to consider switching from simply freezing Russian assets temporarily, to confiscating them permanently, and using them to pay this bill.
Russia has regarding $300 billion in reserves in the West and up to another $1 trillion in private sector assets abroad.
But the transition to a policy of permanent confiscation “will be very dangerous” because it will raise two questions, the first is whether this policy is legal, and the second is whether it has a clear strategic impact.
In the first case, the US president has the power to freeze, but usually not confiscate, a foreign government’s assets, unless the United States is at war with that country. Since the invasion began, President Joe Biden has made sure that it is not at war with Russia.
The executive branch can transfer control of certain foreign assets when it ceases to recognize a country’s government, as is the case with some money belonging to Venezuela and Afghanistan. However, Washington says it is not seeking regime change in Russia.
Under international law, compensation usually involves the consent of the paying state, within the framework of a peace treaty, and any negotiations in this regard are currently out of reach, and the confiscation of assets owned by individuals, unless they are convicted by the courts is questionable, and in some countries, such as Germany, it may be This action is unconstitutional.
As for the strategic benefit, expropriation will make no difference in the short term to the Kremlin’s ability to finance the war machine, since the Putin regime cannot actually use frozen foreign assets.
In the long run, the confiscations, without a clear legal basis, will expose all cross-border assets, including Western assets as well, to forfeiture, and this will give an additional incentive for countries not allied with the United States, or with unstable relations with it, to bypass the financial system led by Washington, which It is the bedrock of Western power.
The report proposes increasing military aid to Ukraine rather than resorting to asset confiscation, while maintaining sanctions as long as Russia continues its war, and making it clear that even if a peace agreement is not signed, and no Russian compensation is paid at all, Europe and the United States still have to pay A large part of the bill for rebuilding Ukraine’s devastated economy.
