Three years into Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine, Europe finds itself burdened with a staggering financial commitment. The European Union and its allies have already spent nearly $122 billion in direct aid to Kyiv, with additional billions funneled into military reinforcements and defense industry upgrades. Yet, amid mounting costs, the bloc remains hesitant to seize an enormous financial resource sitting right within its reach: the $229 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets.

While the EU has opted to use the interest from these frozen funds to back multi-billion-dollar loans to Ukraine, growing voices within Europe and North America are calling for a more drastic measure-outright confiscation. The United States and Canada have already introduced legislation enabling their governments to seize Russian assets for Ukraine’s benefit. France, too, has moved in this direction, with lawmakers passing a non-binding resolution urging the government to use the principal sum, not just the interest, to finance Ukraine’s military and reconstruction.

However, despite the momentum, significant legal, economic, and geopolitical roadblocks stand in the way of Europe taking such a step. The controversy surrounding asset confiscation is growing into a test of international law, financial stability, and Western unity.

At first glance, the logic behind seizing Russia’s frozen assets to support Ukraine appears straightforward: Ukraine is struggling, the West is paying an increasingly high price to support it, and the aggressor’s funds are conveniently immobilized within Western financial institutions. The interest on these assets-already being used to secure loans for Kyiv-is not nearly sufficient to meet Ukraine’s needs. If Europe wants to sustain its support for Ukraine without draining its own coffers, confiscating Russia’s assets seems like an attractive option.

But........

© Blitz