The European Union has prepared legislation that would see Ukraine start to receive profits generated by frozen Russian sovereign assets as early as July.
This sounds great at first, but I do wonder how this could affect Europe’s standing with a post-Putin Russia. Frozen assets are a bargaining chip only so long as they are frozen and not permanently confiscated.
In the best case scenario Putin is gone and the EU can unfreeze these assets with conditions to be met by a new Russian administration. Worst case scenario, permanent confiscation shows Putin is the Russian elite’s only hope.
I’m not usually this pragmatic, so I’d be happy to be wrong about this.
That’s not what they’ll think. Authoritarians respect power, not conciliation. Giving them back the money tells them they’re correct and encourages them to do it again.
It’s a child’s philosophy. If a child throws a tantrum and you say “no ice cream”, you can’t give them ice cream later.
Reconciliation cannot work if a people is humiliated (even as the result of authoritarian leaders).
I’m not at all suggesting compromise with regard to occupied territories, I’m saying that Russians have been lead to believe they have been humiliated and betrayed by the West on countless occasions, and in the case that the illegal occupation of Ukrainian territories comes to and end, and the Putin regime falls, these assets could be returned to the Russian people to help rebuild a state hollowed out by its dictatorship. The West can support Ukraine with or without these funds.
We will have to embrace a fragile Russian people post-Putin. That, or create space for his authoritarian successors.
I appreciate why I have been downvoted above, but I’m simply asking what role these assets could play if returned with conditions to a post-Putin regime. I don’t consider that acquiescence, or compromising Ukrainian sovereignty.
Honestly, money is fungible. It doesn’t actually make that much difference whether Ukraine gets money from Russia now, but if it’s going to be used during the war rather than for post-war reconstruction, then someone is gonna have to pony up post-war funds to fill that hole, because Ukraine is probably gonna need more than the amount seized from Russia.
If we want to buy Putin off for $300 billion and he’s willing to be bought out, then it doesn’t make much difference whether the money is booked as coming from Russia or us.
This sounds great at first, but I do wonder how this could affect Europe’s standing with a post-Putin Russia. Frozen assets are a bargaining chip only so long as they are frozen and not permanently confiscated.
In the best case scenario Putin is gone and the EU can unfreeze these assets with conditions to be met by a new Russian administration. Worst case scenario, permanent confiscation shows Putin is the Russian elite’s only hope.
I’m not usually this pragmatic, so I’d be happy to be wrong about this.
That’s not what they’ll think. Authoritarians respect power, not conciliation. Giving them back the money tells them they’re correct and encourages them to do it again.
It’s a child’s philosophy. If a child throws a tantrum and you say “no ice cream”, you can’t give them ice cream later.
You can give a child ice cream for good behavior.
Reconciliation cannot work if a people is humiliated (even as the result of authoritarian leaders).
I’m not at all suggesting compromise with regard to occupied territories, I’m saying that Russians have been lead to believe they have been humiliated and betrayed by the West on countless occasions, and in the case that the illegal occupation of Ukrainian territories comes to and end, and the Putin regime falls, these assets could be returned to the Russian people to help rebuild a state hollowed out by its dictatorship. The West can support Ukraine with or without these funds.
We will have to embrace a fragile Russian people post-Putin. That, or create space for his authoritarian successors.
I appreciate why I have been downvoted above, but I’m simply asking what role these assets could play if returned with conditions to a post-Putin regime. I don’t consider that acquiescence, or compromising Ukrainian sovereignty.
Entire question was about time after authoritarianism
Lifting sanctions is also a chip.
Honestly, money is fungible. It doesn’t actually make that much difference whether Ukraine gets money from Russia now, but if it’s going to be used during the war rather than for post-war reconstruction, then someone is gonna have to pony up post-war funds to fill that hole, because Ukraine is probably gonna need more than the amount seized from Russia.
If we want to buy Putin off for $300 billion and he’s willing to be bought out, then it doesn’t make much difference whether the money is booked as coming from Russia or us.