Friday, February 28, a lunar exchange occurred in Mondovision, from the oval office of the White House. US President Donald Trump-who has helped in this by his vice-president JD Vance-accused his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, of not being grateful to the American nation for his support and to be a supporter of “World War II”. The Ukrainian president then rushedly left Washington, without signing the agreement on the exploitation of minerals in Ukraine, supposed to condition American aid to the war effort against Russia.
The telescoping between Washington and kyiv caused a new diplomatic earthquake and the allies took advantage of a summit in London on Sunday, March 2, to ensure Ukraine of their support. It is in this context that a recurring question has resurfaced since the establishment of sanctions against Russia: should we now grasp the frozen Russian assets since the start of the war in 2022? The money could allow Ukraine to have weapons against its attacker and consider its reconstruction, estimated at around 524 billion dollars (500 billion euros), reports an article in the New York Times.
This question arises more intensely since the White House announced temporarily suspending American military aid in Ukraine on Monday, March 3. A decision which affects with immediate effect more than a billion dollars in weapons and munitions in transit or commanded, while the war continues on the Ukrainian front.
Europeans divided on the subject
This option to transfer frozen Russian assets to Ukraine does not consensus in the European ranks. France, Germany and the European Commission have so far been opposed to this decision, seeing potential disastrous consequences on the confidence granted to European financial markets in the future, not excluding that this initiative will be criticized for them in future possible internationalized conflicts. Freeze the assets and seize their interests are still passing, but confiscating property poses several problems, legal and moral.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, on the other hand, are not placed in the wake of the Western countries of the European Union (EU). For these neighbors of Russia, who surely feel more directly threatened by the expansionist hints of the Russian ogre, it is necessary to act and quickly. “Enough, it’s time to act!” Fund our help to Ukraine from frozen Russian assets ”wrote on network X (formerly Twitter) Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on February 20.
Enough Talking, it’s time to act! 1. Let’s finance Our Aid for Ukraine from the Russian Frozen Assets. 2. Let’s Strengthen Air Policing, The Baltic Sentry and the Eu Borders With Russia. 3. Let’s Swiftly Adopt New Fiscal Rules to Finance the Eu Security and Defense. Now!
– Donald Tusk (@donaldtusk) FEBRUARY 20, 2025
This decision is not correlated with the United States agreement, American banks being holding only from a small part of the frozen Russian assets, recalls the New York Times. The EU, Australia, Singapore, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom have around $ 250 billion in these funds (237.5 billion euros), out of the 300 billion blocked.
Many legal experts and former government officials, such as Robert B. Zoellick, former president of the World Bank and US representative to trade, as well as Laurence Tribe, former professor of law at the prestigious Harvard University, argued that legal and financial obstacles hampering the transfer of Russian funds to Ukraine could be overcome.
In France also the question is far from being unanimous and the left fractures on the subject. A “pro-confiscation” coalition made up among other members of the Macronist camp, socialists and environmentalists (for once on the same line as rebellious France) tries to convince the government, which is firmly opposed to such a seizure.
