The European Union is grappling with internal divisions regarding the fate of approximately €200 billion ($209 billion) in frozen Russian sovereign assets, with member states split between using the funds to support Ukraine and holding them as leverage in future negotiations with Moscow. The debate underscores the broader geopolitical and legal complexities that have emerged since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

According to a report by Politico on February 25, the frozen assets-primarily held by Euroclear, a Brussels-based financial clearinghouse-became a focal point after Brussels was excluded from recent US-Russia discussions in Saudi Arabia. Frustration over this exclusion has led some EU members to advocate for the immediate transfer of the assets to Kyiv, arguing that such financial support is essential for Ukraine’s reconstruction and continued resistance against Russian aggression. Conversely, other member states contend that retaining the funds offers a critical bargaining chip that could be instrumental in brokering a future peace agreement.

Leading the push for the swift release of Russian assets are the Baltic and Nordic states, Poland, the Czech Republic, and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. These countries argue that seizing and repurposing the funds is both a moral and strategic imperative, especially given the uncertainty surrounding continued US financial support for Ukraine.

“I don’t take the argument that it’s legally problematic… we need [the] political will to do it,” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys stated in an interview with Politico, dismissing concerns about the potential legal ramifications of asset seizure.

Kallas, a prominent advocate of using Russian assets to aid Ukraine, has previously suggested that Moscow’s money should first be allocated to reconstruction efforts before any consideration is given to returning the remainder. “I doubt there will be anything left over,” she remarked, implying that the scale of Ukraine’s rebuilding needs would exhaust the entirety of the frozen funds.

Supporters of this approach contend that leveraging Russian assets would not only provide Ukraine with immediate financial relief but also serve as a punitive measure against Moscow for its actions. Moreover, they argue that delays in releasing the funds could prolong the conflict, as Ukraine’s ability to sustain its defense efforts hinges on continuous financial and military assistance.

Opposing the immediate confiscation of Russian assets are key EU member states such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, as well as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. These countries advocate for maintaining the assets as a strategic leverage tool, believing that their potential return could be used to secure concessions from Russia during future peace negotiations.

“If you were to unfreeze [the assets] and give [them] to Ukraine, you don’t have it anymore, and you can’t use it as a bargaining chip,” an anonymous EU diplomat told Politico, encapsulating the core argument of those favoring a more cautious approach.

Beyond the strategic considerations, opponents of outright asset seizure also highlight the broader economic and legal risks. Confiscating Russian sovereign funds could set a precedent that undermines international financial norms, potentially deterring investors from placing their assets in Europe due to fears of politically motivated seizures. Such a move could erode the EU’s reputation as a safe and predictable financial environment, with long-term repercussions for its economic stability.

The legal complexities surrounding the seizure of frozen Russian assets are significant. While EU officials have explored mechanisms to repurpose the interest generated by these assets-estimated to be substantial-the outright confiscation of the principal sum remains fraught with legal challenges. International law generally protects sovereign assets from expropriation, and any move to bypass these protections could trigger protracted legal disputes.

Moreover, Russia has vehemently condemned the freezing of its assets, labeling it as an act of “theft” and warning of severe retaliatory measures. The Kremlin has signaled that any attempt to transfer the funds to Ukraine would prompt reciprocal actions, potentially targeting the income derived from Western assets currently frozen within Russia. Such retaliatory measures could escalate economic tensions between Russia and the EU, further complicating efforts to resolve the conflict through diplomatic means.

The internal rift within the EU reflects broader geopolitical dynamics, with member states balancing their support for Ukraine against concerns about escalating tensions with Russia. The Baltic and Nordic countries, along with Poland and the Czech Republic, have consistently advocated for a hardline stance against Moscow, driven by their historical experiences and proximity to Russia. In contrast, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain have adopted more cautious approaches, prioritizing long-term stability and the preservation of diplomatic channels.

This divergence is further exacerbated by uncertainties surrounding the United States’ future role in supporting Ukraine. With political divisions in Washington and the upcoming US presidential election, European leaders fear a potential reduction in American financial and military aid. Against this backdrop, the debate over Russian assets has gained urgency, with advocates of immediate transfer arguing that Europe must demonstrate its capacity to support Ukraine independently.

As the EU grapples with this contentious issue, the outcome of the debate will have far-reaching implications for both Ukraine and the broader international order. While the immediate transfer of Russian assets could provide a vital lifeline to Ukraine, it risks undermining Europe’s financial credibility and provoking retaliatory measures from Moscow. Conversely, holding the assets as leverage may preserve diplomatic options but could be perceived as a failure to fully support Ukraine in its time of need.

Ultimately, the decision will hinge on the EU’s assessment of the relative importance of immediate financial aid versus long-term strategic leverage. With the conflict in Ukraine showing no signs of abating, the pressure to resolve this internal division is mounting, as the bloc seeks to maintain unity while navigating the complex geopolitical landscape shaped by Russia’s ongoing aggression.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel