Ukraine vs Russia IV - The Betrayal

I'm not sure how Belgium is "making a fortune" with that money, since the interest of around 3 billion a year is already going to Ukraine.

The issue is the lack of desire of the EU partners to mutualize the risk. Asking Belgium to do this alone is asking them to risk the equivalent of around 25% of their GDP, should future litigation be ruled against them.
We are talking about a measure that the ECB itself deems illegal, or at least legally dubious, hence their flat-out refusal of acting like a lender of last resort to guarantee the move. To pretend that it is impossible that Russia would eventually launch international arbitration under say ISDS and there being a non-negligible chance of them being successful is being willfully ignorant of the risks.
The reluctance of the other EU member states to spread this risk speaks volumes about the degree to which they themselves see this as a realistic scenario.
So they are reluctant to be the potential future bag holders on this move collectively, but Belgium should be fine in doing it on their own? Make it make sense.

 

Anyway, there is a very easy way to disarm De Wever and his objections, even if they are deemed disingenuous: give him what he wants in terms of spreading the risk evenly. This is a put up or shut up moment for me, in terms of the EU stance.

 

The EU has potentially much bigger fish to fry, since the messaging out of America seems to confirm that their strategic goal is the destruction of the trade bloc. Might be about time we take them seriously and act accordingly in terms of our protection.

 

It is not. Several member states have no interest in participating in such a scheme at all, others do, but only for a fixed sum, not for a compounding risk. The question remains, if De Wever's fears are utterly irrational, what exactly is the problem with the rest of the EU memberstates to agree to share the risk?

I agree that this will likely be shoved down our throats by the European commission whether our government likes it or not, but this has little to do with whether or not the risk is realistic, and more with the fact that it's easy to push Belgium around like this.

 

In the world view of the people who are arguing that there is nothing to be afraid of, Russia will react to the seizing of these funds with an "oh well, I guess that's it then!" attitude. Okay.

 

Controlling interest in the Russian oil company Bashneft is mostly held by Rosneft and thus the Russian federal government, but due to its complicated history after the fall of the Soviet Union some part of it is still held by Bashkortostan. Which is out of money and now selling that ownership. It's like selling ownership of the golden goose you own, but needs must as they say

 

The fire is still going on.

 

The price of oil jumped today. That's because the EU is strongly considering stopping the forced low price of Russian oil exported on EU ships and simply banning Russian oil on EU ships totally. That's mostly going to hurt Greece, which still ships a sizable chunk of Russia's exports - something like a quarter.

 

Why not move the money then

Say here France take it do whatever. Why dies Belgium insists keeping the money/assets

 

How exactly do you propose they do this in a practical sense?
The funds in question are held as securities and cash balances on behalf of the central bank of Russia. They are frozen by EU decree. A single member state does not have the legal authority to move them.
Moving them is precisely the "move" that the EU has been reluctant to take so far.
More specifically, this misunderstands international investment law on a fundamental level.
Even if the funds were moved to say France, this would not suddenly release Belgium from its obligations under BIT. This isn't a wad of cash you pass around. We would still be responsible under the existing treaty, even if the funds are moved to a different CSD. Sovereign immunity would still apply even if the funds are transferred elsewhere.
So in a highly unlikely scenario where the EU moves the money elsewhere, Belgium would still be on the hook, as the transactions that Russia would argue are illegal would have happened under Euroclear's custodianship of the funds.

They could simply do what the Belgian government requests and agree to mutualize the risk EU-wide. It is telling that I have seen very few international commentators investigate the EU reluctance to grant assurances that by their own argument would never be used anyway. So what is the problem?

 

Good luck Europe!

 

So you have answered exactly nothing of the substantive arguments I presented you with and have reduced it to Belgium = bad. That is your prerogative, I suppose.

The analysis I have presented is not based on any government claims, De Wever's or otherwise, but based on the opinion of actual experts in this field, mostly academics specialized in the regulation of financial services in Europe. And all of them agree there is a genuine risk involved.
I am not on board the "******** the experts" train so I will hold their opinion in a bit more regard than that of jingoistic opinion makers all over the continent.

I ask again, if the risks are purely theoretical, what exactly is the issue with the EU mutualizing them? If there is apparently no chance whatsoever the Belgian fears will come to pass. Just give the stupid Flemish nationalist PM what he wants, you'll never have to pay a eurocent of it anyway.

 

The focus on De Wever is silly, no other Belgian PM, regardless of party, would have agreed to this without iron-clad EU reassurances. Not Vooruit's Conner Rousseau, not MR's Georges-Louis Bouchez, not Les Engagés' Yvan Verougstraete. The reason for this consensus is not a sudden Pax Politica, but because what is being proposed is exposing Belgium to potentially the greatest financial ruin since WWII.

 

I patiently await the 174 thinkpieces about how France are traitors and Putin's bitch.

 

According to FighterBomber, a Russian fighter being prepared for a sortie inside a hardened shelter had the ejection seats go off, sending both pilots into the ceiling.

https://bsky.app/profile/militarynewsua.bsky.social/post/3m7hsjf2jsk26

 

There's no way I'm going to be able to find it now, but last week I saw a skeet from one of the Ukraine's English language news organizations where they tracked 11 men that had enlisted at a single recruitment center in Ukraine last spring. It highlighted one of the reasons why Ukraine was having manpower issues. Primarily that it is hard for them to keep people on the front. Of the 11 men, none of them were still on the front. Seven had sustained severe enough injuries that they were no longer on the front, 1 had an illness that required him to leave the front, 2 had deserted, and 2 were missing in action and presumed KIA.

 

Ukraine has confirmed that they are withdrawing troops from the Pokrovsk pocket. The troops that were in Lysivka and Sukhyi Yar, the villages southeast of Pokrovsk, have been withdrawn to new fortified positions outside of the pocket.

https://bsky.app/profile/noelreports.com/post/3m7iqtfzxms2k

While holding Pokrovsk and the territory to its east were costly to Ukraine, the number of casualties that they were able to inflict upon Russia would be have been catastrophic to any country that valued the lives of their soldiers. I've seen estimates of Russian casualties in the 150k range and higher.

 

Zelenskyy held a press conference today on the peace plan and the big takeaways is that they have reduced the 28-point plan to 20-points, have removed all references to ceding territory or control of territory to Russia, and mention that Ukraine's European allies must be involved in any economic decisions regarding Ukraine's reconstruction.

https://bsky.app/profile/kateinkharkiv.bsky.social/post/3m7inkmp77s2x