Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,734
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Russian sanctions (view source)
Revision as of 19:20, September 27, 2025
, 19:20, September 27, 2025→US sanctions
U.S. imports from Russia in 2024 were about $3.0–$3.27 billion, down more than 34% compared to 2023 and down over 75% from pre-war levels in 2021–2022. Key Russian exports to the U.S. were [[fertilizer]]s (about $1.3 billion), precious metals (about $878 million), and inorganic chemicals (about $683 million). [[Energy]] imports have almost entirely ceased.
U.S. imports from Russia in 2024 were about $3.0–$3.27 billion, down more than 34% compared to 2023 and down over 75% from pre-war levels in 2021–2022. Key Russian exports to the U.S. were [[fertilizer]]s (about $1.3 billion), precious metals (about $878 million), and inorganic chemicals (about $683 million). [[Energy]] imports have almost entirely ceased.
==Seizure of Russian sanctions==
Three years into the [[NATO war in Ukraine]] the Belgium company Euroclear still held €258 billion ($300 billion USD) in frozen or immobilised Russian assets. Some of these assets belong to institutions not sanctioned by the [[European Union]]. Frozen assets amount to €65 billion, with an additional €193 billion in immobilised transactions, primarily from the Central Bank of Russia.
The EU has been confiscating the [[interest]], not the [[principal]], of that money to distribute it to [[Ukraine]]. That step is likely already [[illegal]] and [[Russia]] will use the courts to get it back. There has been talk of investing the Russian assets in junk bonds with aim of achieving a higher yield:<ref>https://meduza.io/en/news/2025/07/15/euroclearcalls-e-u-plan-to-invest-frozen-russian-assets-in-risky-securities-expropriation</ref>
{{quotebox-float|Euroclear chief executive Valérie Urbain told the ''[[Financial Times]]'' that [[European Union]] plans to raise additional [[revenue]] from frozen Russian assets by investing them in higher-risk securities would amount to "expropriation." Urbain also warned that such a move could prompt "Russian retaliation in all sorts of forms," as well as damage Euroclear's reputation...The EU was reportedly discussing the possibility of transferring the assets to a special EU-administered fund that would make higher-risk investments. The goal is to generate greater returns to support Ukraine.}}
The move was blocked as no one was ready to accept the potential [[liability]] for it. Not only [[Belgium]], but also [[Germany]] and other [[fiscal conservative]] states, have warned that such a move would endanger their own [[asset]]s. Russia has announced that it will retaliate against any confiscation of its [[money]]. It threatens to confiscate whatever [[European]] companies own or hold in Russia. Those companies would then have to sue their own [[government]]s for cover of their losses.
Former head of the German [[Blackrock]] office Fuhrer [[Friedrich Merz]] had a new idea. In a ''Financial Times'' op-ed Merz claimed:<ref>https://archive.ph/hP5Ej#selection-1839.0-1852.2</ref>
{{quotebox-float|[[Germany]] has been, and remains, cautious on the issue of confiscating the Russian central bank's assets that are frozen in [[Europe]], and with good reason. There are not only questions of [[international law]] to consider, but also fundamental issues concerning the [[euro]]'s role as a global [[reserve currency]]. But this must not hold us back: we must consider how, by circumventing these problems, we can make these funds available for the defence of Ukraine.
In my view a viable solution should now be developed whereby — without intervening in property rights — we can make available to Ukraine an interest-free loan of almost €140 billion in total. That loan would only be repaid once Russia has compensated Ukraine for the damage it has caused during this war. Until then, the Russian assets will remain frozen, as decided by the European Council.
Such extensive assistance will require budgetary guarantees from member states. Those bilateral guarantees should, as soon as the next Multiannual Financial Framework is in place in 2028, be replaced by collateralisation under the EU’s long-term budget."}}
What sounds like [[AI]] slop is not Merz' own idea but a plan that had been proffered earlier by the [[EU Commission]]. {{quotebox-float|Frustration has been building in EU capitals around the lack of details surrounding the so-called [[reparations]] [[loan]], which Commission President [[Ursula von der Leyen]] first pitched in her State of the European Union speech Sept. 10 [2025].
The bulk of the Russian assets are held by the Brussels-based financial firm Euroclear and are invested in [[Western alliance|Western government]] bonds that have matured into [[cash]]. The cash is sitting in a deposit account with the European Central Bank.
The idea is for the EU to redirect the cash to Ukraine and "enter into a tailored [[debt]] contract with Euroclear at 0 percent interest," according to the note.
Euroclear holds €185 billion in cash balances linked to the Russian assets, a part of which will pay back a preexisting [[G7]] loan to Ukraine.
The remaining €140 billion will be paid out to Ukraine in tranches and used for "defense cooperation" as well as supporting [[Kyiv]]'s ordinary budget needs.}}
''[[Reuters]]'' reported more details:
{{quotebox-float|To avoid seizing the Russian assets, the idea is to transfer the cash from Euroclear to a newly created Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) owned by [[EU]] governments, or [[G7]] [[government]]s as well. In exchange, the [[European Commission]] would issue Euroclear with zero-coupon bonds guaranteed by the owners of the SPV.
The EU bonds would cover Euroclear's risk against Russian litigation while the cash in the SPV could be invested more profitably than overnight deposits in the ECB and thus generate a higher return for Ukraine.</ref>https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/explainer-how-will-the-west-use-russia-s-frozen-assets/ar-AA1NdSz7}}
Why would this scheme, as Merz say, 'require budgetary guarantees from member states'? That mean that the [[taxpayer]]s of the EU will have to pay when Russia wins its [[litigation]] in court. It is, in the end, the people of Russia's money. Any attempt to seize is outright [[thievery]].
==See also==
==See also==