US, Allies Consider Seizing Russian Government Assets and Giving them to Ukraine

They should take this wise and just step sooner rather than later.

The Bank of Russia. (NA)

 

The Financial Times reports that the US, European states, and other allies are considering seizing some $300 billion in Russian government assets located in Western nations, and giving them to Ukraine to fund its defense against Russia's war of aggression:

The US has proposed that working groups from the G7 explore ways to seize $300bn in frozen Russian assets, as the allies rush to agree a plan in time for the second anniversary of Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

While no decisions have been taken and the issue remains hotly debated inside European capitals, the acceleration of work on confiscating Moscow's assets for Ukraine highlights its rising importance for the west.

The topic was discussed this month by both G7 finance ministers and their deputies, according to people briefed on the calls, which touched on how to develop such a policy and assess the risks involved.

The US, backed by the UK, Japan and Canada, has proposed moving forward with the preparatory work so the options would be ready for a potential meeting of G7 leaders around February 24, the date of Vladimir Putin's 2022 offensive on Kyiv.

The US and other allies shouldn't wait till February. They should instead move ahead immediately. Ukraine needs all the weapons and supplies it can get as quickly as possible. There is no reason to wait. Indeed, waiting will just unnecessarily prolong the war and associated suffering, enabling the Russian military to commit more atrocities and war crimes, as the Ukrainians run low on munitions.

In a previous post, I addressed a variety of objections to this step, such as claims that it is unfair to the Russian people, that it threatens property rights, that it would lead to a dangerous slippery slope, and that it would undermine international law. These arguments are all either flat-out wrong, or not compelling enough to outweigh the moral and strategic benefits of confiscating Russian state assets. The post also includes links to more detailed analyses by various experts.

Comments

[mydisplayname]

Meanwhile, in the DPRK, General Secretary Kim Jong Un "set forth the militant tasks for the People's Army and the munitions industry, nuclear weapons and civil defence sectors to further accelerate the war preparations, on the basis of in-depth analysis of the grave political and military situation in the Korean peninsula which reached extreme due to the anti-DPRK confrontation moves of the U.S. and its vassal forces unprecedented in history." (at http://kcna.kp/en/article/q/0b4aee5f2df47f0d1b5def72c5226103.kcmsf )

Could it be that the prevailing US foreign policy -- a blast from the almost-forgotten past -- might represent flawed thinking?

[Drewski]

Source: North Korean propaganda

[jimc5499]

That's interesting. I believe that the US seized Iranian assets in 1980. They were forbidden from touching those assets. They were only allowed to let them remain where they were. They were not allowed to use those assets to resolve Civil Judgements against Iran by the hostages. Then Obama and Biden gave those assets back to Iran almost 40 years later.
Now all of the sudden the US and other countries are allowed to give seized Russian assets to the Ukraine?

[Joe_dallas]

Iyla idea is utterly stupid

The difference with the 1979 Iranian hostage was that iran committed an act of war. Why those asset were paid back is completely idiotic especially given that fact that Iran is continuing their funding of terrorism.

While Russia committed / started a war against Ukraine, they did not start a war against the US. Seizing russian assets located in the US would be the US committing / violating international law.

Funding an ally is one thing, taking actions to start a war is another thing and utterly stupid

[jimc5499]

I agree.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yeah. Russia is clearly ready to start a war with the US while it can't win a war against Ukraine.

Think before you comment next time.

[Brett Bellmore]

"While Russia committed / started a war against Ukraine, they did not start a war against the US. Seizing Russian assets located in the US would be the US committing / violating international law."

I'm curious: Which international law, precisely?

[Tom for equal rights]

brett perhaps there is not a specific international law that applies, though seizure of assets with a legal basis would be certainly appear to be a violation of US law and presumably some international law, treaty, etc, though maybe no us/russia applicable treaty.

[David Nieporent]

I'm curious what you think the word "allowed" means.

[jimc5499]

Several Courts ordered that the assets be frozen not redistributed.

[David Nieporent]

Because that's what the U.S. government wanted, feeling that doling out the assets to random civil litigants would interfere with U.S. foreign policy. Not because it violated some law.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, doling out assets to random civil litigants who prevail in their litigation is literally the statutory purpose of the fund the money was held in. Your standard case of executive branch policy being upheld in place of statutory law.

[Longtobefree]

And how many assets are in Russia owned by the US or US companies?
I suspect it is a crime in Russia to be a citizen of a country that steals Russian assets. Lots of people to arrest for "ransom".

[Frank Drackman]

Good idea! not like the Roosh-uns would do anything in response.

[ReaderY]

I fimd myself in the odd position on the other side of Professor Somin, but this time in the opposite direction. As I’ve said many times in past comments on Professor Somin’s posts, foreigners outside US territory lack constitutional rights, and this means we can do just about anything we want with them. We absolutely could do this.

But although we have a right to do this, I would hesitate to do so in the absence of authorization from Congress. Just as I think Congress has the power to make war (and to set immigration policy). I think it should have a say before initiating actions that could readily be regarded as casus beli.

I strongly disagree with Congress’ current actions (or rather inactions) regarding Ukraine, just as Professor Somin disagrees with what Congress has done not just on this but on immigration as well.

But I think I have to separate out my view of what I think is good policy, and which branch of government I currently most agree with on a given issue, from the question of who has the power to decide under our constitution.

I think the executive shouldn’t have the power to confiscate massive amounts of assets from a major foreign country that might well retaliate with war-like action without hearing from Congress.

The Framers tempered the Federal Governments plenary foreign policy power by requiring the representatives of the People to have a say before acting in matters of war and peace. I accept an exception for genuine emergencies. But this is not a genuine emergency.

Congress’ power to have a say remains in place even if what Congress has to say is not what I, or Professor Somin, want to hear.

[mydisplayname]

You are the first to use the term "casus beli" -- which it would be.

To underscore your words, "The Framers tempered the Federal Governments plenary foreign policy power by requiring the representatives of the People to have a say before acting in matters of war and peace. I accept an exception for genuine emergencies. But this is not a genuine emergency."

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're right. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress, not the President, and that delegation is treated way too casually, by Presidents AND by Congress.

Confiscating Russian property, however justified, would establish a state of war between the US and Russia, and that does need a declaration of war.

[rxc]

I think that if I were a foreign journalist or student or businessman in Russia, or in any of its supporters, I would start to figure out an exit strategy ASAP. Because you can guarantee that the first thing the Russians will do is to "intern" all nationals of the countries that do this to them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sadly, if a journalist or student or whatever had that degree of sense, they wouldn't be in Russia at this point anyway, because it got unreasonably dangerous a while ago.

[TheAmazingEmu]

Just commenting on the policy aspects, there are people who think that, if Ukraine retakes its territory, the fighting will stop. I don't think there's a chance of that happening. The only realistic incentive to actually stop the fighting would be some combination of a complete stalemate (Russia does not believe it can achieve any further goals, Ukraine either does not have any further goals or does not believe it can achieve them) and an offer to give back the seized assets and lift sanctions. In that sense, it might make sense to not do anything with them. On the other hand, Ukraine is obviously suffering from real losses caused by this invasion now and it's possible those assets would provide restitution that is otherwise unavailable.

Like I said, these are policy thoughts not legal ones, but they're what comes to mind.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump will oppose it because the Trump Organization's assets are intertwined with Russian assets. And because Trump will oppose it, Republicans in Congress will oppose it.

[Defenderz]

Your rectum is intertwined with the Rev. Kirkland's engorged member. Hope you've taken your PrEP!

[Krayt]

Great job, Gramps!

[Defenderz]

Thanks child

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh loves your comments, Defenderz . . . he just wishes you would complement the gay fixation with some trans fetish.

[Joe_dallas]

cap - you should consult your doctor to adjust your dosage

[Michael Ejercito]

The 1980s called; they want their foreign policy back.

[jimc5499]

You really need to get your TDS checked.

[Defenderz]

If you want to destroy the U.S. Dollar as the world reserve currency, this is a good way to do it.

[David Nieporent]

Okay, my morbid curiosity is getting the best of me: how exactly do you see a connection between the proposal and that outcome?

[Defenderz]

Because people hold USD because they trust that we won't do exactly what Somin is proposing.

[David Nieporent]

People hold USD because it retains value. That has literally nothing to do with ownership of assets. Whether western countries seize Russian assets has no bearing on what denomination those assets might be held in.

[Krayt]

Dictators want hard western cash, not their own worthless crud, because their dog kleptocracy economies produce little people want to buy.

[mydisplayname]

Yes, dictators often need ways to thwart international financial blockades: frequently, dictators find such mechanisms with results far worse than simply allowing them to use the original cash for obviously inappropriate purposes.

A good example is the 1933 money-laundering agreement (the Haavara) between Zionists (Ashkenazi) and an up-and-coming, charisma-rich but cash-poor political group (Hitler's Nazi). The Nazi were able to thwart the British financial blockade in a manner which did not offend the British while the Ashkenazi turned a profit, received some free land, and a self-selected few were able to move to the "promised land." In a review of Francis R. Nicosia's scholarly documentation of the subject, Sara Reguer (on behalf of the Simon Wiesenthal Center) writes "It is noteworthy that there was some cooperation between the SS and the Revisionist Zionists in the period 1933-1937. [...] In retrospect, it is difficult for us to imagine that the Nazis encouraged Zionists from Palestine to enter Germany, teach Hebrew, educate German Jews about Palestine, and even display the blue and white Jewish national flag; the Revisionist Zionists even wore uniforms. Clearly this was all done for the promotion of purely German domestic and economic ends, with no concern for the Palestine situation itself." We still pay the price of Nazi funding for the founding of Zionist Israel!
[Reguer's review is available at https://www.museumoftolerance.com/education/archives-and-reference-library/online-resources/simon-wiesenthal-center-annual-volume-4/annual-4-chapter-17.html while Nicosia's original work is available from any bookseller, including Amazon.]

Such arrangements tend to divide otherwise cohesive groups: the Haavara separated the Ashkenazi from non-Zionists. And, even today, scholarly groups like the Wiesenthal Center and Holocaust Museum can publish fact only over strenuous objection by revisionist groups like the Anti-Defamation League.

[jimc5499]

I've heard that was one of the initial ideas in persecuting the Jews in the 1930's. German currency wasn't worth being used for toilet paper at the time. Jews used to be able to buy their way out of Germany by paying a steep "exit tax". Then it went to the just plain seizure of Jewish assets. This was to enable Germany to get hard currency to pay France, Norway, Sweden and other countries for war materials.

[a.heroic.dose]

Do us a favor and go fight for Ukraine yourself. And take Yevgeny with you. The rest of us are tired of this shit.

[David Nieporent]

Whatever you say, Vlad.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why drag "Yevgeny" into this? If I understand the reference, you're bashing a guy who initially couldn't quite make up his mind about whether the bad guys were the Ukrainians or the Russians.

[The Drill SGT]

Seems to me that this leads to every two bit dictator looking for both PR and a retirement fund to seize the local assets of American firms in the name of De-colonizing.

On its face I think it is a lawless action on our part. If a legitimate cause of action by the Ukraine could be taken to an appropriate International court with an order to seize assets, my opinion might change.

[jimc5499]

That fits Libya and Venezuela to a tee.

[Lockean Liberal]

Huh! I thought libertarians were anti-war and pro free trade… I guess I have that backwards... Do we believe in protecting property rights and that taxation is theft? It have I got those principles backwards as well?

[damikesc]

Ilya has never claimed to be libertarian.

But this is an asinine policy theory. Which is why I fully believe Brandon is considering it.

[David Nieporent]

Libertarians — like any sane people — do not like war, but they are not anti-war. Pacifists are anti-war. Libertarians are anti-initiating war.