The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
European Nations Again Consider Using Frozen Russian State Assets to Fund Ukraine's War Effort
Over $300 billion in Russian state assets are frozen in the West. It's long past time they were used to help Ukraine resist Vladimir Putin's war of aggression..

European Union nations are once again considering ways to use the $300 billion Russian state assets frozen in Western nations (mostly in Europe) to help Ukraine:
European Union leaders on Wednesday weighed a new scheme to provide longer-term financial and military support to Ukraine using hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets held in Europe.
The plan — which Moscow has described as "theft" — is a fresh sign of the EU's determination to push ahead alone with support for Ukraine without the United States. Under President Donald Trump the U.S. no longer sends financial aid to Ukraine, and little so far in the way of weapons.
Ukraine's budget and military needs for 2026 and 2027 are estimated to total around 130 billion euros ($153 billion). The EU has already poured in 174 billion euros since the war started in February 2022.
The biggest pot of ready funds available is through frozen Russian assets. Most of it is held in Belgium – around 194 billion euros as of June – and outside the EU in Japan, with around $50 billion, and the U.S., U.K. and Canada with lesser amounts.
The plan currently under consideration would use the funds to back a loan that Ukraine would only have to repay if Russia pays an equivalent amount in war reparations. I have long advocated just simply confiscating the Russian state assets and giving them to Ukraine (e.g. here, here, and here). But the EU loan plan is almost as good, inasmuch as the practical effects are likely to be very similar. Unless Russia pays reparations (which seems unlikely), the confiscated state assets will ultimately be used to repay the loan, and Ukraine will not be held liable for it.
Last year, Congress enacted the REPO Act, which authorized the president to confiscate the approximately $6 billion in Russian state assets frozen in the US and transfer them to Ukraine. But neither Biden nor Trump has acted on it. In recent weeks, Trump has been rhetorically tougher on Russia than before, but I am not optimistic that these words will be backed by deeds. He can start to prove me wrong by using the REPO Act authority.
In a November 2023 post, I addressed a range of different objections to confiscating Russian state assets, including 1) claims that it would violate property rights protections in the US and various European constitutions, 2) sovereign immunity arguments, 3) arguments that it would be unfair to the Russian people, 4) slippery slope concerns, and 5) the danger of Russian retaliation. Every point made there remains relevant today. Stephen Rademaker, former chief counsel to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, has a helpful recent Washington Post article further addressing the retaliation point.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No wonder no European has won a World Chess Title in forever. Stealing my money would get me to stop fighting if I was a Roosh-in.
That could be a song! “If I was a Roosh-in, la la la la la la la…..”
Frank
Hey Drackman, you Idiot!
What about Magnus Carlsen??
Only FIDE Reunified (when did Chess Titles become like Pro Wrestling??) World Champion from 2013-2023,
OK, except for him, who I have serious suspicions that he's not human.
OK, except I heard him on Joe Rogan, had no idea he was THAT good, sounds like a normal guy, unlike my favorite player Bobby Fischer (still searching for him) Still pissed that he didn't defend his title in 1975 (OK, the Schizophrenia probably played a role)
Before Carlsen, you have to go back to Alexander Alekhine 1937-1946, France, typical France, get overrun in a World War, but have the World's best Chess Player.
Frank "You took my Horsie!!!"
Gotta give a shout out to Magnus for having a top tier hot babe for a wife.
So European. Using other peoples money and depending on the kindness of strangers.
So Somin hates his native country. Or maybe he is part Ukrainian, I don't know. But whatever he is, he is not libertarian. Libertarians do not advocate theft.
Is it theft, or is it restitution? It was not Ukraine that stole Crimea from Russia, or enticed Russian troops to invade.
Yes, it was Ukraine. It tried to join NATO, and put NATO weapons and soldiers on Russia's border. Ukraine was practically begging Russia to invade.
Imagine a sovereign country deciding who it wants to align with!
In this case it was national suicide.
And you seem to approve of Russia's invasion.
No, I don't. And I do not approve of all the efforts to provoke Russia either.
Russia chose to be provoked. You are blaming the victim. Do you blame rape victims too?
What are the odds you don't have the same opinion on the Cuban Missile Crisis, same thing but reversed roles. Sorry you don't understand both sides of the issue and how their seen, just the Biden/DNC propaganda.
Well, FWIW, the issue there was Russia placing offensive weapons that were an existential threat to the U.S. in Cuba; in contrast, Ukraine posed no threat to Russia and nobody was proposing any act that would make Ukraine a threat to Russia. Also, the U.S. did not in fact attack Cuba in the Cuban Missile Crisis, so that makes the situation rather different.
Actually the Biden administration was proposing to put NATO missiles in Ukraine, aimed at Russia.
Is Ukraine not a sovereign nation? Why is it any of Russia's business what Ukraine does within its own borders?
Tell me, do you approve of Trump's actions with immigration and tariffs? Do you approve of borders in the one case but not the other?
Whereas Schlafly loves an enemy country.
1) It in fact did none of those things.
2) Ukraine had every right to do any of those things, and Russia had no right to stop Ukraine from doing them.
A rare instance of me agreeing with you.
This is a bona fide asinine statement. The money is the corrupt oligarchs'. It's ok to hinder the oligarchs in a dictatorship. It's ok to seize it, for the exact same reason it's "ok" to "seize" the "earned money" of bank robbers.
Ill-gotten gains are not legitimate.
I can imagine state social media astroturfers paid to react this way, misunderstanding libertarianism. This is so bad, though. We need not proceed past simple decent, non-theft, non-dictatorial behavior. "Libertarian" does not enter into it. How dumb do you think people are?
A libertarian is the exact opposite of state control and dictstorship. If you claim to speak in a libertarian fashion defending dictatorship (warring dictatorship, on the expansive move at that!), you get an E.
Yes, Ukraine is a warring dictatorship.
One gets the honor to war against a vastly more evil and larger, expansionist empire-wannabe.
Your words are straight out of Neo-Hitler's mouth, go rescue the poor ethnic Russians there who suffer so.
So you're siding with Russia against NATO?
Your name-calling is nonsense. Hitler fought a war against Russia.
As the great Ray Nitschke said (when he wasn't roaming the "Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field" (HT J. Facenda)
"This world is the will to power—and nothing besides"
Yeah, do your tricks with the money, how much did the average North Vietnamese Soldier earn? Much less than his South Vietnamese rival, but who was riding the T-62's in Saigon in 1975??
Rooshun's are getting Criminals to fight, You-Crane's "Best & Brightest" are doing Jimmy Kimmel (or is it Jimmy Fallon?? I don't know my Jimmy's)
Frank
While you may have a moral argument, the real question here is...what is the legal argument for confiscation of these funds?
Frozen assets...those have a long history. Even when Iran took hostages in the US Embassy, Iranian assets were simply frozen. They were not confiscated. To obtain the confiscation of Iranian funds, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 was used in conjunction with the clause that allowed foreign states to be held liable for acts of state-sponsored terrorism. But even then, a lawsuit was needed.
Even today, Iran has a large amount in frozen assets
The EU is not legally at war with Russia. There have been no lawsuits. For a nation to simply confiscate...without legal authority...another nation's assets is actually theft. No matter how morally justified it may be.
And while it may be convenient to blow off any slippery slope arguments, one has to wonder. Will the EU confiscate Belerus's assets next without legal authority? What about North Korean assets? Will Russia go to China and say "the EU seized our funds here, we demand recompensation in your courts against EU assets in China?"
Again, without the legal authority, with a just "it's moral, so it's right" argument...there are many issues.
Somin is a Marxist. He believes in stealing from the rich to promote his political ends.
Now you're just a boring troll.
"While you may have a moral argument, the real question here is...what is the legal argument for confiscation of these funds?"
Offset. Russia has engaged in aggressive war in violation of clearly established international law and has caused expense by not only Ukraine, but by other countries who have to foot the bill to combat Russia's illegal actions. We have some of your money in our possession. Will we use that to offset our costs.
You don't like it? Go to the Hague and argue for repayment. They are barbarians living in the 16th century. Because of the nuclear threat we are unable to take them out. We can cripple their resources or at least make ourselves whole.
"Go to the Hague and argue for repayment."
And, in fact, Russia would not dare to.
"You don't like it? Go to the Hague and argue for repayment"
Under what law? Under what legal framework can Russia go to the EU and argue for repayment? Under what law can a third party seize one party's assets in a law?
I'm not arguing the moralistic angle. Russia is in the wrong. I am arguing the legal framework for confiscation of such funds.
The legal framework here is important, because, to be frank, different people have different views of morals. A framework where "we can seize and take your funds if we feel that you're doing something wrong" is prone to all sorts of abuse and problems. Just like "we can put you in prison if we don't like what you did" is.
The legal framework says "Action A and/or Action B can results in legal action C that may result in confiscation of funds". Or "Action C will result in a criminal proceeding which will result in prison time". The legal framework means that you don't need a moral evaluation. Simple facts are there.
We should operate under a legal framework here. Not a "well, it feels morally right, so we can just do it" framework.
One uses the tools at one's disposal, to stop a murder in progress. Dictators keep their money in the west because A. It's hard, western cash, not their own crappy currency, and B. much stricter banking laws protect their money better, to say nothing about possibly losing control locally and having to flee.
Gut their personal money, as they wage war in empire building.
Western cash may be better than Russian cash, but it is by no means hard cash.
Snark noted. Try Russian cash.
So it would be OK to seize all the money and wealth of an accused or convicted murderer?
Certainly convicted, yes. You know that when people are convicted of crimes, restitution is generally part of their sentence, right?
I can still remember duck and cover drills when I was a student in Miami (Coral Gables really) during the Cuban missel crisis and the USSR/America was playing cold war games so no one can claim I am soft on the commies. But I still have not seen what looks like a winning legal argument for the EU to take Russia's frozen funds and spend the money helping Ukraine.
I have no doubt Russia is the bad guy. Problem is they are winning in Ukraine and while the EU is happy to let Ukraine fighters die using weapons they supply the EU is doing little else. Bottom line is what is the legal (not moral but legal) justification.
Ilya Somin’s many organizations:
Libertarians for Theft
Libertarians without Borders
Libertarians against Nations
Libertarians for criminal foreigners
Yes, all except Libertarians for freedom. His other post today is against foreigners paying market prices for visas, and in favor of foreigners displacing American jobs.