Legal implications of the EU's frozen Russian assets strategy

EUROPE stands divided over the bloc’s relentless pursuit of Russophobia. At issue is what to do with frozen Russian assets as part of punishment to Moscow’s “Special Military Operation” the West describes as “invasion of Ukraine”.

President Donald Trump of the United States has invested enormous amounts of effort in his expressed endeavour to broker a peace deal between Moscow and Kyiv. However, European political elites in the form of the UK, France and Germany have espoused a rather confrontational approach to any dealings with Russia.

The trio formed a so-called Coalition of the Willing, the same phrase used in 2003 by former US President George W Bush and his trusted ally, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair when they illegally invaded Iraq, toppled and enabled the killing of Saddam Hussein, then President of Iraq.

Trump desperately wants a truce between Kyiv and Moscow, least of all because he harbours the prospect of a Nobel Peace Prize. It is a dream that has become an open secret in geopolitics and America’s national politics. However, European war-mongers would rather destroy Russia through a hostile united front characterised by a barrage of unprecedented economic sanctions against Moscow since the outbreak of the conflict in 2022.

Russia’s decided to strike first in the battle, citing NATO’s ferocious expansion eastward as posing an existential threat to the country’s national security. When the West laughed off Russia’s concerns, President Vladimir Putin — in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces — pulled the trigger.

A stubborn Russian economy has refused to cave in in the wake of the Western sanctions and international isolation that included the banning of Russia’s public broadcaster, Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik, among others. Europe’s information warfare has resulted in strict restrictions on Russia’s perspectives on the conflict, and social media continues to play a pivotal role in the dissemination of news to the outside world.

As I indicated above, for Europe, the elephant in the room is two-fold: Firstly, Brussels wants Washington to provide a security guarantee in the form of a backstop in post-war Ukraine. This, argue key European leaders, will dissuade Russia from launching a future attack on Kyiv. Secondly, which in my view is more important, Europe is divided over how to dispose of the frozen Russian sovereign money.

Belgium is vehemently opposed to channelling the frozen assets toward the reconstruction of Ukraine, as demanded by the UK, France and Germany, notably. At issue, according to the Belgians, is the implications of breaking international law and the ramifications of the apparent populism in a post-war environment, when Russia would certainly challenge all perceived transgressions and transgressors in a court of law.

Of the estimated Russia’s 210 Euros frozen in Russia, the bulk is with Belgium – a whopping 185 Euros. The remainder is spread across other capitals.

Belgium is scared to shoulder sole responsibility when Russia come calling for its “stolen loot” post-Ukraine war. The Belgians are demanding a sworn commitment by all EU member-states that they would be willing to repay Russia’s disbursed assets against Moscow’s consent. This is a legal conundrum that Brussels fears the most — to be left all alone to face the consequences when that time comes, as per the Kremlin’s promise, if not threat.

The other poser for the EU is one Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, whose close ties with President Putin are well-documented. The EU requires unanimity from all 27 member-states in order to adopt a binding resolution. A single dissenting voice is a major headache. Orban is that headache, and sadly for the EU, it looks incurable.

The unity of the EU is further threatened by the new American foreign policy under the Trump administration. No longer is Europe a sacred cow in Washington’s eyes. Recently, Trump accused Europe of secretly purchasing Russian oil despite the sanctions. The EU might be the glue that keeps the continent together; the fractures are becoming more visible.

More member states are concerned about their national interest than continental imperatives. This is made more important by the hidden knowledge that European unity is a fallacy that is well packaged is the opposite. Above all, Trump has not prioritised Europe in his pursuit of a truce between Kyiv and Moscow. This has caused EU member-states to reassess their group and individual interests.

Under Trump’s 28-point plan for the attainment of peace in Ukraine, the White House makes it clear that Russia will not relinquish territory it already occupies. Donbass in Eastern Ukraine, in particular, has become a major area of wrestling. The territory has held a referendum to determine its future, and overwhelming opted to secede from Ukraine, despite protestations from the office of the beleaguered Zelensky.

Trump has gone on record to say Zelensky has no cards to play in the determination of how the war will end. The US president ramped up more pressure on Zelensky this week when he charged that the Ukrainian leader was hiding behind the war to not hold elections and instead hold on to power in Kiev. Trump questioned Zelensky’s claim that Ukraine is a democracy when no elections have been held beyond Zelensky’s term of office.

Such fundamental differences between Washington and Europe are part of the script that paints a gloomy picture about the unity of the EU.

The last straw for Europe, though, must have been when Trump proposed in his 28-point peace plan that the frozen Russian assets be released into the custody of the US, so that the Trump administration could use the funds in the soon-to-be reinvigorated US-Russia relations programs. Gradually, but surely, Europe is being left by the wayside amidst Trump’s vehement push for peace in Ukraine.

In my view, Europe’s sidelining in the push for peace is a consequence of its own doing. There is no evidence that the EU ever proffered to give peace a chance. Instead, the EU’s public statements remain aligned with Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden’s war talk. In short, the EU is stuck in the past.

Conversely, Moscow has found in Trump a potential ally with whom it can do business with mutual trust. In Trump’s next remaining three years in office, I bet Europe will struggle to adjust to the rapid changes in global relations.

I can’t see Trump letting Europe run away with Russia’s frozen assets. Such a move will be an antithesis to the attainment of the peace Trump so badly needs.

* Abbey Makoe is Founder and Editor-in-Chief: Global South Media Network (gsmn.co.za). Views expressed are wholly personal.

** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.

Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.