this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
363 points (98.1% liked)

World News

41603 readers
5365 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

President Trump’s rancorous threat to abandon Ukraine is stoking support for a long-debated proposal to use billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets to buy weapons for Ukraine and finance its reconstruction.

The money — roughly $300 billion owned by Russia’s central bank — was frozen by the United States, the European Union, Britain and others after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. The aim was to punish President Vladimir V. Putin for his unprovoked attack and to cut off funds he could use to wage war.

As the war grinds on into its fourth year, a growing number of officials in Europe and elsewhere have been calling for the money to be released to directly compensate Ukraine.

MBFC
Archive

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 hours ago

everything ought to be transferred to Ukraine, but only the European stuff is likely to be in the near term.

that's one thing Biden really should have done after the election.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

It seems more likely now that the US will release them.

[–] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 hours ago

Most frozen assets, by far, reside in Europe ($217 billion (€201 billion) to $230 billion (€210 billion)), with the United States holding just a small portion ($5 billion (€4.5 billion)) and Japan also holding some.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation_of_Russian_central_bank_funds#%3A%7E%3Atext=Most+frozen+assets%2C+by+far%2Cand+Japan+also+holding+some.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump seize Ukraine's assets after his performance a few days ago.

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Then he would come back with.. "What assets? Don't you know I'm rich? I'm a billionaire baby!"

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Chat GPT: how do you transfer frozen assets to your own bank account when you're president but without having to go to jail for that later?

First replace the head of the FBI

....

....stop giving kids covid vaccines for free.

Cancel the education department...

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Their portion, probably. That still leaves at least the EU and UK.

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Can we start to freeze USA assets?

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 6 points 6 hours ago

We might have to. Trump wants to remove their rules for whitewashing. The purpose is probably to funnel Russian money.

That would be difficult for almost anyone to attempt. The USA is too large of a trading partner with too many nations.

[–] meliante@lemm.ee 34 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

How its this question still going?

Why hasn't it been done yet?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

If the assets remain frozen then they can be used as bargaining chips.

A partial transfer could be useful, but a full transfer of assets to Ukraine would be counterproductive.

[–] meliante@lemm.ee 14 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Bargaining chips for what? Negotiating peace? A truce? A cease fire? There's been ample time to do that and here we are.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

I think their point is that at some point there will have to be some form of peace negotiations

If you get less value from using the money for weapons than for using it as leverage in negotiations, then it's a bad trade-off

[–] meliante@lemm.ee 10 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Ah yes, because negotiations for peace with Russia worked so well for Ukraine before...

And now the USA are tagging in so they can also get the spoils.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, are you arguing that we should aim to keep the war going indefinitely? Because the only way a war ends without a negotiated settlement is with the total dissolution of one of the sides in the war. I don't see Ukraine fully annexing Russia any time soon, frankly.

The war does need to end sometime, even if that time isn't now, and creating a peace treaty that's self-enforcing is the only way that works. If using that money as leverage (e.g. the funds are gradually unlocked as the treaty phases progress) makes a lasting peace viable that otherwise wouldn't be, then it's an option worth considering.

[–] meliante@lemm.ee 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Do you know what happened last time Ukraine had an agreement with Russia and USA?

Why would they make the same mistake?

Why are you pressing for that as it is it a valid option? Why are you ignoring what Russia and the USA did not so long ago? Are you of the opinion that trump can bring peace to Ukraine quickly?

Why are you so opposed to giving free money to Ukraine?

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Well yes, I am aware that Russia has violated numerous treaties. But I'm not arguing for the treaties to be the same, not even for a peace treaty to happen now. Nor am I saying we shouldn't give some portion of that money to Ukraine.

Are you of the opinion that trump can bring peace to Ukraine quickly?

I feel like I'm being pretty clear that I don't think anything close to this, no? But your questions seem to be on the basis that I do.

The point I am actually making is that at some point in the future there will be some form of peace negotiations to end the war. That's not coming from a Trump-esque "peace now because I say so" angle, but from a "every conflict ends in some form of settlement eventually" angle. The fact that this money would act as significant leverage in that scenario means that this isn't just magic free money, but a tradeoff to be made.

That doesn't mean it's the wrong tradeoff, necessarily, just that to actually decide whether or not that's the case, you do need to consider that it is one.

[–] meliante@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

My point is that history shows it's not really wise to negotiate, or go for treaties or agreements with Russia.

Whilst strategically it would be good to make the war stop it would only be a temporary and remedial solution not really solving the root cause of the problem.

So why do it?

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 hour ago

Well because every war ends with a peace treaty. Ignoring that fact now and making it harder to do so in the future just because a peace treaty isn't viable now.

All I'm arguing for is making decisions while aware of all the factors? I don't understand what you're disagreeing with, really

[–] Ixoid@lemm.ee 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

What if there is great value in repelling foreign invaders from your country? Ukraine needs all the funds, especially after a certain shithole country has withdrawn financial aid.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 7 hours ago

I'm not saying it's necessarily the wrong choice to give the money to Ukraine, just pointing out that there is a tradeoff to be made.

[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 25 points 10 hours ago

Can we start with all Trump and Musk assets?

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 39 points 11 hours ago

long overdue, tbh.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 14 points 11 hours ago