7 Lies Preventing To Give The Russian $300B To Ukraine

Introduction

I'm tired of reading about all the frivolous "obstacles" raised by some in Europe to prevent the transfer of the Russian's 300 billion dollars that were frozen in the Western world as Russia started its illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Not only these "obstacles" are based on lies, but they are insults to the Ukrainians, who currently give their life to defend the free world, where we failed them by not providing fast enough the weapons that could have secured a victory.

Now, instead of paying a small price for the help we didn't provide, we'll have to pay a higher price to build up European military capacity to become deterrent enough to prevent a world war. It's, therefore, more than urgent to transfer these 300 billion dollars to Ukraine to limit our already exploding costs.

So, let's examine these 7 lies to debunk the parroted Russian propaganda one more time.

1. The fallacy of legal challenges

Cowards argue that seizing a country's assets goes against the principles of national sovereignty and the sanctity of property rights under international law. According to them, this could lead to a slippery slope where countries justify seizing assets based on political disagreements or conflicts, undermining the stability and predictability of international relations.

But it's like pretending that seizing the bank account from a criminal to compensate his victim could set a dangerous precedent for all bank account owners. No, if you don't engage in genocide, you don't have anything to worry about.

It's not only bad faith, it's completely morally bankrupt.

The international system is based on the evolution of norms and responses to new challenges. In exceptional circumstances such as blatant acts of aggression and violations of international law, creating precedents that uphold justice, provide reparations, and deter future aggression can be considered not only necessary but beneficial for international order. Instead of seeing these actions as dangerous, they could be framed as evolving international norms that adapt to changing global dynamics, reinforcing a rules-based international order.

2. The Myth of Financial System Destabilisation

Cowards argue that the international financial system is built on the understanding that assets held in foreign jurisdictions are protected under those countries' laws. According to them, using frozen assets as a form of punishment could erode confidence among nations and private investors in the safety and neutrality of the global banking system, possibly leading to financial instability. Nations may start repatriating assets or moving them to jurisdictions perceived as safer, which could destabilize global markets.

But it's the equivalent of saying that people would leave banks if we seize criminals' assets. No, only criminals would leave the bank. We are more than happy to have them leave us. That includes all authoritarian countries of the world, starting with China.

Also, as a reminder, most authoritarian countries' economies are currently a dumpster fire, and non-western currencies represent less than 5% of the world's transactions, so, no, we won't lose big by getting rid of criminals from our financial system.

The global financial system is robust and has mechanisms to mitigate the impact of significant financial actions, including sanctions and asset freezes. The reallocation of frozen assets, if done transparently and with international coordination, could minimize negative impacts. Moreover, the strategic use of these assets for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts in Ukraine could foster long-term stability in the region, which is in the interest of global markets.

3. The Joke of Diplomatic Retaliations

Cowards argue that assets held by states often enjoy certain protections, including diplomatic immunity. According to them, redirecting these assets for other purposes could erode the norms around diplomatic immunity, leading to retaliatory measures where nations target each other's assets as a form of leverage or retribution in diplomatic disputes.

It's like saying that we shouldn't take back a stolen car from a thief because he could then retaliate by stealing other cars. What a joke!

While reallocating frozen assets could strain international relationships with authoritarian countries, it also sends a strong message about the international community's commitment to upholding international law and supporting nations victimized by aggression. This action might indeed strengthen diplomatic ties among nations willing to uphold these principles and deter future acts of unwarranted aggression.

4. The Threat of Conflict Escalation

Cowards argue that the seizure and redistribution of these assets to Ukraine could escalate tensions and lead to further conflicts. Russia could interpret this move as a direct attack on its sovereignty and financial stability, potentially retaliating in unforeseen ways that could exacerbate the conflict.

But it's the equivalent of saying we shouldn't arrest criminals because they could fire on us. Let them live in peace doing their criminal things. Of course.

Yes, there is a risk of global nuclear war, but it's already too late. Putin will continue to nuclear blackmail us as long as we give him whatever he wants.

The escalation of conflict is already a reality with the ongoing aggression against Ukraine. The threat of significant financial repercussions might also deter future aggression by other states.

5. The fallacy of innocent owners

Cowards argue that the assets in question may not wholly belong to the Russian state; they could be owned by private individuals or entities. According to them, distinguishing between state assets and private assets can be complex, and wrongfully seizing private assets raises legal and ethical issues.

But make no mistake: it's not innocent Russian citizens who stockpile billions of dollars, euros and pounds in the Western world. It's the cronies, the corrupts, the oligarchs, the enablers, the servants of Putin's system. Not the everyday Russian teacher or nurse.

There are no wrongful asset seizures here.

6. The already done impact on Russian Civilians

Cowards argue that while intended to penalize the Russian government, seizing these assets could also have adverse effects on the Russian population, potentially leading to economic hardships that affect everyday citizens who have no direct involvement in the conflict.

Breaking news: the Russian government is already wreaking havoc on the Russian economy, and this money is already frozen for many years now. This won't change anything to the doomed Russian economy.

On top of that, we didn't see much the Russian expats living in free countries protest against the war, quite the contrary. There are very few Russian civilian innocents in this war.

And, last but not least, how dare they pity the Russian civilians while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian victims? Should we explain to a 10-year-old Ukrainian girl who lost both her parents tortured by Russians that she should starve this winter because it would be "unfair" that some Russian civilian can't get his pension?

7. The old excuse of Ukrainian's corruption

Cowards argue that the logistics of reallocating such a vast sum of money, ensuring it is used effectively and reaches the intended purposes in Ukraine, poses significant challenges. According to them, there are risks of corruption, misallocation, and the difficulty of tracking the impact of these funds.

It's like arguing that since the victim of car theft had a speeding ticket in the past, we should not restitute his car to him, as he could have another speeding ticket. It's an excuse as convenient as it is shallow and despicable.

Of course, while reallocating frozen assets to Ukraine presents logistical and bureaucratic challenges, these are not insurmountable. With international cooperation and the use of modern financial mechanisms and oversight, the process can be made transparent, efficient, and effective. The key here is in the details of implementation—establishing clear guidelines, oversight bodies, and accountability measures to ensure the funds are used as intended. The international community has a track record of managing complex financial programs (e.g., post-World War II Marshall Plan), demonstrating that with political will and careful planning, similar endeavors can succeed.

Conclusion

All the arguments against reallocating $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to Ukraine are morally bankrupt, despicable and shameful.

It's all about a decision.

As long as the Western world agrees, through the formal vote of regular law, we don't need the approval of authoritarian countries who will obviously disapprove of this decision.

Some of our leaders may be afraid of such a move, but it's still the right thing to do even for those having lost all their moral principles.

Indeed, this transfer of $300B is also the best way to prevent escalations, support victims of aggression, discourage future violations of international law, and promote global stability.

So, even for those morally bankrupt "realists", it's still the best move.