Share.

19 commenti

  1. Juste-un-autre-alt on

    Of course, because being on the right side of history wasn’t enough for Belgium.

  2. Neutral-frame on

    People rush to judge but no country would take such risks if they had no assurances that if the worst comes, they don’t have to pay it back all on their own. Belgium needs concrete and clear assurances from EU, and so far it hasn’t gotten enough.

    Also, do people understand that Belgium gets billions in tax revenue from interest alone on this money (even though it’s frozen). Who will be paying these billions to Belgium for all years to come? Not to mention that this will destroy Belgium’s credibility. It’s not an easy choice.

  3. Dr0ff3ll on

    The truth here is that the financial guarantees are the least of the EU’s problems with this plan. No amount of guarantees can replace the loss of trust if the EU uses these Russian assets as collateral.

    I doubt anyone here would want someone else to take out a mortgage on their home; this is effectively what the EU is trying to do to Russia.

  4. Can Belgium not shift the cash out of the country to another who is willing and wash their hands of it?

  5. Turbulent-Raise4830 on

    Good a long as there is nu ready gaurantee for the damages coming from this decision belgium should not agree to this.

  6. Most_Grocery4388 on

    So the political charade is falling apart. For anyone looking at the issue objectively without emotion it was obvious that Zelensky first went to Trump for money and was told no, next EU countries started scrambling to finance Ukraine and thought Russian money was easy to get but Belgium is saying no. EU counties don’t want to pay either so they tried to force Belgium into submission and that was always the question if they would be successful.

    Next Ukraine needs to get liquidity somewhere because even though Russia is not making great strides it is grounding Ukraine down day by day and eventually the levee will break and Ukraine will start to fall westward. For anyone making fun of the Russian military here, if it’s a joke go fight there and see because for Ukrainians on the ground they are still a leather force and they have plenty of reserves if it becomes necessary.

  7. _never_lucky on

    If we truly have a war-induced economic crisis which justifies using article 122 for the Russian asset scheme, avoiding a vote with unanimity which is the usual requirement for foreign and sanctions policy, then article 122 could also be used for the alternative, eurobonds. Once you open pandora’s box, all kinds of solutions are possibly with a qualified majority.

  8. octahexxer on

    Politicians are mostly idiots so I’m not surprised they can’t even figure this one out. 

  9. OpLeeftijd on

    Why are we taking the Politico perspective seriously. This was written by a Putin goon. Wait for the official announcement.

  10. Any-Original-6113 on

    It seems like we’ve reached an impasse.

    What if we actually go with Belgium’s proposal and guarantee the commitments for all countries that vote in favor of transferring the funds to Ukraine?

    After all, we don’t need the entire sum at once—just 60 billion euros for now.
    We can decide on the remaining amount at the end of 2026.

  11. TemporalCash531 on

    The EU should have long ago bought those Russian funds from the member states, so as to remove the excuse of ‘we don’t want to be held responsible in the future’ and proceed using them as it has been discussed.

  12. 1urk3r88 on

    Seizing and using Russian assets will be a mistake – we are not in a total war scenario and Russia is our neighbour and potential partner in the future … let’s be fucking real – they are gonna continue existing right where they are…

  13. adventmix on

    Bear in mind that even during WW2 Germany’s assets weren’t seized.

  14. ChampionshipNo3072 on

    “EU shoots down Belguum’s push for seizing Russian assets by refusing to participate”

    Ftfy

Leave A Reply