Three days after his incredible altercation with Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, Donald Trump brings together, on Monday, March 3, his main advisers to the White House to decide on the suite of events. A few hours later, the cleaver fell: Washington declared the freezing of its military support in kyiv. “The president clearly indicated that he was focusing on peace. We need our partners to also agree to achieve this objective,” said the republican administration.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the announcement has the effect of a bomb. And confirms the worst fear of the Chancellery of the Old Continent: having to assume the burden of support for Ukraine alone. The kremlin is rejected, but Europeans find themselves faced with the double imperative to fill the American vacuum, while massively increasing their own defense efforts to dissuade the imperialist ambitions of their Russian neighbor. In the background, the crucial question of financing this rise in power, for European states with limited budgetary maneuver.
In this chaotic context – and in parallel with the plan to 800 billion euros aimed at “rearming Europe” validated by the twenty -seven on March 6 – the subject of the confiscation of some 300 billion euros in frozen Russian assets abroad is brutally returned to the front of the stage. “Enough, it’s time to act!”, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said a few weeks ago, for a long time lawyer, like his Baltic neighbors, of the use of this windfall for the benefit of Ukraine. As of December, the former Estonian Minister, and today a head of European diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, had suggested seizing these funds to help pay “all the damage that Russia caused to Ukraine”.
Legal debate
For the time being, however, Europeans have not resolved to cross the Rubicon. A few days after the start of the Russian invasion in 2022, G7 members ordered the freeze of around 300 billion euros in assets of the Central Bank of Russia placed in Western financial institutions. Of this total, a little more than 200 billion was in the European Union, mainly from Euroclear, an international fund for funds established in Belgium. The G7 countries then agreed in 2024 to use the interests generated by these frozen assets (about 3 billion per year) to help Ukraine, without going, however, until the outright confiscation of this heap of gold.
In question: the fear of creating a previous one. “This decision would have a major impact on the international monetary system, points out Nicolas Véron, economist and co -founder of the European Think Tank Bruegel. This would correspond to a complete revision of the rules in force and it is more than likely that the consequences would be negative.” A possible seizure would indeed ask questions on the legal level, in particular under the principle of “immunity of execution”, which, in international law, prevents the seizure of the goods of one State by another. However, the debate is far from closed. “There is a solid way to grasp these assets, objects Nigel Gould-Davies, researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London and former British ambassador in Belarus. By virtue of the doctrine of ‘state countermeasures’, it is quite justified to grasp the assets of the aggressor to compensate the victim.”
Beyond the legal debate, the reluctance of certain Europeans to put their fingers in the jar of honey is above all explained by economic concerns. In April 2024, the president of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, called to “examine very carefully” any confiscation project, echoing the fears that such a decision scares foreign investors. The nightmare scenario? That this has repercussions on the financial stability of the euro zone. “If Europeans confiscate the reserves of the Russian central bank, it is certain that this will make confidence in the euro as a reserve currency,” abounds Nicolas Véron. Precisely the reason why France, like the Germany of Olaf Scholz, still slow down the four irons. On March 4, the French Minister Delegate for European Affairs Benjamin Haddad once again stood against the “message [qui serait] Sent to investors “like Saudi Arabia or China.
Force Russia to get your hands on the wallet
However, there is still the question of the funds available for the reconstruction of Ukraine, the cost of which is estimated to date at more than $ 524 billion by the World Bank. In February 2024, the G7 countries claimed that Russian assets would remain “immobilized until Russia pays for the damage it caused to Ukraine”. The scenario of a Kremlin agreeing to pay the bill, however, being highly improbable, that of a restitution of Russian assets is just as much. “There is no chance that Russia accepts to provide Ukraine with the necessary money, insists Svitlana Taran, economist at the European Policy Center (EPC). Therefore, rather than letting these assets be frozen eternally, the idea is to use them as a form of payment on repairs.” This would probably constitute the only compensation that Ukraine can hope to touch its attacker.
Another argument in favor of seizure, “this could have a very strong deterrent if the attackers realize that their war can lead to the confiscation of their assets”, wants to believe Olena Hauushka, co -founder of the NGO International Center for Ukrainian Victory (ICUV). In the shorter term, the confiscation of Russian assets, which represent almost twice its GDP, would constitute an unexpected financial windfall for Ukraine. These funds alone allow to compensate for the disappearance of American expenses for almost seven years – the amount of aid provided by Washington since the start of the invasion reaching $ 123 billion. “This would provide him with colossal resources to rebuild himself and buy large amounts of weapons in Europe and the United States,” said Nigel Gould-Davies. A priority issue for this country targeted daily by Russian strikes against its civil and energy infrastructure.
Could this also oil the relationships between the new host of the White House and its Ukrainian counterpart? “If Donald Trump no longer wants to give Ukraine arms, he would probably be very happy to sell them: it would be an excellent way to create jobs for him,” said the former British-ambassador. In the same way, these funds would be welcome on the Old Continent to boost the command notebooks of defense manufacturers, when European capitals seek to strengthen their production of military equipment. In France, the interests of frozen Russian assets have already made it possible, in 2024, to finance the order of 12 Caesar guns, as well as shells and missiles.
Risks to be nuanced
Will the urgency of the moment push Europeans to reassess the risks? Some experts nuances concerns. “I do not believe in a scenario of generalized distrust vis-à-vis the euro, supports Julien Vercueil, an economist specialist in Russia and vice-president of the National Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilizations (Inalco). This would amount to considering that this decision is likely to be commonplace-which is not the case. If they were afraid. ” Until now, no massive withdrawal has been observed despite the successive hardening of the G7.
In fact, the alternatives are thin: the euro, the dollar, the pound sterling and the yen constitute, by themselves, almost 90 % of reserve currencies in the world. “There are in reality many other currencies that can be used for this, confirms the economist Svitlana Taran. The hypothesis that foreign investors would rush to withdraw their money from the EU therefore seems not very convincing.” To limit this possibility, supporters of confiscation plead for a coordinated approach within the G7. If Joe Biden had in his time open the way to such a decision, it will however be difficult to find common ground between Brussels and Washington, at a time when the United States is increasingly aligning themselves on the Russian agenda and do not hide their aversion to the Commission.
In the meantime, the debate has already taken a national dimension. In France, certain elected macronists, the Socialist Party and the environmentalists defended in the Assembly the seizure of frozen Russian assets. “Before making French and Europeans pay, let’s pay the Russians for the security of Ukraine,” said former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal during questions to the government. Across the Rhine, the victory of the conservatives of the CDU in the last legislative elections, and the imminent office of the future chancellor Friedrich Merz, also open up new perspectives. “There are good reasons to believe that the new German government will not oppose the same resistance as that of Chancellor Scholz, gauges the ex-ambassador Nigel Gould-Davies. If necessary, will Emmanuel Macron really accept to be the only veto to this decision, even though he is ready to deploy troops on the ground in Ukraine?”
In kyiv, the hesitation that shakes the European capitals recalls others. “The reluctance is of the same order as those we had heard for the tanks, then the fighter planes, and the long-range missiles, traces Olena Hauushka of the NGO ICUV. Each time, however, the Europeans ended up making the right decision. I hope it will be the same this time, and that it will not be too late.” After the betrayal of Washington, time is running out.
.