Same old stale arguments from Euroclear
Same old, same old from Euroclear:
https://www.ft.com/content/7c6ae0e9-aebf-4793-8bc1-35c695466381
While the legal case for closure is clear as set out here:
https://www.iiss.org/research-paper/2024/05/on-proposed-countermeasures-against-russia-to-compensate-injured-states-for-losses-caused-by-russias-war-of-aggression-against-ukraine/
Or here:
https://newlinesinstitute.org/rules-based-international-order/multilateral-asset-transfer-a-proposal-for-ensuring-reparations-for-ukraine/
Here:
https://kse.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CBR-Assets-Legal-Report_February-2024.pdf
Even here:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2024)759602
And then I lay out the economic arguments here:
The economic case for seizing CBR assets
The economic arguments around using immobilised CBR assets for Ukraine
A Q&A on frozen Russian assets
So much news/noise now on the issue of using “frozen”, or actually as yet only “immobilised”, Russian assets for Ukraine, I thought it useful to put out a quick Q&A around the issues.
Bottom line here is a Ukrainian victory is a national security imperative for Europe and the systemic risk to Europe of a Russian victory far outweighs the risks to Euroclear - which are overstated and can easily be mitigated.
Great summary from Timothy making the case for confiscation. However the main argument should be grounded in compensation to Ukraine for war crimes, damages and destruction, not security for Europe (altho that is a by-product).