this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
23 points (82.9% liked)
Ukraine
8192 readers
361 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, potentially a temp pause, and instead of using their money, they will use some 300 billion of Russian assets. Works for me. As long as they resume funding If needed.
I'd personally rather that countries send resources as grants and reserve the frozen assets for funding reconstruction in Ukraine, because I think that it'll be politically-harder to obtain funds for that, and Ukraine will need aid then too.
That being said, I'm coming from an American perspective; my understanding is that the American public has historically been more-okay with military aid than economic aid, relative to Europe, so...shrugs
That is a valid point. I wasn't thinking about the rebuilding post war bit. Doesn't the US have its own stash of Russian money. It can send to Ukraine for rebuilding?
Probably. The US did freeze some. I don't know whether the thing is being collectively-handled or on a per-country basis.
kagis
It sounds like there is some level of collective-decision-making involving both, and that more of the funds are frozen by Europe than the US.
reads further
This talks about both that and reconstruction costs:
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-frozen-russian-assets-could-pay-rebuilding-ukraine
So I'd guess that if anything, the number is higher now, if that represented damage at the one-year mark.
So at least two-thirds of it was frozen by European governments. If they take different routes, whatever the Europe does -- if it does one thing -- will probably be where the larger portion of the funds go.
I appreciate the further insight! Thank you.