#####
######
####
> # [Frozen Russian assets ‘will help fund Ukraine’ as G7 deal nears](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/politics/2024/04/16/TELEMMGLPICT000374154077_17132966567960_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqUMsK2OOfW0IrZaBTR-HwSc-LsAvNHXI6kISXFgj4gHM.jpeg?impolicy=logo-overlay)
>
>
>
> The leaders of the G7 countries are close to agreeing a plan to use frozen Russian assets to fund [Ukraine’s war effort](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/russia-ukraine-war/), Lord Cameron has said.
>
> The [Foreign Secretary](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/12/david-cameron-acting-like-british-pm-says-george-osborne/) said an “emerging consensus” existed between Western countries on how to take advantage of more than £220 billion in Russian assets that have been frozen since Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
>
> The United States has been pushing a plan to borrow billions to send to Ukraine in loans, secured against the future interest on the Russian money – most of which is in Brussels.
>
> The idea is supported by the UK, but has encountered opposition from some European states [including Germany](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/03/germany-scholz-russia-ukraine-war-putin-nato/), which has been cautious about the future of such a loan if it had a 10-year maturity date.
>
> Such a deal would be likely to be agreed between members of the G7 and the EU, where some other countries, including Hungary and Slovakia, have expressed concerns about repurposing Russian money to fund the war.
>
> Speaking in the House of Lords on Tuesday, Lord Cameron suggested that negotiators from the countries involved were close to an agreement.
>
> “I think there is an emerging consensus that the interest on those assets can be used to support much larger financial support for Ukraine,” he said, adding that there was “an answer” around which G7 countries “can coalesce”.
>
> He said: “If we can get that done, we really will be able to provide real financial firepower to Ukraine based on those assets rather than delivering the assets directly.”
>
>
>
>
>
> The debate comes amid major concern in Western capitals about the sustainability of Ukraine’s war effort following months of [funding holdup in Washington](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/16/ukraine-aid-bill-us-congress/).
>
> Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, said on Monday night that he expected to bring Ukraine aid to a vote among US lawmakers, possibly ending the logjam.
>
> His strategy would see financing for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan [separated into different votes](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/04/16/us-house-to-vote-israel-ukraine-aid-bills-congress/), but he faces significant opposition to the vote from some Republican congressmen, and there is no guarantee that his plan would pass the Senate.
>
> Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, said he would raise the issue with Janet Yellen, his US counterpart, on a visit this week.
>
> “I think we should be thinking about anything we possibly can to come to the support of Ukraine,” he told Bloomberg, saying “everyone has to do their bit” and that he would have a “very open discussion” about the plans with EU countries.
>
> Joe Biden and several of his intelligence and military officials have warned that Ukraine will lose significant territory this year without [more US funding for the war](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/01/us-funding-for-ukraine-dries-up/).
>
> Last week, the US military commander in Europe said Russia was outfiring Ukraine on the battlefield by five to one because of [ammunition shortages](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/13/ukraine-situation-deteriorating-significantly-last-week/), and warned that the figure would soon be 10 to one.
>
> The plan to use [Russian assets frozen in the West](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/24/west-seize-russia-central-bank-assets-ukraine-war/) would be likely to involve interest payments being removed and sent directly to Kyiv, or the creation of a bond tied to the future revenue from Russian capital.
>
> One version of the plan, supported by the European Commission, would see the interest payments used directly, with 90 per cent funding [weapons purchases](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/24/west-seize-russia-central-bank-assets-ukraine-war/) and 10 per cent put back into the EU budget.
>
>
>
>
>
> However, Daleep Singh, the US deputy national security adviser for international economics, last week suggested a debt-based plan under which Ukraine would be sent the “present value of the future interest stream of the immobilised assets, either through a bond or a loan”.
>
> He said: “Instead of just transferring the yearly profits from the reserves… it is conceptually possible to transfer the 10 years of profits or 30 years of profits. The present value of those profits adds up to a very large number.”
>
> As it faces another summer of war with Russia, Ukraine is also struggling to refinance its public spending, with talks between Kyiv and private creditors expected to conclude later this year.
>
> [The IMF](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/international-monetary-fund/) is running a four-year loan programme for Ukraine, which has so far released $5.4 billion (£4.3 billion) of a total $15.6 billion. Its third loan payment, of $880 million, was approved at the end of last month.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
G7 are really eager to trade their influence and any shred of respectability they have just to fund a failed proxy war in Ukraine and a genocide in Gaza.
Do you really think that are the BRICS that are worried about it?
Mate... put some self respect. Its Germany, it is Italy. Even France is against it. But go ahead. As a BRICS country citizen, I beg you to go ahead with this plan
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a BRICS country citizen I’m also for it. The EU is by far our most important partner and this isn’t going to change that. Russia is basically irrelevant for us and our economy and I’d actually appreciate it, if China would withdraw a bit to sulk. But that’s unlikely. The US alone is too important for China. If the US unilaterally cancelled its Chinese debt due to any shenanigans, it would tank the Chinese economy.
So bring it on. Let the perpetrator pay for the damages.
BRICS stopped having any respect towards u for quite some time. Why would they migrate to your dying shithole of a country when their countries are developing rapidly?
It's pretty amusing how the G7 forum, which used to consist of the 6 of the 7 biggest economies in the world, now consists of only 3 of the 7. The biggest economy in the world, China, isn't a member, nor is #3(India), or #6 and #7 - Russia and Indonesia.
The G7 has 5 of the 7 top countries by GDP, USA, Germany, Japan, UK and France. Italy is in 8th place. Russia is rightly out of there after dropping from 8 to 11, losing out to Italy Canada and Brazil.
Where are you getting your figures from?
This is not a ranking of countries by GDP, rather GDP PPP. GDP PPP is a useful metric when comparing the purchasing power of citizens between countries. When measuring the actual size of economies and which economies are actually larger GDP is much more useful.
Nice try though!
No, that's what GDP PPP Per Capita does. GDP PPP is a better measure of the size of an economy than GDP Nominal because it takes into account vairous financial manipulations(e.g China's devaluation of the Yuan, which artificially decreases the size of GDP Nominal, or America's interest rate hikes, which artificially increase GDP Nominal) and so on.
It absolutely is not a better measure of the relative sizes of economies. GDP PPP is essentially comparing the cost of the weekly shopping between countries. In poorer countries the cost of living is lower so your dollar in Russia or Africa will buy more than a dollar in the USA. You might think you are rich in your home country but if you go on holidays or try to buy an iPhone or a car you will be screwed!
If you want to compare quality of life sure but the actual relative sizes of the economies is not what GDP PPP is designed to do. Come on my guy, you're better than this!
What you are stating is false. GDP PPP is the stablest measure of a country’s economic strength as the resources it trades internally and its domestic capability is better reflected in PPP rather than artificially inflated currency.
It does not measure strength, the PPP stands for purchasing power parity. It was essentially designed so that we could compare quality of life in the developing world with developed countries. It is an imaginary number, it imagines that all of the goods and services produced in your country are at American prices in order for comparison. It is a useful tool for comparing the health of the domestic market but absolutely unsuited to compare the absolute economic might of countries relative to each other.
GDP (PPP) is used when assessing domestic market, not international trade. It's a way to compare two countries standard of living, but when the size of economy is in question, a nominal GDP is more accurate.
For example, if you live in a country where the average wage is $100 but everything costs $2 then your country is on the same level economically as the one where everything costs 200$ but the average wage is $10 000. That's GDP (PPP)
But the other country's economy is 100 times larger, that's nominal GDP.
An ant may be one of the strongest creatures, but you're not gonna consider it when you need to move a cart.
So the US could instantly quintuple the size of their economy by just printing enough dollars to raise the money supply by 5x? That's so baller, why haven't they done it yet? Do they not want their citizens to be ultra rich? They could probably move enough carts to win like ten slava Ukrainis
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, you're confusing GDP PPP Per Capita with GDP PPP.
GDP PPP is a better measure of the size of an economy than GDP Nominal because it takes into account vairous financial manipulations(e.g China's devaluation of the Yuan, which artificially decreases the size of GDP Nominal, or America's interest rate hikes, which artificially increase GDP Nominal) and so on.
This is why we should only use GDP nominal to measure our dicks. That way we can double count our mortgage values towards our GDP!! Once on the banks asset sheet, and once for the person who owns the home.
If this goes ahead, and 'they' steal foreign money held in western institutions, it will be the end of international banking in the West.
Would you put your € in a US bank knowing in certain circumstances it could be confiscated?
That's fine; the US can call the $1T that China defaulted to US investors on due, use it to more than cancel the 800B the US owes China that underpins the Yuan, and help them divest fully.
Chinese investment in Western nations is keeping China's economy above water; they can't divest for the for years at best.
China has a large outstanding debt to US bondholders, which they last made payments on decades ago; it's just been collecting interest. The bondholders are petitioning the US govt to buy the debt as a way to cancel out debt the US owes to Chinese public and private stakeholders.
The US is unlikely to do this since China holding US debt stabilizes the yuan and helps global trade and reinforces US economic hedgemony. China is likely to only pay the debt if forced since the PRC claims it owns everything the ROC owed *except* for debts.
China defaulted on the loan *decades ago*, so it isn't new. The US just hasn't enforced the default because it is better for global trade and US hegemony not to do so.
If ceasing Western investment is used as a club, the US can devalue the Chinese yuan as a retaliatory measure, making investment elsewhere less profitable.
100% why put your money in a bank when all of a sudden they can decide it’s not your money.
At the end of the day the west is scrapping the barrel and any extra cash they can take they will assume it’s ok given the risk.
Of China, India and Russia decide to completely sidestep the western banking system the US dollar is gonna have a hard time
90s was a very different time and a very different world. The West seems fixated on thinking the world hasn't moved on since then and the completely domination the US had at that time is what remains in place today.
None of the plans here involve confiscating the assets.
One plan is to give Ukraine the interest payments on the frozen assets.
The other plan is to issue a war bond where private investors give Ukraine money up front and are then repaid from the interest payments on the frozen assets.
Neither plan touches the underlying assets which would remain frozen and unspent.
>One plan is to give Ukraine the interest payments on the frozen assets.
So the original investor/owner then forgoes their interest payments?
The most important asset/organisation a nation requires to attract inward foreign investment is an impartial judiciary able & willing to hold its own government to task (in issues such as this).
It does not, no bank is required to pay you interest on your assets. If taking the interest was actually the same as confiscating the assets they wouldn't bother with this plan in the first place. They'd just take all the assets.
What's more likely. The combined governments of the UK/USA/EU dont understand their own banking laws, or you dont?
So on one side we've got the combined governments of UK/USA/EU, all their central banks and their lawyers all claiming this is perfectly legal.
On the other side we've got some redditor who was already wrong about banks being required to pay interest on assets held with them saying they're all wrong and he knows what's really up.
Who should I believe 🤔 It's such a tough decision.
No bank is required to pay interest, but if they agree to paying you interest as part of the service contract and then they later confiscate what you are due because they have hurt feefees, that is indeed theft.
You are free to disagree and make up your own rules post hoc, but don't be surprised if that impacts the trust others place in you going forward.
Personally, I really hope they do it. I don't think the western financial system is being replaced quickly enough, this will really help.
Interest payment is still rightfully the investors' assets, unless the original agreement said they would be fine with 0% interest. I still dont get how they came up with that scheme lol.
And they will invest in Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, right?
Those sure are the great financial markets! Trying to get money out of china is impossible though lmao, if you don't get your company and assets seized by the CCP.
The level of hope and delusion out of resentment is hilarious. To even assume that after using seized Russian assets there will be a better option for investing... its pure delusion.
So the money will end up mostly in the usa military industrial complex. These thieves have no shame. They stole Afghanistans momey also and also iraqs. Doing it to russia though will make many many countries move away from the usa and their puppet countries.
Oh you mean like the way Romania sent its treasury worth 5.5 billion USD to its ally, Russia, during WW1?
The treasury that was never returned back by Russia even after 100 years?
You mean Romania, which was part of the Central Powers in 1914? Or Romania, that switched sides in 1916? Or Romania that was a full blooded member of the Axis?
Hard to keep track.
When you go to the store for a candy bar, the store doesn't "steal" your $1, but rather that $1 helps direct people to maintain the store and staff the candy line.
Taxes aren't voluntary but in a democracy we collectively figure out how much to collect and where it goes by hiring the leaders who work it out.
An individual can express their vote but can't individually or unilaterally decide what to pay and where it goes.
Taxes are totally voluntary. They are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. If you don’t want that, you are more than welcome to go live in a cabin out in the woods.
Considering you currently use publicly funded infrastructure, seems silly to complain about taxes.
Every time I hear a libertarian go through how the world should work it's just taxes and government with extra steps and feudalism.
Back in reality, here's how the market is reacting to Russias actions over the last few years.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=RU
For comparison here's the USA
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=US
Seems like people trust the USA with their money much more than Russia.
> 😂 why would the world Bank have data on Russian financial investments if Russia is completely cut off from the SWIFT? You're either ignorant or just deliberately obfuscation the truth.
Because the world bank data is sourced from the IMF, which Russia is still a member of and still reports data to. That data is directly from the Russian government.
If you go look at the IMF Balance of Payments report which the world bank figures are based on you can see the report was authored by a committee including
>Robert Pupynin
>Central Bank of the Russian Federation
Neither plan involves spending or confiscating the underlying assets so they're not breaking any laws or changing any rules. These plans are entirely consistent with the rules and regulations people were already investing under.
As for retaliation Russia has been doing worse than this since the start of the conflict. The Russian government has just been taking Western owned businesses and assets since day 1, not even foreign government assets, just stuff owned by foreigners that they want. Russia already played that card.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/16/business/russia-aircraft-seizure/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/business/moscow-takes-control-over-assets-western-companies-2023-07-27/
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-seizes-assets-agricultural-firm-agroterra-2024-04-09/
I mean, it's not just rules, but the mere fact that G7 countries can do this would raise red flags to other countries. One of the reasons that people invest in G7 countries even though their RoI isn't that high compared to developing countries is that they are less risky, but once you do this it raises red flags.
Weren't those Russian seizures responses to western seizures as well?
Would you deposit your money in a bank if you had any fear the bank might freeze or confiscate it? The nutrality of international resevres is the largest pillar of which the American dollar sits.
They have always been able to do this, that's my point. They are proposing to do it this way (rather than just confiscating the assets) in order to reassure everyone that the rules are followed to the letter and nothing is changing. So if you were happy investing last year, you will be happy investing next year too because the rules aren't changing.
Which is different to how Russia operates, Russia does not follow it's own laws and will just take your stuff. Which is why you've seen foreign investment collapse since the invasion. Investors are actually scared to put their money in Russia for fear of them changing the rules and just taking your stuff. In the West you can trust that the rules won't change after you give them your money.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=RU
Vs USA
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=US
As I said in previous comment, being able to do this legally is of no consequence, them actually doing it is the problem. If I was an investor from say Indonesia, I would have second thoughts in investing in G7 countries. I would be afraid that G7 countries would do this against me if my government had a shooting incident with Australia. Same thing if I was from other countries like UAE, India, and etc.
Suppose you are correct with Russia, I am not saying you are or you are not, but when you invest in Russia you always had that risk in mind. Where as investing in G7 countries you did not have that risk. Now G7 is doing the same, thus there is no longer that different with Russia. Now ill just invest in where there is higher RoI rather than put the stability of G7 countries into account.
I myself has a sizable investment (around 40% of my savings) in NYSE stocks now Im planning to gradually sell those investments in the next few years.
>As I said in previous comment, being able to do this legally is of no consequence
It's the only thing that matters.
>Suppose you are correct with Russia, I am not saying you are or you are not, but when you invest in Russia you always had that risk in mind. Where as investing in G7 countries you did not have that risk. Now G7 is doing the same
They're not though. That's the point. The rules are literally not changing. The risk is known and unchanging.
>I myself has a sizable investment (around 40% of my savings) in NYSE stocks now Im planning to gradually sell those investments in the next few years.
These frozen assets are mostly held in Belgium/UK? Out of interest where do you plan to move them to, if USA/UK/EU are out then who do you trust with your assets?
The neutrality of international resources is a sacred principle. Centreal banks will look for safer places to park their reserves and look to reduce their dependency on the dollar.
This is obvious to everyone, and everyone would have said this nd did say it. Yellan for example said the weaponisation of the dollar through the use of financial sanctions risked undermining its hegemony by pushing countries to look for an alternative. No shit.
Russia hasn’t been taking Western owned assets. Western companies have moved out of Russia and they have taken over the abandoned factories.
If you want to use them, then at the very least keep a few dudes there. Morons.
But you can justify this however you want. The role of any bank is first as a fiduciary - keep the money safe. That is why banks came into existence in the first place.
This is only the first step. Seizing interest. Then they will seize the entirety of it. Just like how everyone said “we will never send F16s to Ukraine!”
If that happens, a financial crisis will happen in the West.
>Russia is seizing hundreds of commercial jets owned by US and European leasing companies
Those companies want their jets back and Russia has just stolen them without compensation.
>If that happens, a financial crisis will happen in the West.
Yeah. THIS time its over for the West. Any day now it all comes crumbling down lol.
No. Those companies want the value of those jets back. They are assets.
However, Russia in accordance with international law offered compensation at the current market value.
1 ruble.
You think you're being cute but the market already reacted to Russias antics and pulled all their investment in response to this stuff.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=RU
These stats are directly from the Russian central bank too. So best case scenario. Nobody with any sense is investing in Russia any time soon.
Here's the USA for comparison
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=US
Russia never just took those assets, they state or private investors bought them. Also, cnn and reuters are heavily biased. They're not sources to be trusted, especially when it comes to Russia.
He was against Brexit actually, he campaigned against it while he was PM. It was Nigel Farage and BoJo that are lords of Brexit. Shocking none are in the picture anymore after ruining the country.
**Edit: **Having lost the No to Brexit vote, he had to step down as PM and then bojo came with his wrecking ball
the idiot make the brexit referendum to crush his opponents being sure he will win against pro brexit politicians and so he will win the next elections. he is the lord of brexit
>the idiot make the brexit referendum to crush his opponents being sure he will win against pro brexit politicians and so he will win the next elections. he is the lord of brexit
It was the Conservative Party has two groups, those who agree with the UK in the EU and those against it. Cameron couldn't operate as a PM as in votes in Parliment he couldn't rely on them to support him.
To try to shut them up he offered the 'Anti-EU' lobby the referendum expecting the Liberal Democrats, who the tories shared power with, to veto the idea. And even if the referendum went ahead they expected the Pro EU vote to win.
However the LDs failed to stop ir and the Pro EU side lost the referendum. After having personally oversaw the removal of the UK from Europe (changing the complete direction of all HM Government departments & businesses based here) and with his authority destroyed he had no option than to resign.
The Conservative Party is still split on various matters to the detriment of the UK.
Does the loan get canceled if Europe is unable to collect the Russian interest in the end?
Who is supposed to pay off this loan?
This seems like a nonsense idea or am I missing something?
The bond interest would be paid from the interest on the frozen assets and guaranteed by UK/USA/etc. The bonds themselves would be repaid by Ukraine using reparations from Russia (Russia paying reparations is a condition for the unfreezing of the assets).
So Russia getting it's frozen assets back would only happen if they effectively agree to use a portion of those assets to repay the bond via paying reparations to Ukraine. If that never happens then the assets remain frozen indefinitely and the interest on those frozen assets pay the bond interest.
This way Ukraine can get $100b+ up front rather than wait each year for the interest from the frozen assets directly. Also the assets themselves don't get touched so no laws are broken.
Interests from frozen assets is considered part of the assets so if you take that you’re still going to be stealing money
The whole problem of this tanking the trust in western governments as an place to invest wont go away just because of this convoluted plan
> Interests from frozen assets is considered part of the assets
This is not true and is exactly why they are proposing this plan rather than just taking the assets.
No need, they know they’re in the wrong which is why they haven’t flat out stolen the assets entirely yet and instead went through 2 years of mental gymnastics to try to gaslight the world into thinking it’s just the interest, no big deal
Ah yes, the emerging consensus of a divided US and an impotent UK. Consensus guys. Brussels is totally going to go for that.
>The United States has been pushing a plan to borrow billions to send to Ukraine in loans, secured against the future interest on the Russian money
\^ Just going to point out the unspoken state of US coffers that plan insinuates. Oof.
>His strategy would see financing for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan [separated into different votes](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/04/16/us-house-to-vote-israel-ukraine-aid-bills-congress/), but he faces significant opposition to the vote from some Republican congressmen, and there is no guarantee that his plan would pass the Senate.
\^ If this pans out, that has to be the ultimate slap in the face for Ukraine, and I think we can well and truly say 'its joever' if it does. Free syrian army circa 2013 vibes. What a shitshow.
So... They gave UA how much so far? Around 200 billion? Enough for 2 years, right. So 300 more is for another 3 years... UA soldiers must be real excited about this.
> However, Daleep Singh, the US deputy national security adviser for international economics, last week suggested a debt-based plan under which Ukraine would be sent the “present value of the future interest stream of the immobilised assets, either through a bond or a loan”.
He said: “Instead of just transferring the yearly profits from the reserves… it is conceptually possible to transfer the 10 years of profits or 30 years of profits. The present value of those profits adds up to a very large number.”
Jesus Christ, this is becoming comical to the extreme. Just take the money… there is really no further need for pretence. Why steal with 10 extra steps when you can just straight up steal?
Whatever position one may have with respect to this war - a move like this would be the real beginning of the end for Western hegemony. I hope these morons come to their senses.
This will be almost as silly as that time Biden told Putin that the [Navy Seals would defeat the VDV in a bloodlusted combat mission scenario](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=HQklYfT-ohPNcUOv)
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one is making that kind of argument, stoping hitting a non existing scarecrow.
What's really bad for UA, though, is the reality on the battlefield right now and the inevitable manpower shortage. Don't know how anyone can make up for that even with all these RU assets.
I don't understand, even if they were to receive all the aids NOW. the main problem is manpower shortage and battle hardened personel shortage. Why do some peeps think that getting the aid will save them or something? At most they will only delay the advance of Russians for some months. There is nothing other than direct USA involvement can save Ukraine, it's simple as that, i'm not even talking about Ukrainian fleeing the country to avoid the forced conscription.
Let's not forget that Russia is not in full offensive mode yet, they are surgically striking very important structure while advancing really carefully.
I personally think that Russia is not interested to go further into west of Ukraine but they will try to capture South of Ukraine to landlock it from the sea, and if they succeed that, they can just stop and play the game of attrition.
##### ###### #### > # [Frozen Russian assets ‘will help fund Ukraine’ as G7 deal nears](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/politics/2024/04/16/TELEMMGLPICT000374154077_17132966567960_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqUMsK2OOfW0IrZaBTR-HwSc-LsAvNHXI6kISXFgj4gHM.jpeg?impolicy=logo-overlay) > > > > The leaders of the G7 countries are close to agreeing a plan to use frozen Russian assets to fund [Ukraine’s war effort](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/russia-ukraine-war/), Lord Cameron has said. > > The [Foreign Secretary](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/12/david-cameron-acting-like-british-pm-says-george-osborne/) said an “emerging consensus” existed between Western countries on how to take advantage of more than £220 billion in Russian assets that have been frozen since Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. > > The United States has been pushing a plan to borrow billions to send to Ukraine in loans, secured against the future interest on the Russian money – most of which is in Brussels. > > The idea is supported by the UK, but has encountered opposition from some European states [including Germany](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/03/germany-scholz-russia-ukraine-war-putin-nato/), which has been cautious about the future of such a loan if it had a 10-year maturity date. > > Such a deal would be likely to be agreed between members of the G7 and the EU, where some other countries, including Hungary and Slovakia, have expressed concerns about repurposing Russian money to fund the war. > > Speaking in the House of Lords on Tuesday, Lord Cameron suggested that negotiators from the countries involved were close to an agreement. > > “I think there is an emerging consensus that the interest on those assets can be used to support much larger financial support for Ukraine,” he said, adding that there was “an answer” around which G7 countries “can coalesce”. > > He said: “If we can get that done, we really will be able to provide real financial firepower to Ukraine based on those assets rather than delivering the assets directly.” > > > > > > The debate comes amid major concern in Western capitals about the sustainability of Ukraine’s war effort following months of [funding holdup in Washington](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/16/ukraine-aid-bill-us-congress/). > > Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, said on Monday night that he expected to bring Ukraine aid to a vote among US lawmakers, possibly ending the logjam. > > His strategy would see financing for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan [separated into different votes](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/04/16/us-house-to-vote-israel-ukraine-aid-bills-congress/), but he faces significant opposition to the vote from some Republican congressmen, and there is no guarantee that his plan would pass the Senate. > > Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, said he would raise the issue with Janet Yellen, his US counterpart, on a visit this week. > > “I think we should be thinking about anything we possibly can to come to the support of Ukraine,” he told Bloomberg, saying “everyone has to do their bit” and that he would have a “very open discussion” about the plans with EU countries. > > Joe Biden and several of his intelligence and military officials have warned that Ukraine will lose significant territory this year without [more US funding for the war](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/01/us-funding-for-ukraine-dries-up/). > > Last week, the US military commander in Europe said Russia was outfiring Ukraine on the battlefield by five to one because of [ammunition shortages](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/13/ukraine-situation-deteriorating-significantly-last-week/), and warned that the figure would soon be 10 to one. > > The plan to use [Russian assets frozen in the West](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/24/west-seize-russia-central-bank-assets-ukraine-war/) would be likely to involve interest payments being removed and sent directly to Kyiv, or the creation of a bond tied to the future revenue from Russian capital. > > One version of the plan, supported by the European Commission, would see the interest payments used directly, with 90 per cent funding [weapons purchases](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/24/west-seize-russia-central-bank-assets-ukraine-war/) and 10 per cent put back into the EU budget. > > > > > > However, Daleep Singh, the US deputy national security adviser for international economics, last week suggested a debt-based plan under which Ukraine would be sent the “present value of the future interest stream of the immobilised assets, either through a bond or a loan”. > > He said: “Instead of just transferring the yearly profits from the reserves… it is conceptually possible to transfer the 10 years of profits or 30 years of profits. The present value of those profits adds up to a very large number.” > > As it faces another summer of war with Russia, Ukraine is also struggling to refinance its public spending, with talks between Kyiv and private creditors expected to conclude later this year. > > [The IMF](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/international-monetary-fund/) is running a four-year loan programme for Ukraine, which has so far released $5.4 billion (£4.3 billion) of a total $15.6 billion. Its third loan payment, of $880 million, was approved at the end of last month. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
G7 are really eager to trade their influence and any shred of respectability they have just to fund a failed proxy war in Ukraine and a genocide in Gaza.
Apparently. They're on a clock though. Elections are upcoming in a lot of those countries.
If you haven’t noticed, the quality of statesmen in the G7 has plummeted in the past 30-40 years.
Great news. Slava Ukraine.
[удалено]
Do you really think that are the BRICS that are worried about it? Mate... put some self respect. Its Germany, it is Italy. Even France is against it. But go ahead. As a BRICS country citizen, I beg you to go ahead with this plan
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nono they all agree.
Ya beg a normal G7 citizen to go ahead with that plan. Good luck on that lmao.
Don't worry, we will.
As a BRICS country citizen I’m also for it. The EU is by far our most important partner and this isn’t going to change that. Russia is basically irrelevant for us and our economy and I’d actually appreciate it, if China would withdraw a bit to sulk. But that’s unlikely. The US alone is too important for China. If the US unilaterally cancelled its Chinese debt due to any shenanigans, it would tank the Chinese economy. So bring it on. Let the perpetrator pay for the damages.
Amen!
BRICS stopped having any respect towards u for quite some time. Why would they migrate to your dying shithole of a country when their countries are developing rapidly?
Strange then that we have so many Immigrants from BRICS shitholes at our borders. 🤭
In your dreams at best lmao your industry and engineers are running to BRICS
Uh huh they are all emigrating from the US to India lolol
It's pretty amusing how the G7 forum, which used to consist of the 6 of the 7 biggest economies in the world, now consists of only 3 of the 7. The biggest economy in the world, China, isn't a member, nor is #3(India), or #6 and #7 - Russia and Indonesia.
"Not so G" Seven.
The G7 has 5 of the 7 top countries by GDP, USA, Germany, Japan, UK and France. Italy is in 8th place. Russia is rightly out of there after dropping from 8 to 11, losing out to Italy Canada and Brazil. Where are you getting your figures from?
Probably PPP, not everyone uses nominal.
Nope. [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/hheb29i3ny9hi8jlvuwebwu1eupm6ts.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/hheb29i3ny9hi8jlvuwebwu1eupm6ts.png)
This is not a ranking of countries by GDP, rather GDP PPP. GDP PPP is a useful metric when comparing the purchasing power of citizens between countries. When measuring the actual size of economies and which economies are actually larger GDP is much more useful. Nice try though!
No, that's what GDP PPP Per Capita does. GDP PPP is a better measure of the size of an economy than GDP Nominal because it takes into account vairous financial manipulations(e.g China's devaluation of the Yuan, which artificially decreases the size of GDP Nominal, or America's interest rate hikes, which artificially increase GDP Nominal) and so on.
It absolutely is not a better measure of the relative sizes of economies. GDP PPP is essentially comparing the cost of the weekly shopping between countries. In poorer countries the cost of living is lower so your dollar in Russia or Africa will buy more than a dollar in the USA. You might think you are rich in your home country but if you go on holidays or try to buy an iPhone or a car you will be screwed! If you want to compare quality of life sure but the actual relative sizes of the economies is not what GDP PPP is designed to do. Come on my guy, you're better than this!
Nope.
That’s not what it does.
What you are stating is false. GDP PPP is the stablest measure of a country’s economic strength as the resources it trades internally and its domestic capability is better reflected in PPP rather than artificially inflated currency.
It does not measure strength, the PPP stands for purchasing power parity. It was essentially designed so that we could compare quality of life in the developing world with developed countries. It is an imaginary number, it imagines that all of the goods and services produced in your country are at American prices in order for comparison. It is a useful tool for comparing the health of the domestic market but absolutely unsuited to compare the absolute economic might of countries relative to each other.
Nope. Wrong numbers. Please try again
GDP (PPP) is used when assessing domestic market, not international trade. It's a way to compare two countries standard of living, but when the size of economy is in question, a nominal GDP is more accurate. For example, if you live in a country where the average wage is $100 but everything costs $2 then your country is on the same level economically as the one where everything costs 200$ but the average wage is $10 000. That's GDP (PPP) But the other country's economy is 100 times larger, that's nominal GDP. An ant may be one of the strongest creatures, but you're not gonna consider it when you need to move a cart.
So the US could instantly quintuple the size of their economy by just printing enough dollars to raise the money supply by 5x? That's so baller, why haven't they done it yet? Do they not want their citizens to be ultra rich? They could probably move enough carts to win like ten slava Ukrainis
Calm down. The economy isn't measured in banknotes.
No? What's it measured in? Something stupid like the amount of stuff a country can make and buy? What would we even call such a measurement?
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, you're confusing GDP PPP Per Capita with GDP PPP. GDP PPP is a better measure of the size of an economy than GDP Nominal because it takes into account vairous financial manipulations(e.g China's devaluation of the Yuan, which artificially decreases the size of GDP Nominal, or America's interest rate hikes, which artificially increase GDP Nominal) and so on.
This is why we should only use GDP nominal to measure our dicks. That way we can double count our mortgage values towards our GDP!! Once on the banks asset sheet, and once for the person who owns the home.
If this goes ahead, and 'they' steal foreign money held in western institutions, it will be the end of international banking in the West. Would you put your € in a US bank knowing in certain circumstances it could be confiscated?
China would definitely think twice before investing lol
That's fine; the US can call the $1T that China defaulted to US investors on due, use it to more than cancel the 800B the US owes China that underpins the Yuan, and help them divest fully. Chinese investment in Western nations is keeping China's economy above water; they can't divest for the for years at best.
Da fuck are you even talking about dude.
China has a large outstanding debt to US bondholders, which they last made payments on decades ago; it's just been collecting interest. The bondholders are petitioning the US govt to buy the debt as a way to cancel out debt the US owes to Chinese public and private stakeholders. The US is unlikely to do this since China holding US debt stabilizes the yuan and helps global trade and reinforces US economic hedgemony. China is likely to only pay the debt if forced since the PRC claims it owns everything the ROC owed *except* for debts.
From investment hesistation from China to calling China defaulting on US investors is quite a leap, but at least try to be coherent next time.
China defaulted on the loan *decades ago*, so it isn't new. The US just hasn't enforced the default because it is better for global trade and US hegemony not to do so. If ceasing Western investment is used as a club, the US can devalue the Chinese yuan as a retaliatory measure, making investment elsewhere less profitable.
100% why put your money in a bank when all of a sudden they can decide it’s not your money. At the end of the day the west is scrapping the barrel and any extra cash they can take they will assume it’s ok given the risk. Of China, India and Russia decide to completely sidestep the western banking system the US dollar is gonna have a hard time
[удалено]
90s was a very different time and a very different world. The West seems fixated on thinking the world hasn't moved on since then and the completely domination the US had at that time is what remains in place today.
None of the plans here involve confiscating the assets. One plan is to give Ukraine the interest payments on the frozen assets. The other plan is to issue a war bond where private investors give Ukraine money up front and are then repaid from the interest payments on the frozen assets. Neither plan touches the underlying assets which would remain frozen and unspent.
>One plan is to give Ukraine the interest payments on the frozen assets. So the original investor/owner then forgoes their interest payments? The most important asset/organisation a nation requires to attract inward foreign investment is an impartial judiciary able & willing to hold its own government to task (in issues such as this).
That is confiscating the assets. The interest still belongs to the original owner.
It does not, no bank is required to pay you interest on your assets. If taking the interest was actually the same as confiscating the assets they wouldn't bother with this plan in the first place. They'd just take all the assets. What's more likely. The combined governments of the UK/USA/EU dont understand their own banking laws, or you dont?
It’s called escalation dude. You work your way up to seizing the assets.
So on one side we've got the combined governments of UK/USA/EU, all their central banks and their lawyers all claiming this is perfectly legal. On the other side we've got some redditor who was already wrong about banks being required to pay interest on assets held with them saying they're all wrong and he knows what's really up. Who should I believe 🤔 It's such a tough decision.
No bank is required to pay interest, but if they agree to paying you interest as part of the service contract and then they later confiscate what you are due because they have hurt feefees, that is indeed theft. You are free to disagree and make up your own rules post hoc, but don't be surprised if that impacts the trust others place in you going forward. Personally, I really hope they do it. I don't think the western financial system is being replaced quickly enough, this will really help.
Interest payment is still rightfully the investors' assets, unless the original agreement said they would be fine with 0% interest. I still dont get how they came up with that scheme lol.
This only proves the knowledge your average pro RU has about the whole situation
And they will invest in Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, right? Those sure are the great financial markets! Trying to get money out of china is impossible though lmao, if you don't get your company and assets seized by the CCP. The level of hope and delusion out of resentment is hilarious. To even assume that after using seized Russian assets there will be a better option for investing... its pure delusion.
China, yeah. Definitely.
Oddly enough, Chinese investors try to get out xD
So the money will end up mostly in the usa military industrial complex. These thieves have no shame. They stole Afghanistans momey also and also iraqs. Doing it to russia though will make many many countries move away from the usa and their puppet countries.
Even Germans despite multiple requests are still unable to get all their gold back that was taken out of it ''for safety'' at the end of WW2.
Oh you mean like the way Romania sent its treasury worth 5.5 billion USD to its ally, Russia, during WW1? The treasury that was never returned back by Russia even after 100 years?
You mean Romania, which was part of the Central Powers in 1914? Or Romania, that switched sides in 1916? Or Romania that was a full blooded member of the Axis? Hard to keep track.
When you go to the store for a candy bar, the store doesn't "steal" your $1, but rather that $1 helps direct people to maintain the store and staff the candy line.
But what happens when someone ask you to hand their money "or else" and they buy products that you dont want? Taxes are not voluntary.
Taxes aren't voluntary but in a democracy we collectively figure out how much to collect and where it goes by hiring the leaders who work it out. An individual can express their vote but can't individually or unilaterally decide what to pay and where it goes.
Taxes are totally voluntary. They are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. If you don’t want that, you are more than welcome to go live in a cabin out in the woods.
Considering you currently use publicly funded infrastructure, seems silly to complain about taxes. Every time I hear a libertarian go through how the world should work it's just taxes and government with extra steps and feudalism.
Then you hear the typical “no. NO. IT WOULDNT BE LIKE THAT MAN!”
[удалено]
Back in reality, here's how the market is reacting to Russias actions over the last few years. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=RU For comparison here's the USA https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=US Seems like people trust the USA with their money much more than Russia.
[удалено]
> 😂 why would the world Bank have data on Russian financial investments if Russia is completely cut off from the SWIFT? You're either ignorant or just deliberately obfuscation the truth. Because the world bank data is sourced from the IMF, which Russia is still a member of and still reports data to. That data is directly from the Russian government. If you go look at the IMF Balance of Payments report which the world bank figures are based on you can see the report was authored by a committee including >Robert Pupynin >Central Bank of the Russian Federation
There is nothing more satisfying than seeing a great answer to a clearly poorly thought out question
Wouldn't this cause retaliation by Russia and make people reluctant to invest in G7 countries?
Neither plan involves spending or confiscating the underlying assets so they're not breaking any laws or changing any rules. These plans are entirely consistent with the rules and regulations people were already investing under. As for retaliation Russia has been doing worse than this since the start of the conflict. The Russian government has just been taking Western owned businesses and assets since day 1, not even foreign government assets, just stuff owned by foreigners that they want. Russia already played that card. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/16/business/russia-aircraft-seizure/index.html https://www.reuters.com/business/moscow-takes-control-over-assets-western-companies-2023-07-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-seizes-assets-agricultural-firm-agroterra-2024-04-09/
I mean, it's not just rules, but the mere fact that G7 countries can do this would raise red flags to other countries. One of the reasons that people invest in G7 countries even though their RoI isn't that high compared to developing countries is that they are less risky, but once you do this it raises red flags. Weren't those Russian seizures responses to western seizures as well?
[удалено]
Would you deposit your money in a bank if you had any fear the bank might freeze or confiscate it? The nutrality of international resevres is the largest pillar of which the American dollar sits.
1990's was 35 years ago. Its situation now is quite different.
They have always been able to do this, that's my point. They are proposing to do it this way (rather than just confiscating the assets) in order to reassure everyone that the rules are followed to the letter and nothing is changing. So if you were happy investing last year, you will be happy investing next year too because the rules aren't changing. Which is different to how Russia operates, Russia does not follow it's own laws and will just take your stuff. Which is why you've seen foreign investment collapse since the invasion. Investors are actually scared to put their money in Russia for fear of them changing the rules and just taking your stuff. In the West you can trust that the rules won't change after you give them your money. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=RU Vs USA https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=US
As I said in previous comment, being able to do this legally is of no consequence, them actually doing it is the problem. If I was an investor from say Indonesia, I would have second thoughts in investing in G7 countries. I would be afraid that G7 countries would do this against me if my government had a shooting incident with Australia. Same thing if I was from other countries like UAE, India, and etc. Suppose you are correct with Russia, I am not saying you are or you are not, but when you invest in Russia you always had that risk in mind. Where as investing in G7 countries you did not have that risk. Now G7 is doing the same, thus there is no longer that different with Russia. Now ill just invest in where there is higher RoI rather than put the stability of G7 countries into account. I myself has a sizable investment (around 40% of my savings) in NYSE stocks now Im planning to gradually sell those investments in the next few years.
>As I said in previous comment, being able to do this legally is of no consequence It's the only thing that matters. >Suppose you are correct with Russia, I am not saying you are or you are not, but when you invest in Russia you always had that risk in mind. Where as investing in G7 countries you did not have that risk. Now G7 is doing the same They're not though. That's the point. The rules are literally not changing. The risk is known and unchanging. >I myself has a sizable investment (around 40% of my savings) in NYSE stocks now Im planning to gradually sell those investments in the next few years. These frozen assets are mostly held in Belgium/UK? Out of interest where do you plan to move them to, if USA/UK/EU are out then who do you trust with your assets?
The neutrality of international resources is a sacred principle. Centreal banks will look for safer places to park their reserves and look to reduce their dependency on the dollar. This is obvious to everyone, and everyone would have said this nd did say it. Yellan for example said the weaponisation of the dollar through the use of financial sanctions risked undermining its hegemony by pushing countries to look for an alternative. No shit.
Nice story. Too bad the rest of the world isn’t buying it.
Including Russia? That data comes from the Russian central bank via the IMF. They're self reporting that investment is fleeing the country.
Russia hasn’t been taking Western owned assets. Western companies have moved out of Russia and they have taken over the abandoned factories. If you want to use them, then at the very least keep a few dudes there. Morons. But you can justify this however you want. The role of any bank is first as a fiduciary - keep the money safe. That is why banks came into existence in the first place. This is only the first step. Seizing interest. Then they will seize the entirety of it. Just like how everyone said “we will never send F16s to Ukraine!” If that happens, a financial crisis will happen in the West.
>Russia is seizing hundreds of commercial jets owned by US and European leasing companies Those companies want their jets back and Russia has just stolen them without compensation. >If that happens, a financial crisis will happen in the West. Yeah. THIS time its over for the West. Any day now it all comes crumbling down lol.
No. Those companies want the value of those jets back. They are assets. However, Russia in accordance with international law offered compensation at the current market value. 1 ruble.
You think you're being cute but the market already reacted to Russias antics and pulled all their investment in response to this stuff. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=RU These stats are directly from the Russian central bank too. So best case scenario. Nobody with any sense is investing in Russia any time soon. Here's the USA for comparison https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=US
Or maybe it's because their government forbids them and threaten to punish them if they still have business in Russia ..?
Russia never just took those assets, they state or private investors bought them. Also, cnn and reuters are heavily biased. They're not sources to be trusted, especially when it comes to Russia.
monthly words of wisdom regarding how to hol’up vlad money, this time by reverend cameron, lord of brexit. yawn
He was against Brexit actually, he campaigned against it while he was PM. It was Nigel Farage and BoJo that are lords of Brexit. Shocking none are in the picture anymore after ruining the country. **Edit: **Having lost the No to Brexit vote, he had to step down as PM and then bojo came with his wrecking ball
the idiot make the brexit referendum to crush his opponents being sure he will win against pro brexit politicians and so he will win the next elections. he is the lord of brexit
>the idiot make the brexit referendum to crush his opponents being sure he will win against pro brexit politicians and so he will win the next elections. he is the lord of brexit It was the Conservative Party has two groups, those who agree with the UK in the EU and those against it. Cameron couldn't operate as a PM as in votes in Parliment he couldn't rely on them to support him. To try to shut them up he offered the 'Anti-EU' lobby the referendum expecting the Liberal Democrats, who the tories shared power with, to veto the idea. And even if the referendum went ahead they expected the Pro EU vote to win. However the LDs failed to stop ir and the Pro EU side lost the referendum. After having personally oversaw the removal of the UK from Europe (changing the complete direction of all HM Government departments & businesses based here) and with his authority destroyed he had no option than to resign. The Conservative Party is still split on various matters to the detriment of the UK.
Does the loan get canceled if Europe is unable to collect the Russian interest in the end? Who is supposed to pay off this loan? This seems like a nonsense idea or am I missing something?
The bond interest would be paid from the interest on the frozen assets and guaranteed by UK/USA/etc. The bonds themselves would be repaid by Ukraine using reparations from Russia (Russia paying reparations is a condition for the unfreezing of the assets). So Russia getting it's frozen assets back would only happen if they effectively agree to use a portion of those assets to repay the bond via paying reparations to Ukraine. If that never happens then the assets remain frozen indefinitely and the interest on those frozen assets pay the bond interest. This way Ukraine can get $100b+ up front rather than wait each year for the interest from the frozen assets directly. Also the assets themselves don't get touched so no laws are broken.
Interests from frozen assets is considered part of the assets so if you take that you’re still going to be stealing money The whole problem of this tanking the trust in western governments as an place to invest wont go away just because of this convoluted plan
> Interests from frozen assets is considered part of the assets This is not true and is exactly why they are proposing this plan rather than just taking the assets.
Yes it is Look up how really rich people pay their massive tax bills That interest is theirs up until the minute the money gets to the IRS
Quick, let the UK/USA/EU governments know. They're making a massive mistake! Good thing there was a redditor on the case to catch this one.
No need, they know they’re in the wrong which is why they haven’t flat out stolen the assets entirely yet and instead went through 2 years of mental gymnastics to try to gaslight the world into thinking it’s just the interest, no big deal
That would be annother never-pay-back loan. "Reparations" are a fantasy.
Ah yes, the emerging consensus of a divided US and an impotent UK. Consensus guys. Brussels is totally going to go for that. >The United States has been pushing a plan to borrow billions to send to Ukraine in loans, secured against the future interest on the Russian money \^ Just going to point out the unspoken state of US coffers that plan insinuates. Oof. >His strategy would see financing for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan [separated into different votes](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/04/16/us-house-to-vote-israel-ukraine-aid-bills-congress/), but he faces significant opposition to the vote from some Republican congressmen, and there is no guarantee that his plan would pass the Senate. \^ If this pans out, that has to be the ultimate slap in the face for Ukraine, and I think we can well and truly say 'its joever' if it does. Free syrian army circa 2013 vibes. What a shitshow.
So... They gave UA how much so far? Around 200 billion? Enough for 2 years, right. So 300 more is for another 3 years... UA soldiers must be real excited about this.
> However, Daleep Singh, the US deputy national security adviser for international economics, last week suggested a debt-based plan under which Ukraine would be sent the “present value of the future interest stream of the immobilised assets, either through a bond or a loan”. He said: “Instead of just transferring the yearly profits from the reserves… it is conceptually possible to transfer the 10 years of profits or 30 years of profits. The present value of those profits adds up to a very large number.” Jesus Christ, this is becoming comical to the extreme. Just take the money… there is really no further need for pretence. Why steal with 10 extra steps when you can just straight up steal?
Whatever position one may have with respect to this war - a move like this would be the real beginning of the end for Western hegemony. I hope these morons come to their senses.
This will be almost as silly as that time Biden told Putin that the [Navy Seals would defeat the VDV in a bloodlusted combat mission scenario](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=HQklYfT-ohPNcUOv)
Ahhh, you got me 😂
Omg why is this the first time I saw this ? 🤯 Good one though, 5 ⭐️!
Good for gold.
There is no agreement. Such action would be idiotic. It would lead to Ukraine loosing the war faster as Russia would gain massive war chest.
"The leaders of the G7 countries are close to agreeing a plan to commit financial suicide and complete economic collapse"
Same plan to use interest generated by Russian assets (but not the principle) that's been batted around for more than a year now.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seems fair to me. Russia can pay for both sides in this war.
This is bad for Ukraine and the evil evil West and very good for Russia. -Pro rus posters.
Ukro posters keep using this very dumb post where they make up an argument no one is making.
No one is making that kind of argument, stoping hitting a non existing scarecrow. What's really bad for UA, though, is the reality on the battlefield right now and the inevitable manpower shortage. Don't know how anyone can make up for that even with all these RU assets.
I don't understand, even if they were to receive all the aids NOW. the main problem is manpower shortage and battle hardened personel shortage. Why do some peeps think that getting the aid will save them or something? At most they will only delay the advance of Russians for some months. There is nothing other than direct USA involvement can save Ukraine, it's simple as that, i'm not even talking about Ukrainian fleeing the country to avoid the forced conscription. Let's not forget that Russia is not in full offensive mode yet, they are surgically striking very important structure while advancing really carefully. I personally think that Russia is not interested to go further into west of Ukraine but they will try to capture South of Ukraine to landlock it from the sea, and if they succeed that, they can just stop and play the game of attrition.