Late concession by Belgium paved way for deal on using profits to buy ammo for Kyiv’s war effort.

Late concession by Belgium paved way for deal on using profits to buy ammo for Kyiv’s war effort.

The EU approved a plan to use the profits generated by investing frozen Russian assets to buy weapons for Ukraine.

Ambassadors meeting in Brussels on Wednesday gave the go-ahead after Belgium signaled a climbdown on the way it treats tax revenue on the cash — the last major obstacle to deal.

The profits generated by investing Russia’s assets immobilized in Belgium— where a large part of the assets frozen in Europe are kept — are worth between €2.5 billion and €3 billion per year.

    • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.worldEnglish
      336·
      8 months ago

      Not just for Russia but also for China etc

      Good, everyone should know that Europe doesn’t fuck around with Countries that commit war crimes

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.caEnglish
      11·
      8 months ago

      Yeah this comment is flagrantly ignoring the fact that Russia is an agressor that is invading a country and committing genocide and threatening nuclear war.

    • HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      5·
      8 months ago

      They are just using the interests that this frozen capital generates and using that (instead of continuing to pay the interests to the Russians).

      • pressanykeynow@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        8 months ago

        I don’t know a thing about that but isn’t it just stealing money? And if they are already stealing money why not steal all of it?

        • HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          1·
          8 months ago

          They are not taking away any money from the existing funds. And that is the important thing IMO. Rather, they are using that large amount of money and investing it (safely) so that they generate surplus money that they use. Hiwever, they arent taking away money that is currently there.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      5·
      8 months ago

      I mean, freezing, doing anything other then leaving it alone does that to some degree.

      My bigger concern is that l’d rather Russia’s funds be used for reconstruction.

      I think that it will be easier to get political support for weapons in grant form than for reconstruction. Ukraine’s going to need both.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
        2·
        8 months ago

        Houses for people to return to and safe drinking water don’t advance strategic goals*.

        *actually they do if you want stability & peace but those aren’t the real goals of geopolitics

        • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
          1·
          8 months ago

          I’m not saying that governments will necessarily take issue.

          I’m just saying that that has to also get past publics and their representatives in legislatures.

          I’m not saying that it’s impossible to do – people have called this a “Marshall Plan 2.0”, and the original was – ultimately, though not as initially presented – both done and overwhelmingly grants. But my point is that if Russia isn’t actively-invading a country in Europe, I think that it’s gonna be harder to get the political momentum for funds than if Russia is doing so.

          And we’re not talking pocket change – it’s hundreds of billions. Russia’s frozen funds are already in the hundreds-of-billions, so that’s a significant chunk of that covered already.

          I’d rather have the more-difficult-to-raise-money-for things have the easier-to-get money aimed at them.