{"id":22623,"date":"2024-01-14T03:18:52","date_gmt":"2024-01-14T09:18:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/?p=22623"},"modified":"2024-01-14T03:18:59","modified_gmt":"2024-01-14T09:18:59","slug":"us-explores-options-to-seize-russian-assets-and-funnel-them-to-ukraine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/?p=22623","title":{"rendered":"US explores options to seize Russian assets and funnel them to Ukraine"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Top Biden administration officials have spent the last year quietly trying to figure out how to divert billions of dollars in frozen Russian money<\/a> to cash-starved Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposal the US has hit on, described in detail here for the first time, is based on a novel legal theory to justify seizing and transferring to Ukraine the roughly $300 billion in Russian Central Bank assets which have been frozen in the West since Russia invaded Ukraine<\/a> in February 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe White House and the US government believe Russia should be on the hook for paying for all of the damage and destruction they have caused in Ukraine,\u201d a US official said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the rare maneuver would require buy-in from US allies in the Group of 7 (G7) to have a real impact, officials said. The vast majority of Russia\u2019s central bank assets that were frozen by the G7 and the European Union are held by the EU, with the US only holding around $5 billion worth, officials told CNN.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would also require Congress to pass a bill introduced last year, called the REPO Act, that gives the president authority to move forward with seizing Russian assets held in the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Senior Biden officials have been working both with G7 allies \u2013 which include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the EU \u2013 and US lawmakers to refine the proposal, which rests on the idea that nations affected by Russia\u2019s violations are permitted under international law to try to force Moscow back into compliance using the law of countermeasures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue has taken on new significance as Congress continues to balk<\/a> at the White House\u2019s request for billions in supplemental funding to help support Ukraine\u2019s war effort. But US officials insist that the initiative is not a substitute for the $61 billion the administration says it needs now for Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discussions have intensified ahead of the second anniversary of the war on February 22<\/a>, multiple officials told CNN. The US proposal was discussed among senior leaders at meetings of the G7 in November and December, a US official said, and will be reviewed again at the next G7 meeting at the end of February, around the anniversary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US has emphasized to allies that the seizures would be done for a \u201cvery specific legal reason,\u201d one of the officials told CNN, and not one that is so broad that it risks spooking financial institutions with assets held overseas\u2014a key concern of some G7 allies, including Germany, which has led to some hesitation over the US proposal, officials added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US has also argued to allies that because Russia\u2019s invasion has upended the international order, they have the right to engage in such countermeasures even though they are not directly at war with Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFor us, we\u2019ve spent decades investing in an international order that involves peace and stability, it involves sovereignty, it involves respect for one\u2019s neighbors\u2019 sovereignty,\u201d a senior administration official said. \u201cAnd all of that is being not just questioned but assaulted head-on by what Russia is doing in its appalling aggression in Ukraine.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal case is necessary, officials explained, not only so that the US is on solid legal ground in the event that Moscow challenges the seizures in an international forum or in a US court, but also so that the US can convince a critical mass of allies to join in the effort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US has put a new twist on the law, however, by arguing that instead of returning the seized assets to Moscow if it comes back into compliance, the West can keep the money as a down payment of sorts toward what Russia will owe Ukraine anyway for its reconstruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is temporary and reversible insofar as Russia is going to owe Ukraine much more than that for the unbelievable damage Russia has inflicted,\u201d the senior administration official said. \u201cAnd really, it\u2019s Russia\u2019s obligation to make up the difference in time.\u201d The US would describe these assets as a \u201ccredit\u201d towards what Russia will eventually owe, the official added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

G7 leaders hinted at this strategy<\/a> in a joint statement released in December, saying, \u201cWe reaffirm that consistent with our respective legal systems, Russia\u2019s sovereign assets in our jurisdictions will remain immobilized until Russia pays for the damage it caused to Ukraine.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There has not been an independent judgment yet, however, of exactly how much Russia will owe to Ukraine or whether Moscow will even agree to pay, which could open the US and its allies up to a legal challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNo one disagrees that Russia almost certainly owes money to Ukraine,\u201d said Scott R. Anderson, a Senior Fellow with the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School. \u201cBut there hasn\u2019t been any sort of determination to that effect by any sort of international legal body.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anderson said the US proposal \u201cis pushing the envelope of what\u2019s been done before.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDoes that mean it\u2019s unlawful? No, I don\u2019t think it necessarily does,\u201d he added. \u201cBut I do think it\u2019s a novel and new approach.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Officials work around destruction after Russian airstrikes killed 6 and injured around 28 people including a baby and severely damaged vehicles, a shopping mall and a maternity hospital according to statements of Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Serhiy Lysak in Dnipro, Ukraine on December 29, 2023.Ozge Elif Kizil\/Anadolu\/Getty Images<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A senior administration official said that even if the US and its allies found a path forward on transferring the seized assets to Ukraine, the initiative is not an alternative to the supplemental funding the administration has asked for from Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is a really important project, but it\u2019s also a long-term project,\u201d the senior administration official said. \u201cAnd it\u2019s a project whose scale is enough to make a difference\u2014and at the same time not nearly enough to be sufficient on its own. And so I just can\u2019t emphasize strongly enough that it is not a substitute for the supplemental funding that we continue to call on Congress to enact immediately for the sake of Ukraine\u2019s survival. We need the supplemental and we need REPO\u2014both of them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

House and Senate Democrats and Republicans are working with the White House to tweak and refine aspects of the REPO Act, which was introduced in June by a bipartisan group of lawmakers including Republican Sen. Jim Risch, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bill\u2019s language is fairly broad, and says that the president may confiscate \u201cany Russian sovereign assets subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,\u201d and that this seizure \u201cshall not be subject to judicial review\u201d\u2014meaning that the owner of the confiscated assets cannot challenge it in court after the fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law, if passed, would likely be challenged by Russia in US court anyway, Anderson said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI think there\u2019s a good chance [Russia] may end up legally challenging this,\u201d he said. \u201cIf they do, how are the courts going to deal with it? It\u2019s just a big open question.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also some debate happening now between the White House and lawmakers over whether to add an amendment to the REPO Act that would require the president to certify that he will move forward with seizing Russia\u2019s assets inside the US only if he has the support and buy-in of the G7, officials told CNN.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inserting that provision could help shield the White House against political pressure from lawmakers who may demand that President Joe Biden seize Russia\u2019s assets unilaterally and use those to fund Ukraine\u2019s war effort instead of US taxpayer money. The provision would be especially useful at a moment when Republicans are increasingly questioning<\/a> why the US is providing Ukraine with billions of dollars per year in military and humanitarian aid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both the White House and lawmakers are getting increasingly impatient, however, for the legislation to be enacted. With Congress still fighting<\/a> over how to avoid a government shutdown, it is unclear how soon the bill will come to a vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere is broad bipartisan agreement on the REPO Act in the Senate and House,\u201d Risch, who co-sponsored the bill, told CNN.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe bill as drafted grants the President authority to seize Russian sovereign assets frozen in the United States. Countries like Russia that want to undermine the international system don\u2019t care about the rule of law,\u201d Risch added. \u201cThe US government and our allies can and should be willing to put them on notice that they will not be allowed to act with impunity. After a year of negotiations, and with such broad support, it\u2019s past time for the committee to consider this legislation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

cnn<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Top Biden administration officials have spent the last year quietly trying to figure out how to divert billions of dollars in frozen Russian money to cash-starved Ukraine. The proposal the US has hit on, described in detail here for the first time, is based on a novel legal theory to justify seizing and transferring to Ukraine the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":22624,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[24758,2865,1770,25854,25853,20943],"class_list":["post-22623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics","tag-assets","tag-explore","tag-russia","tag-seize","tag-transport","tag-united-states"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22623","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=22623"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22623\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22625,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22623\/revisions\/22625"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/22624"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=22623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=22623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ustower.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=22623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}