Absolute bullshit move. If we’re going to help Ukraine, it shouldn’t be by forcing them to take a loan when they’re at their lowest, at their moment of highest need. They should just be given the Russian assets and be called a day.
In case anyone wants to argue we aren’t “forcing them”: if your only options are living amongst the rubble for years and selling your future, you are going to have to sell your future in order to be able to eat today.
France, Germany and the ECB worry about Russian retaliation targeting European assets, and also the potential impact on financial stability and the euro’s status as a reserve currency. There’s concern that depositors from emerging economies may be encouraged to pull money out of western banks, fragmenting the global financial system.
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen downplayed such risks in February, arguing that “there are not alternatives to the dollar, euro, yen.” She said that if the G-7 acted together then the group would be representing half of the global economy and all of the currencies that really have the capacity at this point to serve as reserve currencies.
I agree with you, they should just be able to tap the assets directly. Basically some European countries are worried about the effects seizing assets could have on the Euro. Most of these assets are held in Europe as euros. The loan is actually an improvement over the original proposal though. Originally France Germany, etc were pushing only for the 3 billion in interest a year on the assets to be given to Ukraine. The loan solution was pushed by other countries who wanted to give them more cash from the Russian assets as a way to give $50 billion in cash immediately, with those yearly interest payments from Russian assets being used to pay off the loan.
That does sound less terrible.
I do believe a loan is a sign of good faith. Like a “we’re here for you. Don’t turn on us later, you owe us. Don’t forget that.” kinda move, geopolitically. It’s not like there exist international debt collectors that act on behalf of nation states.
Like socially, I agree with you. But the global stage isn’t a highschool cafeteria. That “loan” isn’t like a payday loan to a McDonald’s employee trying to buy a car.
$50b in interest is an unfathomable amount
Not sure uninvolved parties (ASEAN, African Union, Arab League, ex-UNASUR) are going to be too keen to store significant foreign reserves in USD/Euro given that the seizing of interest payments is apparently something that’s in the cards.
I guess there’s a reason Saudi Arabia is looking at mBridge… Surely the West can’t be happy with what they’ve been doing in Yemen.
If the war is important, the US and Europe should actually fund it instead of looking for pennies behind couch cushions.
If the war is important, the US and Europe should actually fund it instead of looking for pennies behind couch cushions.
The war is absolutely important, and profitable to some parties, which may be why we’re seeing only enough supplies trickle in to keep it going.
Surely the West can’t be happy with what they’ve been doing in Yemen
we’re literally funding this war. We want it really bad
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Western leaders have agreed to loan Ukraine up to $50 billion to fight Russia and rebuild after the lengthy war, money that will be repaid over time from the interest accumulating on frozen Russian financial assets, a senior U.S. official told reporters.
When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Western governments froze about $300 billion in Russian assets — including money, securities, gold and bonds — held mainly in banks in Europe.
Leaders of the G7 economies have agreed to use the interest generated by the assets — about $3 billion per year — to help Ukraine.
Scheherazade Rehman, a professor of international finance at George Washington University, explained it in simple terms.
Officials had said the interest generated from the frozen Russian assets would go toward paying back that money.
Rehman said Washington has the weaker hand in the debate because only about $5 billion of the $300 billion in Russian assets are held in the United States — and European nations are concerned about how they would be paid back for a big initial lump sum.
The original article contains 424 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
They are burying Ukraine in debt they will never be able to repay and its resources will be gobbled up by various capitalists. THIS was the plan from the start
THIS was the plan from the start
Lol yea, because Putin secretly loves western/capitalist countries and played along to attack Ukraine! /s
This goes back to McCain, Kerry, and Nuland destabilizing Ukraine.
I thought it went back to Bill Clinton. Make up your mind.
Bill Clinton helped give us Putin, that trio helped destabilize Ukraine.
LMAO yea ok buddy, Ukraine was totally unstable when Russia started the war lolol /s
For better tagging classification of your user can you specify which of the following apply to you:
- An employee of a Russian disinformation campaign
- A volunteer of a Russian disinformation campaign
- An American who drank too much of the Kool aid
- A European who drank too much of the Kool aid
They’re whichever one absolves Putin from any responsibility for his own actions.
The alternative is burying Ukraine in Russians
and burying ukrainians in dirt.
Not really, initially some countries wanted to make it a gift. After all it comes from Russian assets and Ukraine is being invaded by Russia. Now they changed it so the countries with the worlds largest economies can also profit from the assets they took from Russia.
Having debt is not bad in it self. The UK paid their last WW1 debts back in 2011 or something. I know the UK is in a bad state but it is not because of those war debts.
Counterexample: Haiti’s independence debts from France for daring to free slaves
I should have said “debt is not always bad.”
thank you
The UK didnt have trillions of dollars in natural resources that were wanted by the US
Ukraine feeds a lot of the world, and it’s in everyone’s best interest that it keeps doing that.
Oh I see. So the US master plan was to make putin attack Ukraine, give Ukraine loans, ???, putin pulls out of Ukraine, Ukraine now in debt to the US, ???, profit?
putin must be a complete moron to go along with this. Unless you are saying that hes also psrt of the evil capitalist world order?
My god, read the bloody article.
They gave ukraine a 50bn loan which is being paid off by the interest on the frozen Russian assets at approx 3bn a year.
Ukrainians will not have to pay back a si gle penny of this “loan”
It’s a shill. Just tag them as shill and move on
All the money provided them since the start has been in the form of loans
I knew there was a reason Putin invaded!
To facilitate Western business interests! It’s so obvious now!
This started way before the Ukrainian invasion.
I get it now! This was in the works for years! Western business interests installed Putin as a sleeper agent in Russia and then forced him to invade Ukraine!
If it werent for US interference in Russian elections under Clinton we wouldnt have Putin. But no, the US started this process years before.
I’m pretty sure Yeltsin is the reason Russia has Putin.
Yeltsin oversaw the dissolution of the ussr and brought capitalism to Russia, of course the west wanted him to be president of Russia. All he did was ask Bill for favors on the world stage (and got most of what he asked for).
Before the election Yeltsin had a 6% approval rating, and somehow won the election by a landslide.
“Yanks to the rescue” was the headline by Time Magazine
Yestsin won with 58 and 54 percent of the vote in his two elections, hardly a ‘landslide’:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Russian_presidential_election
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Russian_presidential_election
Putin’s lowest was 53, in his first election. The latest was 88%, with most of the others being in the 70% range.
Historically though, Russians, have a way of guaranteeing results like that. Yeltsin is kind of a low percentage outlier by comparison:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Soviet_Union_legislative_electionr
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_Soviet_Union_legislative_election
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Soviet_Union_legislative_election
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/1196979929/in-unsurprising-result-putin-is-reelected
Got it. Clinton interfered with the Russian elections in the 1990s knowing that one day, Putin would become dictator-for-life and invade Ukraine on a spurious pretext in order to create new business interests for Western companies.
Sounds very plausible.
Clinton is to blame for the entire Putin ordeal. Had the US not interfered, Yeltsin would have never been reelected and Putin would have never risen to where he is now.
Why start at Clinton? If it hadn’t been for the Vikings, there would be no Russia.
So maybe we should blame the Vikings for Putin invading Ukraine.
Or, and maybe this is going way out on a limb- we blame Putin for doing what he could have just not done and could still stop doing rather than blame a guy who hasn’t been president in a quarter century?
You are trying really hard to not connect the knife sticking in the stab wound with the murder.
