Speakers for the G-7 nations meeting at Apulia, Italy have released a communique detailing their ideas about a number of important challenges. One of particular interest is this:
"Russia must end its illegal war of aggression and pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. These damages now exceed USD 486 billion, according to the World Bank. It is not right for Russia to decide if or when it will pay for the damage it has caused in Ukraine. Russia’s obligations under international law to pay for the damage it is causing are clear, and so we are continuing to consider all possible lawful avenues by which Russia is made to meet those obligations."
One of these avenues will be the confiscation of Russian assets outside the country, something that's unlikely to be met voluntarily by Russia.
Another aspect of the Russia-Ukraine affair is the ongoing finance of the Ukrainian defense by the G-7, NATO and the western bloc. Much of this contribution is in kind, weapons and ammunition, with an attendant dollar figure, perhaps in hope that the Ukrainians, or better yet the Russians, can repay whatever the ultimate amount may be.
Won't the Ukrainian logic be, as in much of the West, that Ukraine is merely the front line of a defense of the West itself against the existential threat posed by imperialist Russia and that any expense is a genuine contribution to the survival of freedom for everyone? The West is making an inexpensive commitment to its own survival.
But, if this is the case, why do monetary terms enter the discussion at all? Isn't possible that any of those states contributing to the Ukrainian arsenal can confiscate those assets from their own manufacturers? If the defeat of Putin's hordes is a matter of life or death for the West, financial considerations become meaningless.
No comments:
Post a Comment