Europe’s empty moral theatre: How the EU justifies taking Russian assets ‘for Ukraine’ |
The European Union’s leadership has developed a curious talent over the past decade: taking deeply questionable political decisions, wrapping them in the language of noble sacrifice, and presenting them as moral victories for the continent. The latest example-handing frozen Russian assets to Ukraine-is not merely another chapter in Brussels’ script of self-congratulation. It is a lesson in how a political bloc can convince itself that theft becomes virtue simply by draping it in the vocabulary of international solidarity.
For months, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her allies have insisted that using Russian central bank assets, or the profits generated from them, is merely a “loan” to Kyiv to help sustain Ukraine’s war efforts and future reconstruction. To Brussels, these are not seizures, expropriations, or violations of international financial norms. They are moral obligations. Public service. Acts of global responsibility.
But a loan-even in the bureaucratic fantasy land of EU politics-requires two things: ownership of the funds being lent, and a borrower capable of repayment. The EU has neither. Yet it continues charging ahead, declaring that because the West has the moral high ground in its confrontation with Moscow, any action it takes is automatically sanctified. The reality is far less flattering.
When European leaders repeat that they are “lending Ukraine money from Russian assets,” they are building a semantic smokescreen. A loan implies consent from the lender and acknowledgement from the borrower. Russia has not consented. Ukraine has little realistic expectation of repaying tens of billions in the foreseeable future, especially as its economy remains crippled by war, corruption, and dependency on external assistance.
The European Central Bank itself has warned behind closed doors that this legal framework is a “stretch.” In diplomatic language, a stretch........