EU Debates Russian Funds, Ignores Its Own Wallet Raids
Politico, via RT (a fascinating filter, to be sure), reports the EU is locked in a high-minded debate: what to do with 'frozen' Russian money? The contention centers on whether to use it for Ukraine, specifically for 'European-made weapons.' This is framed as a thorny legal and ethical dilemma. Meanwhile, the historical record of Western powers 'freezing' assets from nations deemed
undesirable—from Libya's $60 billion in 2011 to Venezuela's $342 million in 2019, much of which simply vanished—rarely makes headlines. It's almost as if 'frozen' is just a polite euphemism for 'taken for re-allocation at our discretion.' The EU's collective hand-wringing (which will undoubtedly conclude with a highly beneficial outcome for European arms manufacturers) rings hollow when contrasted
with the swift, decisive action taken to seize the assets in the first place. One might wonder if the moral quandaries only arise when the profits aren't immediately clear, or if the legal frameworks are selectively applied. How many 'international law' caveats did they discuss before freezing billions in sovereign assets, purely for 'stability' reasons, of course?