An article in the Financial Times expresses its opinion on the legality of the seizure of frozen Russian assets and their transfer to Ukraine in response to the Russian invasion. The columnist, Simon Hinrichsen, argues that gross violations of international law require an adequate response, and reparations should be in line with historical precedent.
The European Union and the United States are considering the possibility of seizing frozen Russian assets and transferring them to Ukraine. This decision is supported by historical precedents of confiscating assets during military conflicts and dividing reparations after their conclusion.
The journalist emphasizes that this decision may raise concerns about the possible consequences for the financial system, but considers it an effective measure in the context of the conflict. He points out that even countries that previously kept their reserves in dollars and euros may begin to see them as dangerous.
The historical norm is to demand reparations from a country that has violated international law. In the case of Ukraine, which already has a record of damages, it is quite possible to demand compensation that corresponds to the degree of damage caused.
The only question that remains is the amount of compensation. Based on estimates, the amount of Russian assets frozen in Europe and the United States could be around $300 billion. Using historical standards of war reparations, this amount may be realistic.
It is fair to note that the UN has recognized the need for Russian accountability and reparations. The EU and the US have every reason to confiscate Russian assets and use them to pay Ukraine.
