Why Europe can’t “just take” Russia’s billions | How We Got Here

Mark Carney would be one of the better-qualified political leaders to help design a solution for the frozen Russian funds.<br><br>His relevant experience includes:<br><br>Governor of the Bank of Canada during the 2008 financial crisis;<br>Governor of the Bank of England through Brexit-related financial disruption;<br>chairing the Financial Stability Board, which coordinates financial regulation among major economies; and<br>extensive experience with central banks, sovereign reserves, clearing systems, liquidity and systemic financial risk. His official biography confirms this background. Prime Minister of Canada, Financial Stability Board<br><br>He would understand particularly well:<br><br>how confiscation might affect confidence in reserve currencies;<br>the liquidity and solvency risks imposed on Euroclear;<br>the danger of Russian retaliation against Western assets;<br>the need for an EU/G7 guarantee protecting Belgium and Euroclear;<br>how to separate the underlying sovereign assets from profits generated by them; and<br>how a reparations fund could be structured without destabilising European financial markets.<br><br>However, Carney could not resolve it alone. The most difficult question is not financial engineering but whether confiscation is lawful under sovereign-immunity, Belgian, EU and international law. That requires international-law specialists, the Belgian government, EU institutions and ideally a G7 agreement.<br><br>His most useful contribution would probably be designing a structure such as:<br><br>Russia’s assets remain legally immobilised.<br>The G7 issues Ukraine funding secured by a collective government guarantee.<br>The extraordinary profits service that funding.<br>The principal is reserved against a future internationally recognised Russian reparations obligation.<br>Belgium and Euroclear receive a comprehensive indemnity against resulting claims.<br>Any eventual transfer occurs through legislation and a compensation mechanism—not at Euroclear’s discretion.<br><br>In fact, this cautious approach resembles the direction chosen by European leaders: Euroclear reported that the proposed reparations loan backed directly by the immobilised principal was not pursued at that stage, with joint government borrowing preferred instead. Euroclear 2025 results

New EU and Belgian laws could create a clearer route for using the Russian assets, but legislation alone could not guarantee that confiscation would be lawful under international law.<br><br>What new legislation could do<br><br>A defensible scheme could:<br><br>keep the Russian Central Bank assets immobilised until Russia pays compensation;<br>establish an international compensation commission to verify Ukrainian claims;<br>transfer the assets into a legally separate reparations fund only after claims are determined;<br>amend Belgian enforcement and sovereign-immunity legislation;<br>require the EU or Belgian state—not Euroclear—to make the confiscation decision;<br>indemnify Euroclear against litigation and losses caused by complying with that decision;<br>create an EU-wide guarantee shared among member states, preventing Belgium from carrying the risk alone;<br>protect unrelated private Russian investors whose assets are not owned by the Russian state; and<br>provide Russia with notice and a procedure for challenging particular claims, strengthening compliance with due-process requirements.<br><br>This would be legally stronger than instructing Euroclear simply to hand over the money. Nevertheless, an EU or Belgian law cannot automatically override customary international law, central-bank immunity, the European Convention on Human Rights or EU protections for property. Russia would almost certainly challenge confiscation in Belgian, EU and international courts.<br><br>One legal theory would treat confiscation as a collective countermeasure responding to Russia’s internationally wrongful invasion. Another would use the assets to enforce an established reparations obligation. Both remain disputed, especially because countries taking countermeasures are not themselves necessarily the directly injured state and because countermeasures are ordinarily expected to be reversible.<br><br>Is Euroclear insured?<br><br>Euroclear almost certainly carries ordinary corporate insurance for matters such as operational failures, cyber incidents, property damage, employee liability and professional risks. However, I found no public evidence that it has insurance capable of covering the confiscation or repayment of roughly €200 billion of Russian sovereign assets.<br><br>That distinction matters:<br><br>Euroclear’s insurance is not equivalent to a government guarantee covering the Russian funds.<br>Conventional policies commonly limit or exclude losses resulting from war, sanctions, government confiscation and deliberate changes in law.<br>No commercial insurer could realistically provide ordinary cover approaching the full value involved.<br>Euroclear’s principal protections are its capital, provisions, retained profits, regulatory recovery arrangements and any indemnity eventually provided by governments—not a normal insurance policy.<br><br>At 31 March 2026, Euroclear reported approximately €200 billion associated with sanctioned Russian assets, while its group CET1 capital was approximately €9.2 billion. It also said it was retaining profits as a buffer and had taken provisions for sanctions-related risks. Those figures show why private insurance alone could not absorb the potential exposure. Euroclear’s Q1 2026 results<br><br>Euroclear’s 2025 report states that it retained remaining sanctions-related profits as a buffer against legal, financial and operational risks. It also records a €342 million provision for material risks and uncertainties—but does not identify insurance covering confiscation of the principal. Euroclear’s 2025 results<br><br>Therefore, if governments decided to use the principal, the most practical protection would be an explicit, jointly funded EU indemnity or sovereign guarantee for Euroclear and Belgium, not reliance on insurance. Without that protection, Euroclear could face enormous legal claims and retaliation against its assets located in Russia.

Don&#39;t worry about Russia. The Western countries &#39;froze&#39; EUR 200+ billions of the Russian assets, but Russia goes forward and seizes the rich Ukrainian lands and deposits every day.
<br>And Russia itself detained approx. EUR 100 billions of the European private investments: these companies and banks may operate in the country but cannot leave it. So, Russia will compensate their loss... The problem is that many Western countries keep trillion dollars of the US debt! What are they going to do if the US &#39;file Chapter 11&#39;, a bankruptcy? Some advice to other countries: don&#39;t be fool and don&#39;t keep your assets and gold in the West, and don&#39;t invest anymore in Europe or the US.

Vichy France was so appalling the way they collaborated with Nazi Germany. The French always try to whitewash their role in WW2. The collaboration was not just forced; Vichy officials willingly enacted their own anti-Semitic laws, removed citizenship from minorities, and seized Jewish property without initial German demands

The Curse of Canaan:<br><br>In Zelenskyy, the sinister Green Goblin, We watch a singular, dark showman stand. The heavy gears of corporate greed are knobbing, To grind the dreams of masses into sand.<br><br>He stands exposed: the Bearded Vulture waits, With feathers stained by old and calculated crimes. He circles high above the palace gates, And picks the bones of dying, desperate times.<br><br>A crowned chameleon shifting in the light, A corrupt comic, laughing at the state, He blends into the shadows of the night, And seals a weeping nation&#39;s final fate.<br><br>A cruel mobster, callous monster, fused To levers of absolute and ruthless power, He smiles to see his broken public bruised, While counting profits by the passing hour.<br><br>Through his pernicious, cold, and hidden men, Perfidious hitmen marching in the dark, They drag the helpless to a faceless den, And leave behind a deep, eternal mark.<br><br>The circus court is filled with flashing lights, Where weeping peasants dance on broken glass. They trade away their freedom and their rights, To watch the jester&#39;s hollow pageant pass.<br><br>Beneath the big top, hunger starts to grow, The crowd is trapped inside a golden cage. The tragic actors play their parts below, While fury builds beneath the systemic stage.<br><br>The showman boasts dominion in his grasp, With bloody hands that never will wash clean. The final curtain falls without a gasp, Upon the darkest show the world has ever seen.

It won&#39;t &quot;bite us&quot; as we would never invest into countries that propagate evil. That&#39;s the protection good countries with a moral code have. If you made the mistake of investing into evil then take the hit and remove yourself from the devil&#39;s agreement and unite with countries that align with good. It&#39;s that simple. Germany and other countries are hedging the boundaries of morality by selling to a China that aligns with Putin and his murderous method of operation. It had to come back to bite you eventually, you just choose to ignore the consequences for the China cash cow.