The debate over whether to seize Russian assets that were frozen in Europe as part of the sanctions imposed in response to the invasion of Ukraine has intensified in recent weeks. The measure is part of a proposed resolution on strengthening support for Ukraine adopted by the Assemblée Nationale on Wednesday, March 12.
This question, which has been regularly raised since the start of the war, has taken on new urgency following the US's spectacular diplomatic U-turn. Washington has now begun using its aid to Ukraine as a part of an extortion strategy to reach a peace agreement with Russia as quickly as possible. This situation, which has considerably strengthened Moscow, has been forcing Europeans to find new ways to support Ukraine. One option is to use Russian funds.
Over €210 billion in assets belonging to the Central Bank of Russia are managed by Euroclear, an international funds depository company based in Brussels. In May of 2024, the 27 EU member states began using the interest generated by these frozen assets to finance the Ukrainian military effort. Although Russia has described this decision as "theft," it is permitted under international law.
Seizing Russia's frozen capital itself, on the other hand, poses a thornier legal question. In the name of the "immunity from enforcement" principle, states do not have the right to seize other states' assets. This would put the European Union in an awkward position regarding one of its fundamental principles and its credibility when it demands that the rest of the international community respect the law would suffer. Financial circles have also highlighted a reputation risk, which would dissuade investors from entrusting their assets to an entity that might be likely to confiscate them. Some have considered that the eurozone's credibility would be undermined to the point of harming its attractiveness.
These warnings must be taken seriously. However, they must be weighed against Europe's geopolitical interests. The EU, which, at this stage, has been excluded from attempts at peace negotiations, holds too few cards for it to definitively rule out seizing Russian assets. On the contrary, this could represent very useful leverage for getting concessions from Moscow.
While the legal and financial arguments are well-founded, the debate must also take the acceleration of events into account, as well as an international context in which the law has been openly flouted. Seizing Russian assets would, therefore, not be a unilateral and unjustified EU decision against another state. It would simply be a consequence of the many violations of international law that Russia has committed, with, up until now, complete impunity.
Europe must continue to defend the principles of international law, but it must also know how to make a show of strength when its vital interests are threatened. To rule out seizing Russian assets out of hand would be to condemn ourselves to impotence, since legal means are ineffective with Russia.
To prove useful, the debate could focus on how to use this threat to obtain security guarantees from Russia. The best way to make it credible would certainly not be to give the impression that the EU will remain passive when faced with powers that blithely flout all international rules.
Translation of an original article published in French on lemonde.fr; the publisher may only be liable for the French version.