Stealing the Russian assets [2] – how the Guardian sells the plan to its readers

This is a link to an excellent Reuters piece [2] explaining the actual mechanism of theft. This is how the Guardian ‘explains’ it today:

Ukraine would get a loan secured on Russia’s central bank assets, which were immobilised by EU sanctions soon after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

About two-thirds of the estimated €290bn of Russian assets in the west – mostly debt securities in the form of government bonds – are held at Euroclear, a central securities depository in Brussels.

The EU does not plan to confiscate Russia’s sovereign assets, which Russia has said would be an act of theft. Instead, it would sign a contract with Euroclear to provide a loan for Ukraine secured on these funds.

The idea is that when the war is over, Ukraine would repay the EU using theoretical compensation received from Russia for the invasion.

Once Russia pays reparations – a central but not guaranteed assumption of the plan – the EU would lift sanctions and Moscow could recover its frozen assets. Euroclear would have the funds to send to Russia, completing the circle. [3]

Consider: “The EU does not plan to confiscate Russia’s sovereign assets, which Russia has said would be an act of theft. Instead, it would sign a contract with Euroclear to provide a loan for Ukraine secured on these funds.”. This is sheer lying. The authors are trying, amazingly enough, to pretend that Russia is fine with the plan! Everything I read suggests that Russia very much regards the current plan as theft. Why would they tell this lie? The only rational explanation is that they are desperate to get it over the line and are trying to soothe any possible public disquiet.

This part is also sort of funny: “Once Russia pays reparations – a central but not guaranteed assumption of the plan..”. “Not guaranteed” in the sense that it is not guaranteed that a pig might fly over the Guardian offices tonight. The “reparations” part is sheer phantasy. (Unless, at a later date the EU manages to piggy back off some Trump investment fund plan and claim that that was ‘reparations’, to save their own face).

As we’ve already commented: this plan a) envisages eternal frozen relations with Russia and b) in a classic example of debt addiction, spends the funds which would be intended for reconstruction, on waging the war in advance, thus even if Russia did pay reparations, (phantasy), the money would have to go to clear a debt – and there would be nothing left for Ukraine. This is how much the EU really cares about Ukraine.

Why is the EU (and UK) trying to prolong the war at all costs? I think basically, because they have got themselves into a tangle, with their inept politics and nasty rhetoric. They have dug themselves into a hole, and when they emerge they will look like total jerks – so, they will never, emerge. They may even start WWIII to avoid having to emerge and to save their own pride.

The EU’s plan is not theft in the following sense. Imagine you have $1000.00 in a biscuit tin in your shared flat. You come home one day and find that your flat-mate has swapped them for some IOU notes which they will only fulfill when you agree to submit to them in some argument you have with them and pay them compensation on a contested point. It is daylight robbery. (A side point; another analogy might be if a tenant feels that their landlord has not done something they should have done, and they withhold the rent until the landlord does what the tenant thinks they should. Yet; all ‘official’ advice in such cases would be to pay the rent and address the repairs argument as a separate matter. It is striking to see political leaders, egged on by journalists, engaging in the kind of irresponsible behaviour which authorities generally advise against).

Update. Orban’s criticism of the heist absent from the Guardian’s account

I generally don’t read RT. It is so relentlessly negative about the West that it is hard to read. I sometimes drop in (just to test if my internet connection is working). I did come across a report today with quotes from Victor Orban of Hungary about the first step in the asset stealing plan – changing the asset freezing to be outside of renewable sanctions, and thus safe from a possible Hungarian veto. RT’s editorial line may be fervently anti-West; but in my experience they can be relied on for fairly accurate reporting of facts. I have no doubt that Victor Orban has indeed said:

With today’s procedure, the Brusselians are abolishing the requirement of unanimity with a single stroke of the pen, which is clearly unlawful. The rule of law in the European Union comes to an end, and Europe’s leaders are placing themselves above the rules. Instead of safeguarding compliance with the EU treaties, the European Commission is systematically raping European law. [4]

What is interesting is how Orban’s voice is simply not reported in the Guardian. (And, I would guess in much other UK media), despite the fact that he is a perfectly bona fide member of the EU. Very occasionally they mention that Orban is against something, invariably describing him as “Putin friendly”, or something like that, but his actual words, articulate and highly critical, are not reported. Just as in the example above where we see Guardian journalists trying to pretend that Russia somehow does not regard the current plan as theft, so the Guardian is seen to be manipulating the narrative for political ends. And they tell you that ‘facts are sacred’. In the sense that they are to the Ministry of Truth, that is.

Notes

Stealing the Russian assets [2] – how the Guardian sells the plan to its readers

Related Posts

BBC Newsround – doing its bit for capitalismBBC Newsround – doing its bit for capitalism

Why do liberals hate Russia?Why do liberals hate Russia?

Sophisticated propagandaSophisticated propaganda