If anyone had any doubts about Donald Trump’s attitude to the war in Ukraine, they will have been disabused of them over the last 48 hours.
The American president’s absurd allegation that Kyiv started the war, his description of Ukraine’s President Zelensky as a ‘dictator’ and his insulting reference to him doing ‘a terrible job’ show that he is clearly siding with the aggressor not the victim.
And you don’t have to take my word for it. The Kremlin’s official spokesman Dmitry Peskov gloated yesterday: ‘We absolutely agree with the American administration.’
Many argue that Trump’s extraordinary behaviour has sowed panic and confusion among his erstwhile allies in the West. And it is indeed tempting to believe that the sky is falling in and the situation is hopeless.
But in my experience, if someone takes an extreme position, it can often serve to unify the parties at the other end of the spectrum.
The truth is that Trump is out of sync with public opinion in the West, the majority of the American people and many leading figures in the Republican Party.
On Wednesday, I watched as no fewer than seven Republican senators took to the airwaves to distance themselves from his disgraceful comments.
And there are also signs that Europe and the UK are coming together as they digest the implications of the new reality.
Ukrainian soldiers wave their flag as they stand on a Challenger 2 tank during a training camp in Britain
Ukraine’s plight is an issue close to my heart because I acquired the status of ‘Putin’s No 1 enemy’ when I ran a multi-billion-dollar investment fund in Moscow during the early days of Russia’s privatisation programme at the end of the Cold War.
The Kremlin’s thugs turned on me because I waged a campaign against the regime’s corruption and was banned from entering the country after a trip abroad in 2005. And so I am appalled at the sight of Trump attempting to force Zelensky to accept a bad peace deal by threatening to cut off aid if he doesn’t.
On the face of it, this is a powerful lever to pull. Trump claimed this week that the US had provided Kyiv with $350billion (£277billion) in military, humanitarian and financial aid since the war began.
In fact, Washington has spent around a third of that figure – $120billion (£95billion) to be exact. No mean sum but significantly less than the amount provided by its allies in Europe, which stands at $138billion (£109billion).
Following this week’s war of words, it’s clear that the Trump administration will not be advancing any more aid to Ukraine – and that leaves the UK and the EU in a quandary.
Do they side with Trump in putting pressure on Kyiv to come to an agreement with its invader, or do they rally round and redouble their efforts to support the Ukrainians in their hour of need?
Fortunately, the solution is staring them in the face. A week after the war started in February 2022, in addition to impounding sports cars, yachts and private jets, the Western powers froze $300billion (£237billion) of Russian Central Bank reserves.
These consist of liquid assets such as deposits in major currencies, gold and government bonds. And the good news is that only a tiny proportion – $13billion – is held by American banks.
The vast majority is in the hands of European institutions, many of them in Belgium.
Donald Trump made an allegation this week that Kyiv started the war against Russia and described Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky as a ‘dictator’
Following this week’s war of words, it’s clear that the Trump administration will not be giving any more aid to Ukraine – and that leaves the UK and the EU in a quandary, writes Bill Browder
If these assets were unfrozen and put at the disposal of the Ukrainians, they would fund its defence for years to come. Up to now, the relevant authorities – led by European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde – have been reluctant to support such a move.
Last April, Lagarde argued that there was a big difference between freezing assets and confiscating them because it would mean ‘breaking the international legal order that you want to protect, that you would want Russia and all countries around the world to respect’.
But that is to ignore Ukraine’s legitimate legal claim to reparations for the carnage the Russian military has wreaked over the past three years.
An analysis published by the New York Times last year revealed that at least 210,000 buildings in Ukraine had been destroyed since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion.
Satellite data showed that the destruction included 106 hospitals, 109 churches, temples, mosques and monasteries and 708 schools, colleges and universities. Power stations have also been hit, as well as vital infrastructure, such as bridges.
Then there is the human cost, with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in addition to military casualties. ‘The scale is hard to comprehend,’ the newspaper reported.
‘More buildings have been destroyed in Ukraine than if every building in Manhattan were to be levelled four times over.’
Last February, the World Bank estimated that funding ‘reconstruction and recovery’ in Ukraine over the next decade would cost $486billion.
Today, I would put that figure closer to $1trillion.
When I attended the Munich Security Conference, an annual forum attended by politicians and members of the armed forces, last week, I found widespread enthusiasm for the idea of using the Russian reserves to fund the defence of Ukraine so that it can negotiate from a position of strength rather than be forced down the route of capitulation and surrender.
Of the seven European foreign ministers I spoke to, all were in favour of this plan.
Since Trump moved to the dark side, support for such a move can only have gathered pace.
The key sticking point is Sunday’s German election, as such a momentous decision cannot be taken until a new Chancellor is elected. Fortunately, the centre-Right Christian Democrats are likely to emerge as the largest single party and its leader Friedrich Merz is expected to replace Olaf Scholz.
While Scholz argued against giving the Russian reserves to Ukraine for fear of destabilising the financial markets, Merz is likely to take a different view.
The issue will need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, however, because the clock is ticking. Every six months, the EU votes on whether to renew its sanctions against Russia and the next show of hands is due in the summer.
As Hungary’s Moscow-leaning prime minister Viktor Orban may well veto any such renewal, time is of the essence. The consequences of a failure to grasp the nettle and requisition the frozen Russian funds to aid Ukraine do not bear thinking about.
The Ukrainian people know exactly what life under Russian occupation would mean: a reign of terror on a scale not seen since the fall of communism.
An insight into just how traumatic rule by Moscow could be has been given by Foreign Policy magazine: ‘Russia’s highly censored state television has, over the past two years, consistently promoted the rape of Ukrainians, the drowning of children, the levelling of cities, the eradication of the Ukrainian elite, and the physical extermination of millions of Ukrainians.’
Faced with such a prospect, vast numbers of Ukrainians would flee the country and millions of refugees would fan out across Europe and the UK.
Following Trump’s shameless betrayal of a proud and courageous people, the UK and Europe must end their navel-gazing and put Russia’s frozen billions to the service of a noble cause.
Sir William Browder is the author of two books about his time in Russia: Red Notice, A True Story Of Corruption, Murder And One Man’s Fight For Justice, and Freezing Order, A True Story Of Russian Money Laundering, State-Sponsored Murder And Surviving Vladimir Putin’s Wrath.
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=67b7e4d1594b49169241ce28a430b743&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fdebate%2Farticle-14418689%2FUK-Europe-Russia-frozen-billions-Ukraine-noble-cause.html&c=14686088009199038865&mkt=de-de
Author :
Publish date : 2025-02-20 16:54:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.