The main problem being no matter how the spend the profits if they were to truly invest that full amount they would have too much influence on the world economy and I guarantee the group in charge of that will not take into full account or care about the full scope of investing a large sum like that at once. Some asshole will end up with too much money and abuse the system on accident or purpose.

[removed]

Cmon, its not like all is cool and dandy here, but we don't need that money nearly as much as Ukrainian people need it.

I get that there is a lot of corruption in Ukraine, but instead we could use the money to buy and deliver things needed for rebuilding Ukrainian electric grid or helping refugees or something. It doesnt have to be help in direct cash transfer. Currently Russians were focusing their missle attacks on electric infrastructure, and now its on its last leg. In the winter when pipes will freeze, they will break. There will be no plumbing, electricity and so on. Rural places will be doing fine, but cities will be unsustainable death traps when the winter ramps up.

Here in Europe we have what? Big energy bills, few less degrees on the thermostat and less hot water usage. Petty problems compared to what Ukrainians have to deal with.

Myself, I would be happy to see if that money went to arms purchases for Ukraine, but I guess more people would have issues against that, and would be less likely to pass.

Because the EU has a stable power grid. Ukraine does not.

What would be the legal reasoning to use money confiscated because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine to benefit the EU?

[removed]

[removed]

They should invest the money into energy companies.

I hear they are paying great dividends.

Side benefit: seats on the boards of the energy companies.

Hundreds of billions in gold and Forex and other reserves weren’t repatriated before the war began. Even the article above refers to this as a “pot of gold”

> there is less pressure from the owners of said assets on the Russian government

Oh, I'd think if I lost a billion dollars in assets (much less 330 of them) I'd be hiring an army of thugs to be crawling up the ass of my local government officials until some changes were made.

Russia already nationalized billions worth of airplanes at the very start of the conflict, i'm really not worried about any russian assets being seized by whomever provided they are given to ukraine for recovery efforts.

People keep making this argument, but I don't see it.

Nobody is talking about arbitrary seizure of Russian money, they're talking about seizure of Russian money in response to blatant, unjustified aggression and war crimes, for the purpose of aiding the victims of Russia's atrocities. As a foreign investor that wouldn't bother me, because I don't have ties to a criminal autocracy.

Its not like every single Russian in the EU has had their assets seized... sanctions and freezes have targeted oligarchs and other individuals and companies with direct connections to Putin and the Russian government. These are the people who should pay for the war.

Beyond that, the argument that investors from other countries would be scared to invest in the EU if Russian assets are seized is nonsense. People who don't have ties to Putin aren't under any threat. The only people would would be scared away by the seizure of the assets of sanctioned Russians are others who want all the benefits of living in the civilized world while continuing to profit from corruption, exploitation, violence, and autocracy at home.

The threat of asset seizure means one of two things for such people: a) that they have a strong incentive to curtail the worst impulses of their home governments, or b) they should stay the fuck home. Either way, that's a win for the EU.

[removed]

[deleted]

The original capital may need to be given back at some point in the future, that's the point.

Whereas interest/investing profits from the original capital are easier to legally and morally extract from the frozen assets, one assumes.

Almost every war ends with negotiated peace. Frozen assets will play part of that negotiation so if you've suddenly spent it all, you've just lost a bargaining chip.

Assuming you invest your money in a diversified index fund like the msci world or the s&p 500 your money roughly doubles every 10 years (on average in the long term). Investing a large sum of money and putting the profits to work can go a looong way and personally i have a feeling that Ukraine will still be feeling the effects of the war 10 years down the line (rebuilding stuff, clearing mines, ect.). This fund could not only help with rebuilding Ukraine, it could also generate funds that can be invested into the countries economy in the long term.

This way they would still on average recieve funds of around $23 billion each year and that for all eternity.

Obviously this is just some quick maths and oversimplifying the situation but generally speaking, if it's for a country or a private person, investing money and putting the profits to work instead of just spending the money itself is not such a bad idea after all.

don't wanna scare other money with questionable background out of the EU.

That was the thing that jumped out at me too, like wtf? It would be one thing if Ukraine was in the EU and this was seed money for some form of reconstruction post-war. But it sounds like the EU is just going to take the money. I'm not sure what the expected returns on investment would be on something like this, but I'm sure it's nowhere near that 300 billion total.

The whole thing seems kinda weird.

In a situation where options are available, taxing the seller will decrease the sales.

Not if the goal is to disincentivize sales.

[removed]

Not true, seizing assets has been done for as long as there was money.

This is not a new concept, there's a reason the majority of countries have laws for that on the books already.

Bigger threat to stability than forcefully seizing a countries assets and land and people?