“It’s like low hanging fruit,” Karins said of the frozen Russian assets. Officials said that some countries want to impose an additional windfall levy on the money to use for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Several countries fear the legal ground for that is still too shaky and the European Central Bank has warned that confiscating those assets or profits accrued from them could pose a serious risk to the reputation of the euro. The leaders looked closely at using Russia’s frozen assets - estimated at some 200 billion euros ($217 billion) - for that purpose, and directed the commission and foreign policy unit to work on the best way to do that, in coordination with international partners willing to do the same. The EU and its member countries have already provided an estimated 75 billion euros ($82 billion) in aid to both beef up Ukraine’s military stockpiles and to make sure the country’s battered economy stays afloat. Most EU nations are also members of NATO, and at the July 11-12 alliance summit they will look to offer Ukraine more security guarantees, if stopping short of full NATO membership. In their statement, the leaders said they “stand ready to contribute, together with partners, to future security commitments to Ukraine, which will help Ukraine defend itself in the long term, deter acts of aggression and resist destabilization efforts.” “We must continue to increase the price of Russian aggression.” “There is no room for hesitation,” said Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas. Officials from several member states and EU institutions said the chaos and instability created by the rebellion would not only force the EU to double down on its support for Ukraine with commitments for more ammunition but also to ensure fighting and violence does not spill over into the bloc itself. This mutiny of last weekend will also have aftershocks that we will see,” said EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “This showed deep cracks in Putin’s system.
We have to move forward and be decisive, because now is a crucial moment of history,” Nauseda said. Some say “that a strong Putin is less dangerous than a weak Putin.
0 kommentar(er)
