How to put Russia’s frozen assets to work for Ukraine

With America’s House of Representatives denying aid for Ukraine, other Western politicians are hunting for an alternative source of funds. Their eyes have settled on assets worth €260bn ($282bn) belonging to Russia that have been frozen since its full-scale invasion two years ago. There is a growing clamour in support of the moral and practical case for using this money to help pay for Ukraine’s defence. On February 27th Janet Yellen, America’s treasury secretary, called for the value of these assets to be unlocked. But most of the portfolio sits in Belgium, and the European Union has been divided about the wisdom—and legality—of putting it to use.

Those who want to do something with the money are right, but how it is done matters greatly. Seizing the assets outright would be a mistake. Sanctions have historically come with the caveat that if an aggressor like Russia changes its behaviour, it can get its money back. Reparations are typically negotiated with a defeated state after hostilities have ceased, not imposed and enforced while bullets are flying. Taking the money would add to the view, already common in the global south, that America and its allies hew to international law only when it suits them. Because the West’s case against Russia’s invasion is that it is illegal, this smacks of hypocrisy.