文章写道，这些被冻结资产无疑不仅具有金融性质。这是一个地缘政治赌注。现在将其移交意味着押注 乌克兰获胜。推迟移交则意味着保留灵活性，以防俄罗斯获胜或战争陷入僵局。 11月17日，据俄新社报道，美国The Conversation门户网刊文称，欧盟不愿没收被冻结的俄罗斯资产， 以维持与莫斯科的关系。 俄罗斯外交部发言人玛丽亚·扎哈罗娃11月12日表示，比利时理解强加给比利时人的、用俄罗斯资产向 乌克兰提供"赔偿信贷"的想法具有犯罪性质，并深知将面临莫斯科的回应措施。 俄外交部多次称欧洲冻结资产是盗窃行为，并指出欧盟的目标不仅是个人资金，还包括俄罗斯国家资 产。外交部长谢尔盖·拉夫罗夫表示，莫斯科将对西方没收被冻结资产的行为作出回应。 本文编译自：《俄新社》 文章作者认为，对大多数欧洲伙伴而言，支持乌克兰已变得无利可图，更不用说承担没收资产这样的巨 大风险。同时，该媒体承认，支持基辅已成为欧盟的"战略负担"。但这并不代表欧盟抛弃了乌克兰，只 是正在重新评估风险。这种重新评估基于战略疑虑，因为欧盟领导人不再相信乌克兰会获胜，即使他们 没有公开表态。欧盟委员会正试图争取欧盟国家同意将俄罗斯主权资产用于乌克兰，当前阶段 ...

Core Points - The article discusses U.S. President Trump's response regarding the issue of frozen Russian assets during an interview [1][3] - Trump stated he would not use the frozen Russian assets as a negotiation tool, indicating that discussions are ongoing between Europe and Russia without U.S. involvement [3] - Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in February 2022, the U.S. and several Western countries have imposed sanctions on Russia, resulting in the freezing of significant Russian assets [3] - There is ongoing debate in the West about whether and how to utilize these frozen funds to support Ukraine [3] - Russia has criticized the West's actions as tantamount to theft, threatening to respond in kind [3]

Core Points - The EU is exploring the use of frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's defense and reconstruction after the conflict ends, but there are significant internal disagreements regarding this idea [1][2] - Approximately €210 billion of Russian assets are currently frozen in the EU, with about €183 billion held in the European Clearing Bank in Belgium, primarily belonging to the Russian Central Bank [1] - Some EU countries, including Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland, advocate for the immediate seizure of these assets to support Ukraine, while France, Germany, and Belgium express concerns over the legality and potential impact on the euro [2] - Hungary has explicitly opposed the freezing of Russian assets and is suing the EU Council over a decision to allocate billions from these assets to aid Ukraine, arguing it violates EU law [3] Group 1 - The EU is considering using frozen Russian assets for Ukraine's funding, but there are differing opinions among member states [1][2] - There is a significant amount of frozen Russian assets in the EU, with a large portion held in Belgium [1] - Some countries support immediate action to use these assets for Ukraine, while others raise legal and financial concerns [2] Group 2 - Hungary is taking legal action against the EU regarding the allocation of frozen Russian assets, claiming it violates EU law [3] - The European Peace Facility, which provides military aid to allies, relies heavily on the interest generated from frozen Russian assets [3]

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing escalation of tensions between Russia and Ukraine is marked by significant military actions and geopolitical maneuvering, with calls for increased sanctions against Russia and discussions on the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine [1][9][11]. Military Actions - On August 30, Ukraine reported that Russia launched large-scale attacks on 14 regions, involving nearly 540 drones and 45 missiles [4][10]. - In Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, a residential building was completely destroyed, and a shopping center was damaged due to the attacks [4]. - Ukrainian forces retaliated by targeting Russian oil refineries in Krasnodar and Seversk, with Krasnodar refinery having an annual output of approximately 3 million tons of refined oil [5][6]. Geopolitical Developments - The European Union's foreign ministers are meeting in Denmark to discuss the Ukraine crisis, focusing on freezing around €200 billion of Russian assets [11]. - France plans to propose new sanctions against Russia aimed at diminishing its resources for the conflict [11]. - The EU has frozen approximately €200 billion of Russian central bank assets since the conflict began, with discussions on utilizing these funds to aid Ukraine [11][12]. Sanctions and Financial Accountability - Ukrainian President Zelensky emphasized the need for stronger sanctions against Russia, stating that the recent attacks demonstrate Russia's disregard for diplomatic efforts [10]. - EU officials acknowledge the necessity of addressing Ukraine's funding gap and holding Russia accountable for war damages [11][12]. - Belgium's opposition to the confiscation of Russian assets highlights the complexities involved in utilizing these funds, with concerns over legal and financial risks [12].

Group 1 - The core focus of the article is on Ukrainian President Zelensky's intention to discuss the freezing of Russian assets and the establishment of a price cap on oil during the G7 summit [1] Group 2 - The discussion on freezing Russian assets is aimed at increasing pressure on Russia amid ongoing geopolitical tensions [1] - Setting a price cap on oil is part of broader efforts to manage energy prices and reduce revenue streams for Russia [1]

Core Viewpoint - The Ukrainian government criticizes the decision to use frozen Russian assets to compensate Western investors, arguing that it undermines Europe's stance against Moscow [1][2]. Group 1: Ukrainian Government's Position - Ukraine is pushing to use the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets for national reconstruction and defense, warning that the recent decision sends the wrong signal and may weaken Europe's negotiating position with Russia [2]. - Iryna Mudra, a senior official in the Ukrainian president's office, states that compensating private investors before the victims of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is unjust [2]. - Mudra emphasizes that international law requires aggressors to fully compensate victims, not investors who entered high-risk jurisdictions [2]. Group 2: European Central Bank's Actions - The European Clearing Bank's decision to use €3 billion ($3.4 billion) of frozen Russian investor funds for compensation was approved by Belgium, which is executing EU regulations [3]. - The European Clearing Bank holds €195 billion in Russian cash assets, primarily from the Russian central bank, and any return of funds to Russia could be used for military purposes [3]. Group 3: Concerns Over Precedents - Ukrainian officials express concerns that the compensation decision sets a bad precedent, with criticism from various stakeholders, including lawmakers who argue that Western companies should bear their own risks [4][5]. - Critics, including Jacob Kirkegaard from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, find it shocking that corporate interests are prioritized over funding for Ukraine's defense [5].