这四国的反对并非孤立事件，欧盟内部的分歧已经全面爆发。匈牙利总理欧尔班直接将此次投票称为非 法，并指责欧盟委员会系统性地侵犯欧洲法律。斯洛伐克总理菲科则从冲突立场出发，公开谴责欧盟的 援乌政策，表示为乌克兰提供数百亿欧元的军事支出，实际上是在延长战争。根据《参考消息》引用的 欧洲智库数据，截至2024年11月，欧盟对乌克兰的援助已超过800亿欧元，部分成员国因能源价格上涨 45%、接收超过百万难民等问题，国内的反援乌情绪也持续升温。 俄罗斯方面对此的反应更为强硬。 俄罗斯外交部此前多次表示，任何没收俄罗斯资产的行为都等同于公开盗窃，并威胁要采取对等的报复 措施。最近，俄罗斯中央银行已经正式对持有俄罗斯大部分资产的比利时Euroclear清算所提起法律诉 讼，这场司法争斗可能会持续多年。俄罗斯总统新闻秘书佩斯科夫强调，欧盟的这一举措将彻底摧毁国 际金融体系的信任基础，俄罗斯将通过能源、粮食等领域采取反制措施，以保护自身利益。 目前，欧盟委员会尚未对四国的警告做出正式回应。但外界普遍认为，在成员国分歧加剧、俄罗斯的强 硬反制下，欧盟通过俄罗斯资产援助乌克兰的计划很难按原定时间表推进。正如中国外交部此前所表态 的那 ...

布达佩斯传来一声炸雷。 匈牙利外长西雅尔多在电视节目上直接撂了狠话：欧盟要是真敢动俄罗斯那3000亿欧元的资产，欧洲经济可能直接崩盘。这话听着像危言耸听，但仔细琢 磨，还真不是空穴来风。 眼下欧盟正在使劲游说各成员国，想把冻结的俄罗斯资产挪出来给乌克兰。计划里涉及的钱从1850亿到2100亿欧元不等，打算以贷款形式发给基辅，等冲突 结束后让俄罗斯赔偿再还回来。听起来账算得挺精，可真要这么干，后果谁都兜不住。 普京已经放话，绝不会袖手旁观 西雅尔多在"真相时刻"节目里说得很明白。俄罗斯央行的大笔资产现在就躺在比利时的账户里，主要存在欧洲清算银行这个全球最大的清算系统之一。要是 欧盟真把这些钱没收了，第一个倒霉的就是比利时市场——全球投资者对它的信任会瞬间归零。 紧接着这种不信任就会像瘟疫一样蔓延到整个欧盟金融体系。毕竟谁都不傻，今天能随便冻结俄罗斯的钱，明天会不会轮到自己？一旦投资者开始撤资，欧 洲经济扛不扛得住还真不好说。 更关键的是，欧尔班跟普京会面时，俄罗斯总统已经明确表态：这事绝不会就这么算了。西雅尔多把话说得更直白："扣押俄罗斯资产是过去四年里，最可 能让局势全面失控的导火索。" 欧盟内部早就吵翻了天 ...

欧洲11国突然宣布要派"多国部队"进入乌克兰。 名义上是维和，实际上却要帮乌军扩军到80万人。 俄罗斯反手就向欧洲清算银行索赔2290亿美元，直接把金融战打到法庭上。 这到底是援助，还是变相宣战？和平谈判刚开场，为何转眼就变成新一轮对抗？ 甚至明确提到可在乌克兰境内执行军事行动。 几乎是同一时间，俄罗斯中央银行正式向莫斯科仲裁法院提起诉讼。 要求欧洲清算银行赔偿高达18.2万亿卢布，折合约2290亿美元。 大家好，小汉今天就来带大家看清这场看似支援、实则博弈的惊险棋局。 欧洲真能靠一支联军挡住俄罗斯吗？ 12月16日，一则重磅消息震动国际舆论： 德国、法国、英国、意大利、波兰、芬兰等11个欧洲国家联合宣布，将组建一支"多国部队"进入乌克 兰。 这支队伍的任务包括协助乌军重建、保障领空安全、提升海上防御能力。 更引人注目的是，声明提出未来乌克兰武装力量规模应扩充至80万人，几乎是当前兵力的两倍。 这一举动被广泛解读为欧洲对俄乌冲突的深度介入，也彻底激怒了莫斯科。 这笔金额几乎等于俄罗斯在该机构被冻结的全部主权资产。 这不是一次普通的法律申诉，是俄罗斯对西方金融制裁的正面回击。 标志着冲突从战场、谈判桌，正式蔓延 ...

Core Viewpoint - The European Union's proposed funding plan for Ukraine, utilizing frozen Russian assets amounting to €90 billion over the next two years, has sparked significant international attention and controversy, particularly from Russia and within the EU itself [1][2]. Group 1: EU Funding Plan - The EU aims to provide loans to Ukraine, which would eventually be repaid through compensation from Russia [2]. - The plan is a response to increasing pressure on the Ukrainian battlefield and seeks to explore new avenues for support as the U.S. pushes for a conflict resolution under specific conditions [1][6]. Group 2: Russian Opposition - Russian Ambassador to Germany, Sergey Nechayev, has strongly opposed the EU's plan, labeling any use of Russian sovereign assets without consent as theft and warning of severe repercussions for the EU's commercial reputation [1][4]. - Nechayev emphasized that this unprecedented move could lead to a state of legal anarchy and undermine the global financial system, with the EU being the first to suffer [1][6]. Group 3: Internal EU Disagreements - Belgium has expressed significant concerns regarding the potential legal ramifications of utilizing frozen assets, fearing retaliation from Russia and substantial litigation risks [4][5]. - The Belgian government has called for other EU member states to share the associated risks and provide clear guarantees [5]. - German Chancellor Friedrich Merz acknowledged Belgium's concerns and stated that any solution must ensure equal risk-sharing among all European countries [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a financial confrontation between the U.S. and China, where U.S. politicians demand China repay historical debts from the Qing Dynasty, specifically the Hubei-Guangdong Railway bonds, as leverage against China's $860 billion in U.S. Treasury holdings [1][5]. Group 1: Historical Context - The Hubei-Guangdong Railway bonds were issued in 1911 by the Qing government, borrowing £6 million from four banks (British, American, French, and German) with a 5% annual interest rate and a 40-year term, secured by salt tax and railway revenues [3]. - After the Qing Dynasty's fall and subsequent political turmoil, interest payments ceased in 1938, and by 1951, the bonds became a historical issue, with U.S. speculators attempting to revive claims in the 1970s [3][5]. Group 2: Current Financial Implications - By 2025, U.S. national debt is projected to exceed $36 trillion, with annual interest payments reaching $475 billion, prompting U.S. politicians to seek historical debts as a means to alleviate domestic financial pressures [5][9]. - China has reduced its holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds from $1.3 trillion in 2013 to $759 billion, which has raised concerns in the U.S. financial sector [5]. Group 3: Legal and Economic Responses - China has countered the U.S. claims by citing international law, specifically the Vienna Convention's Article 34, which states that debts from colonial treaties should not be inherited, and referencing UN documents that declare such debts void after 15 years [7]. - China's economic strategies include increasing gold reserves to 2,192 tons and promoting the use of the renminbi in international trade, with plans for 60% of trade with ASEAN to be settled in renminbi by 2025 [7][11]. Group 4: Global Financial Dynamics - The U.S. approach is seen as hypocritical, as it has previously disregarded its own debts, such as those from the Confederate States and post-Iraq war scenarios, while attempting to enforce historical debts on China [9]. - The push for historical debt repayment may accelerate the trend towards de-dollarization, with countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia opting for renminbi in oil transactions, contributing to a decline in the dollar's share of global foreign exchange reserves to 59%, the lowest in 25 years [9][11]. Group 5: Broader Implications - The situation represents a clash between historical debts and modern international rules, questioning the legitimacy of reviving colonial-era debts while highlighting the need for a fairer global financial order [11]. - China's strategy of reducing U.S. bond holdings and increasing gold reserves, alongside promoting the renminbi, is not only about protecting its interests but also about pushing for a more equitable global financial system [11].

Core Viewpoint - The European Union has decided to utilize frozen Russian assets for loans to Ukraine, marking a significant shift in international financial practices and raising concerns about the implications for global financial trust and future conflicts [1][3][10]. Group 1: Financial Actions and Implications - Western countries have frozen nearly $300 billion of Russian assets, with specific amounts frozen by the US ($5 billion), UK ($58.6 billion), Japan ($33 billion), France ($25.1 billion), and Germany ($5.27 billion) [1]. - French Finance Minister Roland Lescure announced that these frozen funds will be used for military purposes in Ukraine without Russian consent, representing a bold move in international finance [3][5]. - This action could set a dangerous precedent for future international conflicts, as it raises the question of whether other nations might adopt similar practices against assets of adversarial countries [7][8]. Group 2: Historical Context and Comparisons - Historically, while there have been instances of freezing enemy assets, there are few precedents for using those assets for direct military funding [5]. - The article compares the current situation to past events, such as the US freezing Iranian assets during the 1979 hostage crisis, which were eventually returned through negotiation [5]. Group 3: Potential Consequences and Reactions - The decision to use Russian assets could provoke retaliatory actions from Russia, which has already indicated that such actions would be viewed as theft, potentially leading to increased tensions and difficulties in future negotiations [10][12]. - The financial aid of €140 billion, while substantial, is deemed insufficient to significantly alter the military situation in Ukraine or support post-war reconstruction, which is estimated to require between $500 billion to $1 trillion [12]. - The unity among European nations regarding this decision is fragile, as different countries have varying interests and concerns, which could lead to cracks in their collective stance [13][15].

Core Viewpoint - The European Commission has announced a plan to convert frozen Russian central bank assets into a "war fund" for Ukraine, potentially amounting to €210 billion, which could serve as a lifeline for Ukraine over the next five years [1][3][4]. Financial Strategy - Following the escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Western nations quickly imposed financial sanctions on Russia, freezing approximately $300 billion in overseas assets, with over two-thirds, around €210 billion, held within the EU [4]. - Initially, Europe handled these funds with extreme caution, but as Ukraine's military expenses surged and financial support became uncertain, the EU began considering more aggressive strategies [5][6]. Loan Mechanism - The EU's proposed plan involves using the frozen €210 billion in Russian assets as collateral to issue bonds in the international capital market, aiming to raise up to €140 billion in long-term loans for Ukraine [8]. - This loan is characterized as a "compensation loan," meaning Ukraine will only need to repay it after Russia pays war reparations, effectively shifting the repayment responsibility to Russia [9]. Internal Disagreements - There are significant divisions within the EU regarding this plan, particularly from Belgium, which is concerned about potential legal ramifications and the impact on its status as an international financial center [10]. - Hungary has opposed the plan outright, while Luxembourg expresses caution, fearing threats to financial security. In contrast, Poland and the Baltic states advocate for more radical measures, including the confiscation of Russian assets [12]. Russian Response - The Kremlin has condemned the plan as "theft," warning of severe repercussions and has already taken countermeasures by freezing some Western assets in Russia [14]. Legal and Financial Implications - The plan raises concerns about undermining the principle of sovereign asset immunity, which has been a cornerstone of the modern international financial system [14]. - The EU's approach of framing the action as "temporary use rather than confiscation" attempts to mitigate these concerns, but risks significant financial liabilities if Russia pursues international arbitration [14]. Role of the United States - The U.S. has played a crucial role in pushing for the EU to utilize these frozen assets, despite holding fewer Russian assets itself [15][17]. - U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has publicly supported using Russian assets to provide up to $50 billion in aid to Ukraine, highlighting the potential risks to Europe's financial credibility and the shift of international capital towards the U.S. market [17].

Core Viewpoint - The European Union is currently debating how to handle frozen Russian assets, with Germany's Finance Minister Klambauer indicating a willingness to discuss new uses for these assets, potentially breaking the deadlock in the ongoing discussions [1][3]. Group 1: EU's Internal Disagreements - There are significant divisions within the EU regarding the use of frozen Russian assets, with Eastern European countries advocating for the use of these funds to support Ukraine, while Germany, France, and Italy express concerns about the potential long-term impacts on international financial credibility [3][5]. - Germany's recent stance suggests a shift towards finding a consensus among EU members, indicating a desire to address the issue collaboratively rather than unilaterally [3][10]. Group 2: Risks and Reactions - Russia has warned that if the EU decides to use the principal of the frozen assets, it may retaliate against European companies operating in Russia and could disrupt energy supplies, raising concerns among EU member states reliant on Russian energy [5][8]. - The uncertainty surrounding U.S. support for Ukraine adds another layer of complexity, as a reduction in American aid could force the EU to shoulder more responsibility for Ukraine's financial needs [7][10]. Group 3: Legal and Financial Considerations - The EU's plans for utilizing the frozen assets remain incomplete, with legal implications and the need to maintain international financial order being critical factors in the decision-making process [8][10]. - Germany's proposal could lead to more flexible solutions, such as phased withdrawals or the establishment of dedicated mechanisms, but these must balance Ukraine's needs with the EU's long-term financial stability [8][10].

Core Insights - The article discusses the significance of the Plaza Accord, a pivotal agreement signed in 1985 by finance ministers and central bank governors from the US, France, West Germany, Japan, and the UK, aimed at depreciating the strong US dollar to improve American export competitiveness [1][2]. Economic Context - In the 1980s, the US faced a massive trade deficit, with significant job losses in traditional industries like automotive and steel, prompting the government to seek a solution through currency intervention [2]. - The strong dollar was beneficial for consumers but detrimental to exporters, leading to a record trade deficit as US products struggled against the competitive pricing of Japanese and German goods [2]. Immediate Effects - Following the signing of the Plaza Accord, the global financial markets experienced significant volatility, with the dollar depreciating sharply and the Japanese yen and German mark appreciating [3]. - The rapid appreciation of the yen severely impacted Japan's export competitiveness, leading to expansive monetary policies that inflated asset prices, particularly in real estate and stock markets [3]. Long-term Consequences - Japan's economic bubble, fueled by the Plaza Accord, eventually burst in the early 1990s, leading to a prolonged economic stagnation known as the "Lost Decade" [3]. - In contrast, Germany managed to avoid similar pitfalls by implementing strict economic controls and benefiting from the reunification process, which led to a more stable economic environment [5]. Strategic Implications - The Plaza Accord allowed the US to alleviate some economic pressures while shifting the burden onto its allies, particularly Japan, which faced the adverse effects of the agreement [5][6]. - The agreement is viewed as a catalyst for Europe to consider monetary independence, ultimately leading to the establishment of the euro [5]. Historical Significance - The Plaza Accord is regarded as a turning point in international finance, symbolizing the interplay between economic policy and geopolitical strategy, and serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of currency manipulation [6].