金融制裁

Search documents
欧洲打算亮出最后底牌,动用俄罗斯海外资产,可让乌克兰再撑五年
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-10-07 18:55
战局第三年,欧洲猛然惊醒:俄军的"金库"竟藏在自家楼下 战火延烧至第三个年头,欧洲各国才后知后觉地意识到,俄罗斯的"钱袋子"竟被安放在了自家楼宇的阴影之下。那笔高达2100亿欧元的巨额资产,沉睡在比 利时一栋毫不起眼的楼宇深处,宛如一箱被时间遗忘的巨款。这并非哪个隐秘的私人宝藏,而是俄罗斯中央银行被施加"暂停键"的海外储备金。如今,欧盟 将目光锁定于此,意图动用这笔资金,为基辅的持续抵抗再续五年"续命之源"。这听起来像是一个精心编排的荒诞剧本,但其推进速度已然迈入第二幕:以 冻结资产作为抵押,在国际市场上发行债券,为乌克兰注入军备与维生资金。 第一幕:无本之利,巧取"利息" 初期的操作相对"温和"。俄罗斯的资产一旦被冻结,其内部持有的债券、股票等仍在持续产生收益,每年的利息收入便高达数十亿欧元。欧盟毫不犹豫地先 行一步,将这笔"活钱"截流,划拨给乌克兰用于基础设施重建和民生支持。面对这种情况,莫斯科只能徒劳地干瞪眼,毕竟账户已被层层锁死,连输入密码 的权限都被剥夺。 第二幕:釜底抽薪,铸造"重建之债" 比利时率先跳了出来,表达了强烈的反对。其立场直截了当地暴露了风险:"钱的物理存在在我家地下室,你们凭什么可以 ...
普京突改口否认去美元化?宣布不反美元,普京这步棋究竟下给谁看
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-10-06 04:12
普京最近在关于"去美元化"的问题上突然改变了立场,这让很多人感到意外。在"瓦尔代"国际辩论俱乐部会议上,普京公开表示,俄罗斯并没有主动推动去 美元化,而是因为美国禁止使用美元,所以才选择用本币结算。这番话让不少人疑惑:普京不就是曾在金砖峰会上主张用新货币替代美元的吗?这次的转变 到底是临时退缩,还是另有深意? 事实上,普京的这一转变很可能是因为特朗普的强硬立场。特朗普一向对去美元化十分敏感,曾明确表示,任何试图替代美元的行为都触碰到美国的底线。 如果有国家敢挑战美元的地位,他就会加征100%的关税,直接把这些国家排除在美国市场之外。今年7月,巴西总统卢拉在金砖峰会上提出减少美元依赖的 建议,特朗普立刻回应,对巴西加征了50%的关税,并强调削弱美元的地位相当于美国在全球的失败。他表明,作为总统,他绝不会允许这一趋势发展下 去。 与此同时,美国已经对俄罗斯实施了严厉的金融制裁,冻结了其海外资产,排除在SWIFT系统之外,并限制了美元交易。在这样的制裁压力下,俄罗斯很难 进行国际贸易,尤其是在购买医疗设备和航空零件时,许多供应商只认美元,手里没有美元,交易就无法顺利进行。 虽然俄罗斯与中国之间的本币结算率很高,人民 ...
普京对“去美元化”改口,宣布不反美元,俄罗斯选择临阵退缩?
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-10-04 03:54
几天后,特朗普直接对巴西宣布加征50%的关税,解释道:"金砖国家本身并不是威胁,但他们正在削弱美元的主导地位,试图推动新的国际货币规则。如 果美元失去全球储备货币的地位,美国将遭遇巨大的损失。我作为总统,必须维护美元在全球的主导地位,这绝不会在我的任内发生。" 普京为何在"去美元化"问题上改口,俄罗斯在关键时刻为何选择退缩? 近期,俄罗斯总统普京在"瓦尔代"国际辩论俱乐部的讲话中指出,俄罗斯并没有实施"去美元化"政策,也没有组织相关运动。他解释道,俄罗斯并非主动放 弃美元,而是因为"在国际上无法使用美元支付",因此才选择使用本国货币进行交易。 他进一步回应了特朗普关于金砖国家"去美元化"的指控,强调金砖国家的政策仅与其自身成员国相关,不会对任何第三方施加此类措施。普京明确表 示:"我们没有反美元的政策,也没有去美元的运动。我们完全没有!我们只是被阻止使用美元,因此只能转向本国货币。" 从中可以看出,尽管美俄关系僵局重重,普京并不希望在这个问题上与特朗普产生直接冲突,特别是在当前美国对俄罗斯的制裁背景下。普京深知"去美元 化"是特朗普非常敏感的外交议题之一,因此在公开讲话时选择了尽量避免激怒特朗普,为日后可能的 ...
从凯恩斯到特朗普:金融为何再次成为国家武器?
伍治坚证据主义· 2025-10-03 06:48
在金融市场里,最怕的是突然换了剧本。以前投资者看待世界,习惯了那一套"供需决定价格"、"市场出清效率最高"的逻辑,好像经济就是一个精密的机 器,油门刹车踩得稳,就能一直开下去。 但最近这几年,越来越多的迹象显示,这台机器的方向盘已经不在工程师手里,而是被交到了将军、外交官,甚至政治家的手中。换句话说, 经济越来越 不只是经济,它成了地缘政治的延伸 。这就是所谓的"地缘经济学"时代。 这个词并不新。早在1990年,美国的军事战略家Edward Luttwak就提出过"geoeconomics",意思是用商业的方法打地缘政治的仗【1】。但今天,它正 以前所未有的方式走入我们每个人的生活。特朗普政府威胁对欧盟、韩国、日本和巴西加征关税;美国国会提案限制中国企业购买美国农地;中国则用稀土 出口作为反制工具。过去你可能觉得这些只是国际新闻,和投资组合没关系。可现在,一旦美方真的动用金融制裁、征收资本税,甚至要求盟友必须买美国 国债,这不再是远方的传说,而是直接影响资产定价的"武器"。 美国基金经理雷·达里奥在其著作《国家如何破产》中,把这个问题说得很直白。他警告,美国36万亿美元的债务已经到了不可持续的地步,而导致债务 ...
欧洲准备打出最后底牌,启用俄罗斯海外资产,够乌克兰再打5年
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-10-02 11:42
乌克兰战场炮火未歇,欧洲正悄然策划一场更具战略深远意义的反击——不是派遣士兵,也不是输送武 器,而是动用被冻结的俄罗斯国家资产,为乌克兰提供长达五年的财政支持。 乌克兰战场的硝烟仍未消散。欧洲正酝酿一场足以改变战争格局的战略行动。不是增派士兵,也不是追 加武器,而是动用被冻结的俄罗斯国家资产,为乌克兰提供长达五年的财政支持。 这场金融战的核心,是俄罗斯央行存放在比利时布鲁塞尔欧洲清算系统(Euroclear)的2100亿欧元海外 储备。自2022年俄乌冲突爆发以来,这笔资金一直被欧盟冻结。 «——【·前言·】——» «——【·2100亿欧元的战争基金·】——» 如今,欧盟与七国集团(G7)正推动一项极具争议的计划:以这些资产为抵押发行"乌克兰重建贷 款",总额预计达1400亿欧元,分期拨付给基辅政府。 更关键的是,这笔贷款并非无偿援助,而是设计了"战后追偿机制"——未来若俄罗斯支付战争赔偿,需 优先偿还贷款,剩余部分才可能解冻原始资产。 这一计划的逻辑链条看似严密,却在国际社会引发轩然大波。俄罗斯将其斥为"金融海盗行为",欧盟内 部也因法律风险和政治分歧争论不休。但在乌克兰财政濒临崩溃的当下,欧洲似乎已将这步 ...
地缘经济论 | 第十二章 金融制裁与反制裁
中金点睛· 2025-09-29 01:45
Core Viewpoint - Finance is a key battleground in geopolitical economic competition, with financial sanctions being increasingly utilized by major powers to achieve both economic and non-economic objectives. The rise of financial sanctions is driven by external factors such as network effects and technological advancements, as well as institutional design that allows certain countries to leverage their financial systems for asymmetric geopolitical advantages [2][3][4]. Group 1: Financial Sanctions Overview - Financial sanctions are defined as measures taken by one or more governments or international organizations to restrict the financial activities of specific countries, entities, or individuals to achieve certain economic or political goals [6][7]. - The number of financial sanctions has significantly increased in recent years, with the Global Sanctions Data Base (GSDB) reporting a rise from an average of 200 sanctions per year to over 500, indicating a shift in geopolitical competition from traditional military means to trade and financial tools [7][8]. Group 2: Mechanisms and Effects of Financial Sanctions - Financial sanctions can lead to a substantial increase in the target country's financial transaction costs, which can rise from approximately 0.5% to about 3%, significantly impacting financial stability and increasing the likelihood of sovereign defaults [24][29]. - The economic impact of financial sanctions largely depends on the size and openness of the target country. Larger and more open economies tend to have a greater capacity to withstand sanctions, while smaller economies may face more severe consequences [27][31]. Group 3: Differences in Financial Sanction Capabilities - The United States possesses the most robust financial sanction capabilities, supported by a comprehensive institutional framework that allows for swift implementation and enforcement of sanctions [16][19]. - The European Union has strong sanction capabilities but faces challenges in internal coordination, which can lead to more restrained execution of sanctions compared to the U.S. [20][21]. - China's financial sanction framework is still developing but has made significant strides in recent years, establishing legal foundations to respond to foreign sanctions [21][25]. Group 4: International Responses to Financial Sanctions - Countries facing financial sanctions can enhance the resilience of their financial systems and support high-risk enterprises as a short-term strategy. Long-term strategies include diversifying reserve assets and strengthening legal frameworks against sanctions [43][44]. - Utilizing physical assets to facilitate international financial cooperation and deepening financial ties with neighboring countries can also serve as effective countermeasures against financial sanctions [47][48].
中国抛售257亿美债,特朗普发出警告,美国政府或在10月1号就关门
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-09-21 16:44
Core Viewpoint - China has been actively reducing its holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds, selling $25.7 billion in July, bringing its total holdings down to $730.7 billion, the lowest level since 2009 [1][3]. Group 1: China's Actions - In 2022, China sold $173.2 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds, followed by $50.8 billion in 2023, and an additional $57.3 billion by July 2024 [3]. - The recent large-scale sale of over $200 billion indicates China's firm stance on reducing its U.S. bond holdings due to concerns over the reliability of U.S. economic and fiscal policies [3][5]. Group 2: U.S. Economic Concerns - The stability of the U.S. economy and government finances is crucial for maintaining confidence in the dollar and U.S. Treasury bonds [5]. - Concerns about a potential government shutdown due to budget disagreements between Democrats and Republicans have been raised, with a deadline approaching on September 30 [7]. Group 3: Global Financial Trends - The share of the dollar in global foreign exchange reserves has declined from over 70% in 2000 to 57.7% currently, indicating a downward trend in dollar dominance [13]. - Countries are increasingly seeking alternatives to the dollar for transactions, as evidenced by initiatives like the INSTEX system in the EU and currency swap agreements between China and the European Central Bank [13]. Group 4: Geopolitical Implications - The reduction of U.S. Treasury holdings by major buyers like China sends a significant signal to the U.S., indicating a shift in financial power dynamics [17]. - The use of financial instruments as a means of political leverage has transformed the nature of international relations, with countries exploring ways to reduce reliance on the dollar [15].
欧洲援乌资金全打水漂?上不了桌的欧盟急眼了!欧盟外长要俄赔钱
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-09-04 05:46
Core Points - The article discusses the strategic dilemma faced by Europe due to the prolonged Russia-Ukraine conflict, highlighting the EU's increasing pressure on Russia for compensation and the implications of financial sanctions [1][2][3] Group 1: EU's Position and Actions - The EU has shifted from cautious financial sanctions to a more aggressive stance, with a strong statement from Estonia's Foreign Minister emphasizing that Russian assets will not be unfrozen until full compensation is made to Ukraine [1] - The EU holds approximately €210 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets, with 80% managed by Euroclear [1] - The EU has provided €185 billion in aid to Ukraine, surpassing the €136 billion provided by the US, with the latest aid package amounting to €4.7 billion [1][2] Group 2: Financial Sanctions and Legal Risks - The EU's financial sanctions, initially seen as a "trump card," have led to proposals for utilizing the interest from frozen assets to support Ukraine, generating €3 billion annually [2] - There are significant divisions among EU member states regarding the approach to Russian assets, with some advocating for full confiscation while others warn of potential damage to the financial system [2] - Legal risks are highlighted, particularly regarding the potential violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations if sovereign assets are unilaterally confiscated [2] Group 3: Economic and Geopolitical Implications - Ukraine's reconstruction costs are estimated to exceed $1 trillion, with infrastructure damage assessed at $411 billion [3] - The geopolitical landscape is complicated by the US's control over Ukrainian lithium mining rights, while the EU struggles with an imbalance between investment and returns [3] - The article suggests that Europe is facing a harsh reality of underestimating Russia's resilience and overestimating US support, leading to a precarious financial situation [3]
欧盟外长放话:如果不赔偿乌克兰损失,俄罗斯别想拿回2100亿欧元
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-09-03 03:11
Core Viewpoint - The European financial system is increasingly becoming a political tool, with the EU's intention to use frozen Russian central bank assets to address Ukraine's fiscal needs highlighting strategic anxieties and policy dilemmas in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict [1][3]. Group 1: Financial Implications - The EU has frozen €210 billion of Russian central bank assets since the onset of the conflict, with €183 billion of core assets managed by Euroclear in Brussels [3]. - The European Policy Research Center estimates that Ukraine's fiscal deficit will exceed €8 billion by 2026, making the frozen Russian assets a potential "ready-made ATM" for funding [3]. Group 2: Legal and Systemic Risks - The unilateral freezing of a sovereign nation's central bank reserves is considered a dangerous precedent in the international financial order, undermining the principle of private property [4][5]. - The EU's plan to use these assets lacks legal basis and could lead to significant international legal disputes if the war's outcome changes [5][9]. Group 3: Internal EU Divisions - There are notable divisions within the EU regarding the handling of these assets, with warnings from Belgian and Hungarian officials about the potential destabilization of the global financial system [11]. - The potential for capital flight and currency volatility could exceed the current fiscal crisis if emerging market countries withdraw from the European financial system [11]. Group 4: Strategic Gamble - The EU's decision to target frozen assets reflects a desperate financial situation and urgent funding needs for Ukraine, but it risks catastrophic consequences for the EU's financial credibility [11]. - The situation is likened to a modern "Trojan Horse," where the EU may sacrifice its long-term financial stability for short-term tactical gains in supporting Ukraine [11].
被打疼了?美方试探与中国打关税战,欧洲领导人做了同一个动作
Sou Hu Cai Jing· 2025-08-18 03:49
Group 1 - The core issue of the US-China trade conflict is highlighted by the recent silence from G7 leaders when US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin proposed a 200% secondary tariff on China, indicating a significant divide in economic strategies between the US and Europe [3][5][7] - European countries are deeply intertwined with China through their supply chains, making it difficult for them to support US-led sanctions against China, as evidenced by comments from European diplomats regarding their reliance on Chinese manufacturing [3][5] - The US's imposition of tariffs has led to increased costs for American consumers while simultaneously boosting Chinese exports to the US, demonstrating the counterproductive nature of such tariffs [3][7][9] Group 2 - China's recent sanctions against two European banks serve as a strategic response to EU sanctions, targeting the financial sector to exert pressure while leaving room for future negotiations [5][9] - The economic interdependence between Europe and China is underscored by statements from European officials, warning against attempts to decouple from China, with some noting that European banks earn significantly more in China than in North America [5][9] - The US's attempts to form a "anti-China tariff alliance" face resistance from European nations, who are cautious about the potential economic repercussions of aligning too closely with US policies [9][11]