First Tranche of Weapons to Ukraine; Seizing Russian Assets?

From Bloomberg: Upon signing the foreign assistance bill, this is what’s heading to Ukraine first tranche ($1bn):

  • Stinger anti-aircraft missiles
  • Small arms and additional rounds of small arms ammunition
  • Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS)
  • Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles
  • Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles
  • High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs)
  • Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles
  • Javelin and AT-4 anti-armor systems
  • Claymore anti-personnel munitions

This is in addition to longer-range ATACMS.

Also:

The new law also empowers Biden to seize an estimated $5 billion in Russian assets in US banks and repurpose them to assist Ukraine. Critics have argued any unilateral move to do that without allies would weaken the dollar and hurt demand for US Treasury bonds.

I, along with others (e.g., Sobel, Strain, others), have argued that the US is not willing to flex our dollar-based muscle now, then when (really, who are you gonna run to, if you get out of US Treasurys?). Of course, it is critical that we have our European allies on board, since they have potential control over most of Russian assets abroad.

By the way, who’s against seizure? Well, Rand Paul and J.D. Vance. For me, ’nuff said.

 

57 thoughts on “First Tranche of Weapons to Ukraine; Seizing Russian Assets?

  1. pgl

    “Confiscating Russia’s sovereign assets is an act of economic war.” – Rand Paul. WTF? Like Putin’s war crimes are a stroll the park?

    Of course Rand Paul would have no problem seizing the Trust Funds assets in the Social Security system to pay for more tax cuts for the rich.

    Reply
    1. Willie

      Rand “eraserhead” Paul acts like an asset on Putin’s payroll. And when has he ever said anything with saying?

      Reply
  2. Moses Herzog

    Uh oh……. One of the cool kids isn’t allowed to sit at the cool kids table anymore, because he said obsessing over gender and race is boring, and the ratings show it is boring the hell out of people.
    https://www.npr.org/2024/04/16/1244962042/npr-editor-uri-berliner-suspended-essay

    Well, Michel Martin and Katherine Maher will take care of this person, for discussing diversity of topics when we all know “real diversity” is discussing gender/race in 95% of your stories. That makes for “diversified” minds with “diverse” problem solving sets in life.

    Here’s NPR diversity:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Maher#/media/File:Katherine_Maher_(cropped).jpg
    Raised in Wilton Connecticut. Father a Goldman Sachs Exec. From Wiki: A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Maher worked for UNICEF, the National Democratic Institute, the World Bank and Access Now before joining the Wikimedia Foundation. She subsequently joined the Atlantic Council and the US Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

    Well, I’m convinced. Maher “feels our pain”. So lets get this straight, if she pats studio-glued “journalists” like Michel Martin on the head enough times, she gets to be lifetime CEO at NPR?? Is this like a Neera Tanden type liberal scam/swindle, or….. ???

    Reply
    1. Macroduck

      What bothers me about NPR is that it spends so much time trying to be cool that it has lost its edge. Soooo much time is spent trying to be like Oprah that a lot of the news is left fallow. I know the BBC does the same thing in some ways bu the BBC is huge relative to NPR, so however much gooey-feely stuff they present, the news gets done.

      “How I Built This” is formulaic as any cable reality show. “Well, I had to scrape up money any way I could, and I made some mistakes, and it was slow at first, but it was my PASSION!!!!” Rinse and repeat.

      Much of the “diverse” coverage is gooey-feely. There is endless real news to be covered in black communities, hispanic communiies, Native American and Asian and Muslim communiies, but NPR feeds us pablum. Blech!

      Reply
  3. Steven Kopits

    Seizure is a very tricky issue, if one is speaking of bank assets. We are not at war with Russia as a legal matter.

    Reply
      1. Macroduck

        You beat me to it.

        Here’s the thing about the rule of law, which Russia, Chima, Vance and Trump all reject: the law applies to those who abide by it and thosnwho break it. If there is to b international law, we can’t set it aside just because Russia does. Or because Trump does, or because it doesn’t suit J.D. Vance (or his Kremlin masters). At the same time, the law is eaningless if we don’t enforce it. Lack of precedennt is only a problem until precedent is established. I’d be happy to see a precedent which allows the seizure of aggressor nations’ assets. And yes, I know what that implies for the U.S.

        Reply
      2. pgl

        Seizing Frozen Russian Assets Over Ukraine War Wins Endorsement of Legal Experts
        Letter from scholars backing seizure is circulating in G-7
        ‘It would be lawful, under international law,’ 10 experts say

        Who to trust – people trained in international law or the world’s worst consultant who faired as an accountant for the Hungarian branch of Deloitte.

        Reply
      3. Anonymous

        Who legislates international law?

        Once some court decides a law is broken, who enforces the verdict?

        What precedent exists for seizing assets whether in banks or on the high seas or in someone’s port? Outside of war.

        Seems to me seizing things or bonds, etc. is closing to diplomacy by other means.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          Maybe you did not read Michael Strain’s piece that our host linked to but I did. Note:

          ‘The case that asset seizure is permissible under international law as a countermeasure to Russia’s aggression and destruction is compelling. There is even precedent. In 1992, the US and EU member states used Iraqi state assets to compensate Saddam Hussein’s victims from Kuwait and other states without his regime’s consent.’

          I would submit your questions were addressed by the links in this post. The fact that you did not read them means your comment is another piece of worthless trolling.

          Reply
      4. Steven Kopits

        All but $6 bn of the frozen Russian bank assets are in Europe, notably at EuroClear in Belgium. Thus, for such a seizure to work, the Europeans have to pass parallel legislation.

        Make no mistake, the Russians will treat this as an act of war, because it is. Is it worthwhile for the US to do this for $6 bn? I don’t think the Europeans will have the stomach to risk war with Russia.

        Notwithstanding, the REPO Act has some very interesting provisions. It establishes the Ukraine Support Fund, which is materially the Compensation Fund that proposed as supporting the restructuring of the Price Cap. The bill also directs the President to seek to establish, with foreign partners, an international mechanism to provide compensation to Ukraine using the Ukraine Support Fund and Russian sovereign assets confiscated by foreign partners.

        Definitely two steps in the right direction. They do read my notes on the Hill!

        https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4175

        Reply
        1. Macroduck

          “Make no mistake, the Russians will treat this as an act of war, because it is. Is it worthwhile for the US to do this for $6 bn? I don’t think the Europeans will have the stomach to risk war with Russia.”

          “Treat this as an act of war” and do what that they aren’t already doing?

          The U.S. isn’t doing it for the $6 billion.

          What you think doesn’t have anything to do with the outcome. We’ve been over this time and time again.

          Reply
          1. Steven Kopits

            Well, what are they doing it for? Are you saying that the US can freeze assets held by other countries, eg Belgium, without their permission?

          2. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Steven Kopits: The argument has been (read Sobel, Strain – they’re the ones that I cited) that we do this in conjunction with our European allies. SecTreas Yellen did not believe she had authority to do it for the US until passage of REPO Act.

          3. Steven Kopits

            Then we have to see what the allies do, don’t we? Meanwhile, we have a Biden administration who hasn’t even said the it wants Ukraine to win and that the US is prepared to do everything in its power to achieve that outcome. Frankly, the REPO bill is in some ways more aggressive than the Biden administration has been wrt to ATACMS and the Support Fund.

            So it’s fine to talk about about courage from our allies. But it would be a bit more compelling if the US seemed fully committed itself.

            And I am not convinced that the seizure of Russian assets would stand up in court. Can the US do that to a country with which it is not at war without any due process? Courts might be skeptical. The Russian central bank is reputed to have excellent legal counsel in the US and its assets are well ring-fenced, as I understand it.

            So, I think the REPO Act is a step in the right direction, but it is small potatoes compared to what the Belgians have to do, and I suspect seizing that money may be more complicated than you may presume.

          4. Steven Kopits

            Most of the legislative aids dealing with Ukraine are on my distribution list, and I can see that they virtually all read what I write. Correlation, of course, is not causality, but there is a plausible linkage between what I have written and REPO.

          5. Moses Herzog

            Let’s not ever forget Steven Kopits’ original offered solution to Russia’s aggression and genocide in Ukraine that Kopits proposed two years ago:
            https://econbrowser.com/archives/2022/03/employment-in-february#comment-269830

            3. A Generous Settlement
            “In this version, the Russians retreat to their bases, with lines as they existed on February 1st. The Russians purchase the occupied territories of Donbas and Crimea for $625 bn ($25 bn x 25 years), which the Ukrainians sell in a voluntary transaction, thereby, ending territorial disputes and allowing normalization of relations between Russia and Ukraine / Europe. The current round of sanctions are lifted when a deal is reached and the first $25 bn payment is received by Kyiv. The remaining sanctions are lifted in stages over 36 months, such that no sanctions will be left after three years of the signing of the agreement. Ukraine will be formally neutral and will not enter into NATO during the period of the agreement subject to Russia acting in a non-threatening way (as the military defines this). Ukraine will have no nukes on its territory during this period. However, Ukraine can cooperate with and acquire non-nuclear weapons from any provider, including NATO countries during the agreement, and can enter the EU if mutually agreeable. Russian and Ukraine will have normal relations, eg, provision of water to Crimea under normal commercial terms, transit of gas, etc, etc. Russian minorities in Ukraine may be offered certain guarantees (eg, Russian language education, etc.)

            That’s the deal I would offer Putin. If he prefers nuclear war to Option 3, well, we’re going to have a nuclear war sooner or later anyway.”

            The shorthand version of Kopits’ idea for peace with Russia: “Offer Putin tons of land, that is not his, for pennies on the dollar, along with Ukraine’s national sovereignty, and Putin will go back to his man cave/den and watch Gilligan’s Island repeats.”

          6. Steven Kopits

            That’s a great deal, Moses. I stand by it. Indeed, I encourage you not to forget it. Remember, remember always that a better deal could have been achieved with some initiative and creativity.

            So to recap my view:

            “In this version, the Russians retreat to their bases, with lines as they existed on February 1st. The Russians purchase the occupied territories of Donbas and Crimea for $625 bn ($25 bn x 25 years), which the Ukrainians sell in a voluntary transaction, thereby, ending territorial disputes and allowing normalization of relations between Russia and Ukraine / Europe. The current round of sanctions are lifted when a deal is reached and the first $25 bn payment is received by Kyiv. The remaining sanctions are lifted in stages over 36 months, such that no sanctions will be left after three years of the signing of the agreement. Ukraine will be formally neutral and will not enter into NATO during the period of the agreement subject to Russia acting in a non-threatening way (as the military defines this). Ukraine will have no nukes on its territory during this period. However, Ukraine can cooperate with and acquire non-nuclear weapons from any provider, including NATO countries during the agreement, and can enter the EU if mutually agreeable. Russian and Ukraine will have normal relations, eg, provision of water to Crimea under normal commercial terms, transit of gas, etc, etc. Russian minorities in Ukraine may be offered certain guarantees (eg, Russian language education, etc.)”

            Instead, Moses, you seem to prefer what we got. As of today, the Ukrainian body count of Russian and Russian-allied soldiers is 465,000. Ukrainian losses, including civilians may be in the 150,000 range. So we’re at 600,000 causalities today, something like that. The cost to Ukraine has been on the order of $300-$500 billion, and to the US and European allies, maybe $200 bn including this last round.

            By the end of the war, I expect the Russian body count above 1 million, maybe 300,000 Ukrainians, and a total cost in excess of $1 trillion. You think that’s superior to no causalities and a net gain to Ukraine equaling 4x GDP? I flatly, categorically disagree.

          7. Macroduck

            A response to various comments ts below:

            Stevie repeatedly offers his own doubts as evidence against some proposition, as in: “And I am not convinced that the seizure of Russian assets would stand up in court.” So what? For the purposes of analyzing national and international law, Stevie is nothing more than some guy on a barstool. Real live international legal scholars offer opinions and Stevie declares he is unconvinced, without something as a single supporting argument. Hilarious.

            Stevie has cribbed ideas from around the internet, stitched them together and offered them up as his own. When some of those ideas seem to be reflected in official discussions, Stevie insists the important people are surreptitiously reading his blog. Yet somehow, traffic on his blog is next to nonexistent. So needy. Stevie give a faux-news-style “read” of the atmospherics:

            “So it’s fine to talk about about courage from our allies. But it would be a bit more compelling if the US seemed fully committed itself.”

            “So, I think the REPO Act is a step in the right direction, but it is small potatoes compared to what the Belgians have to do, and I suspect seizing that money may be more complicated than you may presume.”

            Stevie doesn’t know what anyone presumes. His view that any piece of legislation is good or bad is beside the point in a court of law. He tells us that his blog is read by “all the right people”, but doesn’t show us the evidence. And, both way, “all the right people” in DC, Brussels, Beijing, Moscow, Paris, Tokyo and Cleveland generally subscribe to every damned thing they can. Taking the temperature of crackpots is unhappy work, but someone has to do it.

            Self-aggrandizement is a pretty sure indicator of low self esteem. Stevie fell off the escalator a long time ago, and it shows.

          8. Moses herzog

            @ Steven Kopits
            “You think that’s superior to no causalities and a net gain to Ukraine equaling 4x GDP? I flatly, categorically disagree.”

            Your utterly asinine assumption that under your preposterous offer to Putin there would be zero casualties, is only comparable to Neville Chamberlain’s assumption that signing the Munich Agreement would avoid war and millions of deaths. I’ll let “the gentle reader” decide which one, you or Chamberlain, is dumber.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R69173,_M%C3%BCnchener_Abkommen,_Staatschefs.jpg

          9. Steven Kopits

            Since no one offered the deal, we do not know what Putin would have done. Putin’s immediate problem at the start of the war was that Russia was stuck on Crimea, as the Ukrainians were not providing it water. Therefore, the status quo was not acceptable, but retreat, from the Russian perspective was not acceptable, either. Therefore, aggression was the last plausible alternative. I think, from the Russian perspective, Crimea is a must-have, taking all of Ukraine is a nice-to-have.

            In any event, I can say that I am fairly confident that, had Putin known how events would play out, he would not have started this war.

          10. Moses Herzog

            Steve Kopits says, and I quote: “Therefore, the status quo was not acceptable, but retreat, from the Russian perspective was not acceptable, either. “

            So non-invasion of the rest of Ukraine after the Russian aggression on Crimea, Kopits defines as “retreat”. It’s turns of phrase such as the above, which eliminate all bewilderment why The Imbecile from Ithaca who predicted no 2nd Russian aggression on Ukraine fawned over Kopits.

        2. pgl

          Lord – your arrogance exceeds your stupidity. A House proposal written last year was motivated by your bloviating? Come on now.

          And BTW your attempt to be Putin’s lawyer is as laughable as it is disgusting.

          Reply
          1. Moses Herzog

            Kopits admitted here more than once he wanted to be part of the MAGA White House. Kopits is the poor man’s Paul Manafort.

          2. pgl

            Steven Kopits
            April 26, 2024 at 11:27am

            This comment is proof that little Stevie boy is a delusional clown. I’ve read what he has written here and it is beyond stupid. And yea – Moses has captured how utterly two faced Stevie boy really is.

            Some one please take this delusional clown to the Cuckoo’s Nest for his own safety.

          3. pgl

            Steven Kopits
            April 28, 2024 at 7:07 am
            ‘Since no one offered the deal, we do not know what Putin would have done.’

            I said it earlier but Macroduck said it best. Stevie is one sick puppy. Someone take away this mentally retarded clown’s internet privileges for his own sake. The notion that Putin would have been satisfied with only portion of Ukraine maybe nuttier than this clown’s suppression theory of macroeconomics. Seriously – most stupid people I know are at least smart enough to know they are stupid. But Stevie is under this delusion that he is the expert on everything even as it is clear he knows absolutely nothing about any topic.

    1. pgl

      The post link to a discussion of the legal issues and there was another link to an excellent paper by Laurence H. Tribe, Raymond P. Tolentino, Kate M. Harris, Jackson Erpenbach, and Jeremy Lewin

      Yea – we get you think you know more than the true experts on everything so something tells me you will not bother to read this either. I’m doing so and it is much more principled to the usual gibberish you write.

      Reply
  4. Macroduck

    The passage of a law allowing seizure of Russian assets was, in fact, a necessary step in the seizure. Till now, U.S. law did not provide legal auhority to do so. That has been one impediment to negotiations with allies over the coordinated seizure of assets.

    The new U.S. law also narrowly limits seizure to Russian assets, in keeping with legal scholars recommendations:

    https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/some-tips-for-congress-on-how-to-seize-russian-assets

    As to legality, the Swiss have announced that they have the legal right to seize Russian assets:

    https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/switzerland-has-legal-basis-to-use-frozen-russian-money-for-ukraine/48256312

    Most of the frozen assets, however, are at EuroClear in Belgium, and I haven’t found anything on Belgian law.

    As to international law, the debate is still underway, a major problem being the lack of precedent when not engage in war. Ukraine could legally seize Russian assets, but questions arise for other countries. That said, there are legal theories in support of seizing Russian assets:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-21/seizing-frozen-russian-assets-over-ukraine-war-wins-endorsement-of-legal-experts

    Perhaps it is worth noting that “critics”, including Vance and Paul, are repeating talking points offered to them by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov when they say that the dollar or U.S. bonds will be hurt if Russian assets are seized. Those assets have already been frozen – the dollar is doing well, than you very much, and term premium, where reduce foreign demand would show up, remains near zero despite a rise in response to rising expectations for the fed funds rate:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1kOwO

    Reply
  5. Ithaqua

    The total frozen Russian assets are about $300B, and the total U.S. debt is around $35T, more than 100x. Not exactly seeing how seizing and selling off even 100% of the former will have a noticeable impact on the interest rate(s) and payments on the latter.

    Rand Paul is economically illiterate, and I’m guessing Vance is just reflexively pro-Russian, turning off his brain when anything related to Russia comes up.

    Reply
    1. Menzie Chinn Post author

      Ithaqua: Won’t affect overall US debt, but these resources would be available to Ukraine without having to go to Congress to get authorization, appropriation, etc.

      Reply
      1. Moses Herzog

        David Brooks: “This Curly guy really impresses me in the brains dept, haven’t seen anything like him since Moe”

        Reply
        1. Moses Herzog

          James Kwak has torn David Brooks to shreds multiple times, and much more eloquently than I can manage.

          Reply
  6. Moses Herzog

    The White House needs to get serious about this and quit dawdling around.
    https://www.reuters.com/world/us-take-aim-chinese-banks-aiding-russia-war-effort-wsj-reports-2024-04-23/

    China is well aware of American diplomats’ perennial habit of making empty threats. It’s time Biden’s White House showed that at least some of their threats related to nations helping Russia commit genocide in Ukraine are not empty threats. Bluffs don’t work anymore. Pulling the trigger of a gun that shoots out a small flag that says “Bang!!!!” doesn’t work anymore.

    Reply
  7. pgl

    https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product

    Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 1.6 percent in the first quarter of 2024, according to the “advance” estimate. In the fourth quarter of 2023, real GDP increased 3.4 percent. The increase in the first quarter primarily reflected increases in consumer spending and housing investment that were partly offset by a decrease in inventory investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

    Consumption demand grew by 2.5% on an annualized basis. Residential and fixed business investment grew by more. OK inventory investment fell a lot. Imports grew by more than exports (dollar appreciation). We also had a decline in defense spending but that is about to be reversed.

    Reply
    1. Ivan

      Thanks for getting into these critical details. The health of the consumer (economy) often show up as increased imports which reduce the GDP even as it points to a better economy. Same for inventory reductions (bad for the GDP number, but often an indicator of robust consumption).

      Reply
  8. Moses Herzog

    It appears TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) TV host and scam products endorser Mike Huckabee has taught his daughter Sarah Huckabee Sanders many important lessons of Christianity and morality. “After your husband screws around with public fornicators, pay the women to shut up about it”. Mike Huckabee must view this as the unspoken 11th commandment. Assumably valid for his daughter Sarah’s husband as well.
    https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/04/25/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/aides-discussed-mcdougals-agreement-00154420

    The entire Huckabee family is a very very classy bunch.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      ‘Pecker reveals Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Hope Hicks discussed extending McDougal’s agreement’

      What they did was a clear violation of the Hatch Act. Huh – I guess Hatch’s ethical guidance only applies to Democratic White Houses.

      Reply
      1. Moses Herzog

        If I knock on that Bunker door later today when a QLCS tornado is one city block away from my house, if I tell them I’m a taxpayer, they’ll let me in right??

        I assumed it was someone’s last name when I made that cornball Dad joke, but your theory is probably better than mine. I don’t bother with TV anymore during these “events” I watch my local Mesonet and “Weather Underground” website. That way I can watch the radar near my town for myself instead of watch a geographically challenged “meteorologist” (degree from Fruit Loops cereal box) tell me the tornado is located 10 millimeters from his index finger.

        I advise others to find the NWS Mesonet website in your state (most states have one I think), and the “Weather Underground” website and do the same when tornado events hit your area, instead of watching clueless TV weathermen who are interested in tornado video—they don’t care about your family’s safety, trust me. They care about video footage of tornadoes—not telling people locations. Type ” radar.weather.gov ” then type a major city near you, it will show the radar from NWS.

        F— the TV weatherman. Only YOU are gonna take care of your family, no one else.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          I just saw a story about this awful storm (guess I’ve been too into the NBA playoffs). Hope you stay safe.

          Reply
          1. Moses Herzog

            The only place near me that got hit was Sulphur Oklahoma, Most of the bad tornadoes were way north of me in Nebraska and Iowa, so, as per usual, I was exceedingly exceedingly lucky, we did have a couple of “hook echos” just to the south and barely east of us. So there was one scary moment lasting roughly 10–15 minutes, but the two “hook echos” did not develop into a tornado. So someone “upstairs” was looking out for me. Thanks for the sentiments. I’ll take any prayers I can get when my area gets into what NWS calls “moderate risk” or above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *