Europe has crossed a line it will never uncross.
Not with tanks, not with treaties, not with declarations of war, but with something far more permanent: the politicisation of sovereign property. When Friedrich Merz announced an “interest-free” €90 billion loan to Ukraine while insisting Russian sovereign assets remain frozen until Moscow “compensates” Kiev, he was not issuing a warning to the Kremlin. He was delivering a notice to the world that Europe’s legal order has become conditional, transactional, and dangerously ideological. That notice will outlive the war, outlast this Commission, and reshape global finance in ways Brussels no longer controls.
This is not a misunderstanding. It is not confusion. It is not excess rhetoric. It is intent.
Brussels does not merely know that outright seizure of Russian sovereign assets is illegal under international law, it has attempted to do it anyway. What stopped it was not law, not conscience, not precedent, but resistance from within: Hungary, Belgium, Slovakia, Malta, Italy, and a growing number of EU members who understand that once sovereign immunity is broken, it is broken for everyone. Ursula von der Leyen made this explicit when she declared she would not leave the table until a “solution” was found. And she didn’t. The solution was not one restraint. It was reconfiguration.
The outcome of the EU summit revealed far more in failure than success. Despite immense political pressure and marathon negotiations, the European Union could not secure unanimous approval to confiscate or directly deploy Russia’s frozen central bank reserves—estimated at roughly €210 billion across the EU, with around €185 billion immobilised at Euroclear in Belgium. Belgium refused to turn Euroclear into a geopolitical weapon. Hungary refused to sign Europe’s financial suicide pact. Others quietly backed them. Blocked from seizure, Brussels pivoted, and not away from the objective, but toward a different, equally radioactive architecture.
Forced into retreat on outright confiscation, the Commission fell back to borrowing: a €90 billion package raised on capital markets, secured against the EU budget with stolen assets as de-facto collateral, and while Russian assets remain frozen indefinitely as leverage. The money is now socialised through European debt; the coercion is externalised through permanent asset immobilisation. This separation is not a compromise. It is a doctrine.
This distinction is existential.
Because while Brussels failed to seize the assets outright, it succeeded in something far more dangerous, it established the principle that sovereign reserves can be frozen indefinitely and politically conditioned without judicial process, treaty settlement, or legal adjudication, even while war financing is laundered through “normal” capital-market borrowing. This is not rule-of-law financing. It is imperial finance, clean on the balance sheet, corrosive in precedent.
Under customary international law, sovereign immunity, particularly for central bank assets, is not ambiguous. It is foundational. The UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, though not universally ratified, codifies a norm long treated as binding: the property of a foreign central bank is immune from measures of constraint. That norm exists for one reason only, to prevent financial warfare from metastasizing into systemic collapse. Europe is now openly hollowing it out. No court ruling. No reparations treaty. No arbitration award. Just political assertion backed by majority pressure.
The legal fiction is that the assets are merely “frozen.” The reality is that indefinite freezing with political conditions attached, especially when decoupled from judicial process, constitutes expropriation in substance, if not in form. International lawyers recognise this distinction instantly. Markets will too.
Europe has crossed a line it will never uncross.
— THE ISLANDER (@IslanderWORLD) December 19, 2025
Not with tanks, not with treaties, not with declarations of war, but with something far more permanent: the politicisation of sovereign property. When Friedrich Merz announced an “interest-free” €90 billion loan to Ukraine while… https://t.co/B3WzRxkbzJ pic.twitter.com/xBjrW4orzA
For the first time in the history of the European Union, 24 member states have jointly granted a war loan to a country outside the Union. This is not a technical detail but a qualitative shift. The logic of a loan is clear: whoever lends money wants it back. In this case,… pic.twitter.com/jeBi6A2e29
— Orbán Viktor (@PM_ViktorOrban) December 20, 2025
Make no mistake: Ukraine’s collapse would be a disaster for Hungary. Stability next door matters. Hungary supplies 44% of Ukraine’s electricity and 58% of its gas. Meanwhile, the war weakens Ukraine day by day. Peace is the only thing that can strengthen it. Anyone who truly… pic.twitter.com/PxwEe0iXYL
— Orbán Viktor (@PM_ViktorOrban) December 20, 2025
Pero todos esos fenómenos-paradojas no significan más que "política", y nos enseñan que la política es la maniobra de lo más por lo menos, del número inmenso por el número pequeño, de lo real por las imágenes y palabras,-es decir que se trata de una mecánica de modificaciones.
(1944. Sin título, XXIX, 105)
Europa ha terminado su carrera. Ver el mapa del mundo. 1945-1815=130
(1945. Turning Point, XXIX, 798)
PAUL VALÉRY (Cuadernos (1894-1945). Edición de Andrés Sánchez Robayna)
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property
The States Parties to the present Convention,
Considering that the jurisdictional immunities of States and their
property are generally accepted as a principle of customary international law,
Having in mind the principles of international law embodied in the
Charter of the United Nations,
Believing that an international convention on the jurisdictional
immunities of States and their property would enhance the rule of law and
legal certainty, particularly in dealings of States with natural or juridical
persons, and would contribute to the codification and development of
international law and the harmonization of practice in this area,
Taking into account developments in State practice with regard to the
jurisdictional immunities of States and their property,
Affirming that the rules of customary international law continue to
govern matters not regulated by the provisions of the present Convention,
Have agreed as follows:
(...)
Article 5
State immunity
A State enjoys immunity, in respect of itself and its property, from the
jurisdiction of the courts of another State subject to the provisions of the
present Convention.
Article 6
Modalities for giving effect to State immunity
1. A State shall give effect to State immunity under article 5 by refraining
from exercising jurisdiction in a proceeding before its courts against another
State and to that end shall ensure that its courts determine on their own
initiative that the immunity of that other State under article 5 is respected.
2. A proceeding before a court of a State shall be considered to have been
instituted against another State if that other State:
(a) is named as a party to that proceeding; or
(b) is not named as a party to the proceeding but the proceeding in
effect seeks to affect the property, rights, interests or activities of that other
State.
(...)
Article 18
State immunity from pre-judgment measures of constraint
No pre-judgment measures of constraint, such as attachment or arrest,
against property of a State may be taken in connection with a proceeding
before a court of another State unless and except to the extent that:
(a) the State has expressly consented to the taking of such measures
as indicated:
(i) by international agreement;
(ii) by an arbitration agreement or in a written contract; or
(iii) by a declaration before the court or by a written communication
after a dispute between the parties has arisen; or
(b) the State has allocated or earmarked property for the satisfaction
of the claim which is the object of that proceeding.
Article 19
State immunity from post-judgment measures of constraint
No post-judgment measures of constraint, such as attachment, arrest or
execution, against property of a State may be taken in connection with a
proceeding before a court of another State unless and except to the extent that:
(a) the State has expressly consented to the taking of such measures
as indicated:
(i) by international agreement;
(ii) by an arbitration agreement or in a written contract; or
(iii) by a declaration before the court or by a written communication
after a dispute between the parties has arisen; or
(b) the State has allocated or earmarked property for the satisfaction
of the claim which is the object of that proceeding; or
(c) it has been established that the property is specifically in use or
intended for use by the State for other than government non-commercial
purposes and is in the territory of the State of the forum, provided that post-
judgment measures of constraint may only be taken against property that has a
connection with the entity against which the proceeding was directed.
(...)
Article 21
Specific categories of property
1. The following categories, in particular, of property of a State shall not
be considered as property specifically in use or intended for use by the State
for other than government non-commercial purposes under article 19,
subparagraph (c):
(a) property, including any bank account, which is used or intended
for use in the performance of the functions of the diplomatic mission of the
State or its consular posts, special missions, missions to international
organizations or delegations to organs of international organizations or to
international conferences;
(b) property of a military character or used or intended for use in the
performance of military functions;
(c) property of the central bank or other monetary authority of the
State;
(d) property forming part of the cultural heritage of the State or part
of its archives and not placed or intended to be placed on sale;
(e) property forming part of an exhibition of objects of scientific,
cultural or historical interest and not placed or intended to be placed on sale.
2. Paragraph 1 is without prejudice to article 18 and article 19,
subparagraphs (a) and (b).
Artículo 18
Inmunidad del Estado respecto de medidas coercitivas anteriores al fallo
No podrán adoptarse contra bienes de un Estado, en relación con un
proceso ante un tribunal de otro Estado, medidas coercitivas anteriores
al fallo como el embargo y la ejecución, sino en los casos y dentro
de los límites siguientes:
a) cuando el Estado haya consentido expresamente en la adopción de tales medidas, en los términos indicados:
i) por acuerdo internacional;
ii) por un acuerdo de arbitraje en un contrato escrito; o
iii) por una declaración ante el tribunal o por una comunicación escrita
después de haber surgido una controversia entre las partes; o
b) cuando el Estado haya asignado o destinado bienes a la satisfacción de la demanda objeto de ese proceso.
No comments:
Post a Comment