Diplomatic Equity or Iniquity?: Russian Assets to Ukraine

It is classically and academically known that at times of war and conflict, the first party to get involved through military action and intervention, is the side that holds full responsibility and accountability for the upcoming outcomes and consequences. That includes financial, political, and even legal consequences of the aftermath of it. Regardless of  how it was done and why, the first step towards intervention in means of definition and application in accordance to International Law and norms of the international system and courts, holds full responsibility of the outcomes to the initiator of the context.

The Russian and Ukrainian matter of conflict has been an on-going push and pull mechanism of complete control and passive engagement between both sides. Multiple countries and unions have joined forces to form a peaceful solution and borderlines to protect  borders and civilians from being exploited as the outcome extended to further geopolitical tensions, creating domestic and international instability. But all attempts were met with severe failure as Russia claimed their position of sovereignty over Ukrainian lands with a strong justification that resembled protection of the Russian civilians within Ukraine.

Both countries  are historically and geographically united, through their respective borders and shared history that can never be denied or forgotten, however, political developments come in with the need for more. More power, more influence and more lands to extend the boundaries and the ability to be more prosperous and secure using the resources and the  borderlines of regional states as buffer zones. Buffer zones are increasingly important for the protection of national interests and sovereignty of states, especially when the nation state is as powerful as Russia. And in this case scenario, the need for multiple thick buffer zones are required to meet geopolitical and security ends as far as protection and authority goes.

The geopolitical implications and the tactical need for protection have threatened the livelihood of people. Both parties have lost lives, but in the calculation of humanitarian needs and losses, Ukrainian citizens have suffered and lost the most from this crisis. Homes were destroyed and infrastructures were damaged to the ground, leaving thousands of people in need of shelter and infrastructure to assess them with their daily lives. Despite the financial and humanitarian support provided by the political powers and major international organizations, the support is time-limited. In other words, the support given by major organizations and world powers are meant to serve Ukraine for a limited time, it’s a period of recovery. Yet, from an international perspective, this kind of support is meant when the war is over, and not when a specific country continues to be affected on daily bases. And in this case, the financial and humanitarian support is limited and based on covering the outer bases of the country, and the entire rooted infrastructure and resources that are meant to be supported to stand independently for a longer time.

Ukraine lost and continues to lose the conflict, and that is adding more into the country’s economic recovery and development for when the war is over. Although in the past few weeks, the American administration through President Trump’s efforts have proposed a plan for a peaceful settlement between Russia and Ukraine, but it was met with a rejection due to the fact that the proposition was designed with any the consent of Ukraine or even have them as a sided party of it, That led to another construction from the European Union. A reconstructed plan designed to meet and contribute into Ukraine’s welfare for the long-term with their consent and notice of all the points that would be officially and globally met.

Among the points covered was the the whole idea of covering the economic situation and costs of rebuilding the country and the infrastructure that contributes to the development of Ukraine when war is officially over. And that by means of the law regards Russia to take full accountability of their actions and fully contribute to the country’s development through financial assistance from their side. Which resulted in a final approval from the EU about Russian frozen assets that will be loaned to Ukraine as part of rebuilding and reconstructing the country, with a total of €90BN.

Although the aforesaid is a major step towards rebuilding Ukraine, politicians and law makers are still working on the probabilities of the success of this process due to the presence of Russian forces and troops in Ukraine and other borders of the region that Russia claims to have authority and historical sovereignty over. And that’s makes the calculation more complicated due to the continuation of the situation and not the end of it.

Not only that, but respectfully, President Putin have stated that loaning  Russian assets to Ukraine is “burglary” and that Russian forces will continue their operations and efforts to restore order over their lands that are part of Ukraine at the moment. The choices of words were wisely used by the President, as the word burglary refers to a specific purpose of a situation. And by that, it is a declaration of the continuation of the military operations, especially when the Russian administration is not engaged and in denial of what is really happening on the outer border of the context.

For the global community, equity and justice has been served. As it is one of the many ways to ensure a solid foundation of recovery and development of Ukraine through international assistance and official support that can’t  be breached by any means as far as the law suggests. Yet, to the extent of the contrary, it seems that there are many reasons for this kind of support to fail, and that concerns the general consensus of the continuation of the attacks on Ukraine that will make the recovery gap wider as the period of enforced operations extend.

Although peace is, and will continue to be the primary concern and goal of the EU and the international courts, along with world powers who continue to support Ukraine by all means, it is also important to consider the possibility of failure in this context as war continues with no political and geopolitical stability of equity being served. And that makes Ukraine in a position of a short-lived financial stability that will eventually lead to a long-term instability as more attacks are likely to occur through the period following the decision.

That said, justice can be served both politically and financially. And that engulfs both aspects of war that would lead towards a better and lasting recovery and peace. Through a combination of mutual benefit and respect of the two involved parties, the ultimate form of equity and stability would be served. But as long accountability is not maintained and preserved, the outcome of failure is  most likely to be the outcome.

All in all, politics have the habit of changing, and the first step towards success was set and solidified  through precise decisions and official approval from higher levels of authority, and shall be the string of hope that the affected party would hold on to for a longer period of time and to continue the process of reform in order to achieve the desired result of a long-term political settlement through peace.