US, UK signal support for EU windfall tax plan on using frozen Russian assets for Ukraine reconstruction

1 / 2
US President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrive for an expanded bilateral meeting at the White House in Washington on September 21, 2023. (AFP)
2 / 2
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, top left, arrives with President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, second from right, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, right, and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, bottom left, for a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, not pictured, at the White House on Sept. 21, 2023, in Washington. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 22 September 2023
Follow

US, UK signal support for EU windfall tax plan on using frozen Russian assets for Ukraine reconstruction

  • Per EU estimates, windfall profit from Russia’s frozen assets in Europe could provide $3.27 billion a year to rebuild Ukraine
  • British FM says Russia must be made to bear the costs of reconstruction of Ukraine as a consequence of its invasion

WASHINGTON: US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt signaled support on Thursday for a European Union plan to impose a windfall tax on profits generated by frozen Russian sovereign assets to help finance the reconstruction of Ukraine.

A Treasury spokesperson said Yellen called the EU plan a “sensible” proposal.

Yellen, who discussed frozen Russian assets with Ukrainian officials during her visit to Kyiv in February, told Bloomberg News reporters and editors that Washington was discussing the idea with the EU, the spokesperson said.
Hunt told Reuters in a telephone interview from Los Angeles that he supported the EU’s idea of diverting interest earnings from the assets to Ukraine’s reconstruction.
“We have to find a way that doesn’t have unintended consequences,” Hunt said. “And I think the most interesting discussions are really about how to use the interest income generated by (frozen) assets to go toward that reconstruction without actually seizing the assets themselves.”
But Hunt said it was important to ultimately force Russia to bear the costs of reconstruction of Ukraine as a consequence of its invasion and “to make it clear to Russia that those assets are frozen until there’s a fair settlement made with the reconstruction costs.”
Yellen has repeatedly voiced support for Ukrainian demands that Russia should pay for the damage it has done to Ukraine, but has also pointed to significant legal obstacles halting moves to fully seize the $300 billion in Russian central bank assets frozen by sanctions.
EU officials have estimated that the windfall profit from Russia’s frozen assets in Europe could provide 3 billion euro ($3.27 billion) a year to rebuild Ukraine.

British FM says it was important to ultimately force Russia to bear the costs of reconstruction of Ukraine as a consequence of its invasion


Ahead of strikes, Trump was told Iran attack is high risk, high reward

Updated 6 sec ago
Follow

Ahead of strikes, Trump was told Iran attack is high risk, high reward

  • Experts caution that the unfolding conflict could take dangerous turns and the first official said ‌the Pentagon’s planning did not appear to guarantee the outcome of any conflict

WASHINGTON: Ahead of the US attack on Iran, President Donald Trump received briefings that not only delivered blunt assessments about the risk of major US casualties but also touted the prospect of a geopolitical shift in the Middle East in favor of US interests, ​a US official told Reuters. The launch of what the Pentagon called Operation Epic Fury on Saturday plunged the Middle East into a new and unpredictable conflict. The US and Israeli militaries struck sites across Iran, triggering retaliatory Iranian attacks against Israel and nearby Gulf Arab countries.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the briefers described the operation to the president as a high-risk, high-reward scenario that could present a once-in-a-generation opportunity for change in the region.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Trump briefings included risks, opportunities in Middle East 

• Diplomatic efforts with Iran fail to avert ‌military confrontation 

• Iran vows retaliation, targets US and Israeli interests

Trump himself appeared to echo that sentiment when he acknowledged the stakes at the onset of the operation, saying “the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost.”
“But we’re doing this not for now, we’re doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission,” Trump said in a video address announcing the start of major combat operations.
“For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted death to America and waged an unending campaign of ‌bloodshed and mass murder ... We’re ‌not gonna put up with it any longer.”
The briefings from Trump’s national security team help explain ​how ‌the ⁠president decided ​to ⁠pursue arguably the riskiest US military operation since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Ahead of the strikes, Trump received multiple briefings from officials, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, US General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
On Thursday, Admiral Brad Cooper, who leads US forces in the Middle East as the head of Central Command, flew to Washington to join discussions in the White House Situation Room.
A second US official said that before the strikes, the White House had been briefed on risks associated with operations against Iran, including retaliatory strikes on multiple US bases in the region by Iranian missiles that could overwhelm defenses, as well as Iranian proxies attacking US troops in Iraq and Syria.
The official said that despite the massive military ⁠buildup by the United States, there were limits to the air defense systems that had been rushed into ‌the region.
Experts caution that the unfolding conflict could take dangerous turns and the first official said ‌the Pentagon’s planning did not appear to guarantee the outcome of any conflict.
Trump called on Iranians ​to topple the government but that is easier said than done, said ‌Nicole Grajewski with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“The Iranian opposition is pretty fragmented. It’s unclear what the population is willing to do in ‌terms of rising up,” Grajewski said.
Both US officials requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the internal discussions.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Pentagon declined to comment.

TRUMP’S SWEEPING GOALS

In the weeks leading up to the attack, Trump ordered a major military buildup in the Middle East. Reuters reported military planning to carry out a sustained campaign against Iran, if that is what the president chose. Plans included targeting individual officials, officials said.
An Israeli official said Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah ‌Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian were both targeted but the result of the strikes was unclear. Speaking on Saturday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there were many signs indicating that Khamenei “is no longer” and ⁠called on Iranians to “take to the streets ⁠to finish the job.”
Trump made clear on Saturday that his objectives in Iran were sweeping, saying he would end the threat posed by Tehran to the United States and give Iranians a chance to topple their rulers. To accomplish this, he outlined plans to lay waste to much of Iran’s military as well as deny it the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon.
“We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground... We’re going to annihilate their navy,” he said. “We’re going to ensure that the region’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces.”
Trump’s decision demonstrates an increasing risk appetite, far greater than when he ordered US special operations forces into Venezuela last month to seize that country’s president in an audacious raid.
The unfolding campaign against Iran is also riskier than when Trump ordered US forces to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites in June.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards threatened all US bases and interests in the region and said Iran’s retaliation would continue until “the enemy is decisively defeated.”
Experts warn that Iran has many options for retaliation, including missile strikes but also drones and cyber warfare.
Daniel Shapiro, a former senior ​Pentagon official for Middle East issues, said that despite the US ​and Israeli strikes, Tehran would still be capable of causing some pain.
“Iran has many more ballistic missiles that can reach US bases than the US has interceptors ... some Iranian weapons will get through,” said Shapiro, also a former US ambassador to Israel. “(The strikes are) a major gamble.”