BRUSSELS, Belgium: EU leaders on Thursday agreed to “take work forward” on a plan to use the profits from frozen Russian central bank assets to arm Ukraine, as Kyiv pleaded for more ammunition for its outgunned forces.
More than two years into Moscow’s war against its neighbor, Kyiv’s troops are struggling to hold back the Russian army as Western deliveries of weapons have faltered.
Meanwhile, Putin has tightened his iron grip over his country by winning a new six-year term at elections after opposition was crushed.
The proposal, at the heart of talks between leaders at a summit in Brussels, could unlock some three billion euros ($3.3 billion) a year for Kyiv — once given a final green light.
“I’m glad that leaders endorsed our proposal to use the extraordinary revenues from immobilized Russian assets. This will provide funding for military equipment to Ukraine,” European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen told reporters.
The EU froze around 200 billion euros of Russian central bank assets held in the bloc as part of punishing sanctions imposed on Moscow for sending troops into its neighbor in February 2022.
The push by the EU to find more funds for Ukraine comes as a $60 billion support package from the United States, Kyiv’s other major backer, remains blocked in Congress.
Addressing the EU’s 27 leaders via video link, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told them the shortfall in ammunition facing his troops was “humiliating” for Europe.
“Europe can provide more — and it is crucial to prove it now,” he said, also calling for additional air-defense systems in the wake of a large-scale strike on Kyiv.
EU leaders insisted the plan to target the interest being made by the frozen assets was legally sound.
But the Kremlin warned it would use legal and “other methods of retaliation” to hit back.
Alongside the efforts to get more weapons to Kyiv, the leaders debated ways to boost Europe’s defense industry to be able to arm Ukraine and build up its own forces.
Brussels has put forward a raft of proposals aimed at ramping up capacity but there are complaints that Europe is still not moving fast enough.
While Russia has put its economy on a war footing, the EU has fallen well short of a promise made last year to supply Ukraine with a million artillery shells by this month.
But the Czech Republic has spearheaded its own initiative aimed at getting hundreds of thousands of shells available around the world to send to Kyiv.
France and Estonia pitched the idea of using joint borrowing — similar to the massive package of support the EU came up with during the Covid pandemic — to fund defense spending.
But a majority of member states, led by so-called “frugal” countries such as Germany, have flatly rejected going anywhere near that far.
Instead, the leaders issued a call for the EU’s lending arm, the European Investment Bank, to expand its funding for the defense sector.
At the moment, the bank is limited to investing in only a small number of “dual-use products” that can have both military and civilian functions.
While the response to the conflict in Ukraine dominated the summit, EU leaders managed to put on a rare show of unity on the war in Gaza.
In a joint statement they called for an “immediate humanitarian pause” in Israel’s offensive and warned it not to launch a ground operation in Rafah.
The leaders — split between staunch supporters of Israel and those who are more pro-Palestinian — said they were “appalled by the unprecedented loss of civilian lives and the critical humanitarian situation.”
Closer to home, they also gave a green light to opening membership talks with Bosnia, as Russia’s war has sparked a push to expand the bloc.
But they tempered the good news by saying that the negotiations could only begin in earnest once the Balkan country has completed more reforms.
EU agrees to move ahead on using Russian assets for Ukraine
https://arab.news/bzzay
EU agrees to move ahead on using Russian assets for Ukraine
Proposals on immigration enforcement flood into state legislatures, heightened by Minnesota action
- Oregon Democrats plan to introduce a bill to allow residents to sue federal officers for violating their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure
NASHVILLE, Tennessee: As Democrats across the country propose state law changes to restrict federal immigration officers after the shooting death of a protester in Minneapolis, Tennessee Republicans introduced a package of bills Thursday backed by the White House that would enlist the full force of the state to support President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Momentum in Democratic-led states for the measures, some of them proposed for years, is growing as legislatures return to work following the killing of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer. But Republicans are pushing back, blaming protesters for impeding the enforcement of immigration laws.
Democratic bills seek to limit ICE
Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul wants New York to allow people to sue federal officers alleging violations of their constitutional rights. Another measure aims to keep immigration officers lacking judicial warrants out of schools, hospitals and houses of worship.
Oregon Democrats plan to introduce a bill to allow residents to sue federal officers for violating their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.
New Jersey’s Democrat-led Legislature passed three bills Monday that immigrant rights groups have long pushed for, including a measure prohibiting state law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy has until his last day in office Tuesday to sign or veto them.
California lawmakers are proposing to ban local and state law enforcement from taking second jobs with the Department of Homeland Security and make it a violation of state law when ICE officers make “indiscriminate” arrests around court appearances. Other measures are pending.
“Where you have government actions with no accountability, that is not true democracy,” Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco said at a news conference.
Democrats also push bills in red states
Democrats in Georgia introduced four Senate bills designed to limit immigration enforcement — a package unlikely to become law because Georgia’s conservative upper chamber is led by Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a close Trump ally. Democrats said it is still important to take a stand.
“Donald Trump has unleashed brutal aggression on our families and our communities across our country,” said state Sen. Sheikh Rahman, an immigrant from Bangladesh whose district in suburban Atlanta’s Gwinnett County is home to many immigrants.
Democrats in New Hampshire have proposed numerous measures seeking to limit federal immigration enforcement, but the state’s Republican majorities passed a new law taking effect this month that bans “sanctuary cities.”
Tennessee GOP works with White House on a response
The bills Tennessee Republicans are introducing appear to require government agencies to check the legal status of all residents before they can obtain public benefits; secure licenses for teaching, nursing and other professions; and get driver’s licenses or register their cars.
They also would include verifying K-12 students’ legal status, which appears to conflict with a US Supreme Court precedent. And they propose criminalizing illegal entry as a misdemeanor, a measure similar to several other states’ requirements, some of which are blocked in court.
“We’re going to do what we can to make sure that if you’re here illegally, we will have the data, we’ll have the transparency, and we’re not spending taxpayer dollars on you unless you’re in jail,” House Speaker Cameron Sexton said at a news conference Thursday.
Trump administration sues to stop laws
The Trump administration has opposed any effort to blunt ICE, including suing local governments whose “sanctuary” policies limit police interactions with federal officers.
States have broad power to regulate within their borders unless the US Constitution bars it, but many of these laws raise novel issues that courts will have to sort out, said Harrison Stark, senior counsel with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
“There’s not a super clear, concrete legal answer to a lot of these questions,” he said. “It’s almost guaranteed there will be federal litigation over a lot of these policies.”
That is already happening.
California in September was the first to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration officers, from covering their faces on duty. The Justice Department said its officers won’t comply and sued California, arguing that the laws threaten the safety of officers who are facing “unprecedented” harassment, doxing and violence.
The Justice Department also sued Illinois last month, challenging a law that bars federal civil arrests near courthouses, protects medical records and regulates how universities and day care centers manage information about immigration status. The Justice Department claims the law is unconstitutional and threatens federal officers’ safety.
Targeted states push back
Minnesota and Illinois, joined by their largest cities, sued the Trump administration this week. Minneapolis and Minnesota accuse the Republican administration of violating free speech rights by punishing a progressive state that favors Democrats and welcomes immigrants. Illinois and Chicago claim “Operation Midway Blitz” made residents afraid to leave their homes.
Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin accused Minnesota officials of ignoring public safety and called the Illinois lawsuit “baseless.”
