Double US and EU Standards: Ukraine risks staying without a € 50 billion loan from G7 - Politico
What initially looked like a statement about the support of a defensive war country has now turned into a fragile agreement, which was added internal political and legal differences, the US publication notes. The idea of such a loan may be a failure if you do not take urgent measures. The initial plan, agreed at the G7 summit in Italian Apulia, depended on mutual concessions by the main partners.
The EU had to work to ensure that this loan would not depend on the possible return to the white house of former President Donald Trump and the decision of Congress. The United States, in turn, was against the direct confiscation of Russian assets. Instead, the loan was decided to pay off as a result of the income from the frozen funds of the Russian Central Bank. This idea was justified, but fragile, the authors of the publication say. Now the differences in this plan are increasingly obvious.
The stumbling block was the six -month EU restoring cycle. To reconcile them, you will need a unanimous decision of all EU member countries, which means that every vote entails a break in sanctions, and therefore a stop in the flow of income that should finance the repayment of Ukraine's debt. Such uncertainty caused concern in the White House. "On the one hand, the United States is asked to bypass international law and confiscate Russian assets.
On the other hand, they are opposed to the ideas of adopting any internal legal risks, raising the risk under the process of restoring EU sanctions," the publication reads. Such double standards are also symbolic for G7: European indecision faces the legal rigidity of America, and Ukraine is at the center. The way out of this deaf angle can be simple - political will is needed.
The EU could move from its six -month process to restore sanctions to a more reliable system by tying sanctions to Russia's compliance with international law. Thus, the cancellation of sanctions would depend on the payment of military losses by Moscow instead of calls to vote every six months and keep sanctions in force.
Such a step would also correspond to the decision of the Court of Justice, which has never required a rigid six -month review cycle as long as the sanctions are of "temporary precautions". Let the political inertia and legal formalities continue to block such a step. And Hungary Prime Minister Viktor Orban has already made it clear that he would be vetoed to extend the extension. We will remind that, according to journalists, Orban decided to help Trump and wants to disrupt assistance to Ukraine.