Rachel Reeves has urged the European Union to seize €210bn (£175bn) of frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine defend itself against Kremlin aggression, warning that failing to act now would risk the continent’s security, reports BritPanorama.
In her first significant intervention since leaving government earlier this year, the former chancellor emphasized to Brussels that “the time to act is now,” as Kyiv braces for “a desperate winter.” She highlighted that Ukraine is facing a funding black hole, especially as Donald Trump puts pressure on the nation to negotiate a deal with Moscow.
The MP for Leeds West and Pudsey stated that Ukraine’s “capacity to sustain its defence will be gravely impaired” without this funding, which would ultimately “undermine Europe’s security.” This call comes on the heels of an announcement regarding an additional £10bn support package for Ukraine, following discussions between President Volodymyr Zelensky and UK officials.
In the opinion piece published in The Times, co-authored with three prominent politicians—including former German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer and former French Minister for Europe Nathalie Loiseau—Ms Reeves stressed the urgency of the situation. The quartet urged the EU to take custody of the €210bn of sovereign Russian assets immobilised since 2022, arguing that these funds could effectively support Ukraine’s defence efforts until 2029.
The authors expressed that accessing these funds would mitigate the risk posed by upcoming elections in key EU member states, which may otherwise threaten financial support for Kyiv. Additionally, they asserted that these assets could sustain Ukraine’s military efforts beyond the next US presidential election, potentially leading to a more favorable political climate in Washington.
Relations between the US and Ukraine have been strained as Mr Trump recently brokered a diesel deal with Russia, raising concerns over Washington’s commitment to Kyiv. This tension has paralleled issues regarding access to vital satellite communications, which have hindered Ukraine’s operational capabilities.
In their article, Reeves and her colleagues noted that Moscow has obligations under international law to provide compensations for its actions, asserting that using frozen funds for Ukraine’s defence would be both just and politically acceptable to European citizens.
Previous efforts to utilise similar funds were bogged down by concerns surrounding the Belgian institution holding most of the assets. To overcome this, the co-authors proposed a transfer of custody to the EU, which would also assume associated liabilities and provide cover against potential retaliatory threats from Moscow.
The article arrives amid heightened rhetoric from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has stated that Russia is prepared for potential conflict with Europe, although asserting a desire for peaceful relations. He recently underscored the disastrous consequences of escalating tensions.
Reeves referenced historical precedents, such as the EU’s transfer of Iraqi assets post-Saddam Hussein, to bolster her case for immediate action. Stressing the pressing need, she declared, “Ukraine faces a desperate winter as Russia pummels its almost defenceless people from the air,” while also confronting a €70 billion financial gap next year. “Without new funding, Kyiv’s capacity to sustain its defence will be gravely impaired,” she concluded, highlighting Ukraine’s critical role as Europe’s first line of defence against Russian aggression. This sentiment underscores that while allies like Canada and the UK must contribute, the EU has a pivotal leadership role in addressing Ukraine’s funding crisis.
The urgency of these assessments suggests that, with rising pressures from various fronts, the next steps taken by the EU could significantly shape the ongoing conflict and its broader implications.
