It is now advisable to raise issues with our partners that still need to be actively discussed, even in the US political community. Because we have already seen how sanctions work, or not so much. And we have seen that sanctions do not stop the Russians from shelling civilian infrastructure, namely our energy grid. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the countermeasures applied by the international community to the Russian Federation are effective and correspond to the damage caused to Ukraine by these aggressive actions of the Russian Federation. Therefore, it is time to raise the question of strengthening countermeasures. In this context, we can talk about depriving Russia of sovereign immunity. This can be seen as a countermeasure that can open the way to Russian money that has already been frozen, but we still do not have access. This is at least $350 billion circulating in the Western financial system. Someone benefits from this: interest and taxes on interest, and all this money is now inaccessible to us.
So I would start with measures related to the sovereign money of the Russian Federation.
The removal of immunity can be such a significant step forward.
The debate on the legality of confiscation has been going on for many years, and this is not the first time we are opening a new discourse in international law. It is always tricky. But now we are on the eve of the winter period. We can already say that the international community and the UN have confirmed that the level of destruction of critical energy infrastructure that Ukraine has suffered is incredibly high, that the measures taken by the world to counter this attack have not worked, and that pressure needs to be increased. This pressure can be increased precisely by removing state immunity from Russian money. The legal community can now consider this at the level of both international experts and the countries' political leadership. It's not just about confiscation, but confiscation will be a consequence of the fact that Russia's immunity will be lifted. This will open the way not only to money related to compensation for damages, but it will also open the way to receiving the money that Ukraine won from the Russian Federation in the process of court decisions that also concern Naftogaz.
For these kinds of judgments against Russian assets to be enforced, it is necessary to ensure that Russia's immunity over its sovereign money is expunged. That is, to make its cash available to implement these court decisions.
It would seem logical to take such a step - the arrest, confiscation, and transfer to the Ukrainian government. What is standing in the way? The answer is that all new measures need to be promoted. This is a tough and challenging job. I have repeatedly said that even there, the imposition of sanctions is not just a matter of working with a sanctions unit in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or some other institution. This is a matter of creating a particular information field and decision-making. This takes time and a lot of effort.
Indeed, the president pays much attention to speeches in parliaments and meetings with politicians. But then it's a matter of working out the meetings and many contacts inside. It is not the kind of work where the process is straightforward – “Today we talked, and tomorrow everything is decided.” Many people are involved in the decision-making process, and all have their own opinions. Not only opinions, but they also have what prejudice. That is, they have certain assumptions and beliefs. They don't always coincide with what we think.
Even if someone asks us what a chair is, we'll each answer in our own way. How to apply the norms of international law is a considerable discussion. Therefore, to be heard, you have to be constantly present, I mean as a country, in all discussions. You have to engage both at forums of public organizations and with bloggers and influencers. This is more than just diplomatic work. Citizens must also take part; in the public sector and everyone. This is a paradigm shift in thinking. There has always been a theory that any sovereign asset cannot be touched, because it can have irreversible consequences. But it should not be about assets as irreversibility, but about immunity. Immunity can be revoked today in connection with Russia's violations of all norms of international law as a countermeasure. This immunity can be returned after Russia returns, fulfills all its international obligations, and compensates for all losses. This will be the reverse of this measure, which must be observed.
Russia is constantly testing the limits of its behavior.
If no countermeasures have been taken for the destruction of our energy system, this only increases their appetite and encourages them. When we say that this is extremely dangerous, we have to realize that if they can destroy civilian infrastructure without any responsibility, which is a criminal offense in the sense of international criminal law, and they have not been punished for this and no measures have been taken against them; then this can only encourage them to use tactical nuclear weapons. If nothing happened to them for this, why should they worry that something will happen to them for using tactical nuclear weapons? If there is no punishment for a crime, it only increases the likelihood of raising the scale of unlawful acts.
In the area of countermeasures, that first step has already been taken. The first step is the seizure of sovereign money. This is something that had not been done before. The money of the Russian Central Bank was arrested. Before that, no one had touched this money because it was such a sacred thing protected by the general principle that public funds should not be subject to enforcement. Whatever a sovereign country creates is protected. There may be other assets of a commercial nature, and something else may be subject to arrest and then confiscation, but not the money of the Central Bank. The first events have already taken place. Now the question is how to push for the next step to change this attitude towards this money as something that cannot be touched.
An analogy would be like Saddam Hussein's regime financing the reconstruction of Kuwait, which they destroyed. I have always treated this as an example of how we can address the return, satisfaction, and restitution of property lost in connection with the war. But, again, that activity was based on a UN Security Council resolution. In our case, and in the case of unwillingness to change the overall architecture of the UN Security Council, it is challenging to achieve this. And indeed, the question of how this commission will be created, or even the mechanism, and how it will address the issue of the queue for compensation, is still at such an early stage. Even in the case of Iraq, this was decided after the war.
As far as access to money is concerned, in the case of Ukraine and with this enormous volume of violations of international law, we have this opportunity to start this dialogue precisely with the need to lift immunity as a sanction for a significant breach of international law.
What needs to happen for our partners to make such a political decision? This may be related, again, to the discussion between Democrats and Republicans within Congress. The House of Representatives is now a Republican majority while the Democrats are in the minority, creating an opportunity to open a discussion. Remember that when we lobbied for sanctions against Nord Stream 2, we played on the fact that the Democrats had a majority in Congress. Then they were forced to implement it even with Trump in the White House. Certain tools can be used, which are very open and transparent, because it is a matter of achieving one's interests through the current political situation.