Use russia’s money to help Ukraine
Kira Rudik and US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (working visit to Washington D.C.)
According to World Bank estimates, the losses due to the full-scale war of russia against Ukraine have reached almost $350 billion, which is 1.6 times more than the GDP of our country. Ukraine constantly needs financial support from its partners, but it is logical that the aggressor should pay for what he did. In addition, such a decision will not only be an excruciating blow to russia, but also a huge step forward and a signal to all those who think of attacking and starting wars.
My team and I have been dealing with the issue of the confiscation of russian money for the benefit of Ukraine in recent months. Over the past six months, we have visited more than 20 countries worldwide and negotiated with parliamentarians, experts, lawyers, and financiers regarding the confiscation of russian assets. We believe that the taxpayers of our partners should not pay for the restoration of what was destroyed by putin, the russians should pay for it. Now, according to various estimates, there are about $550 billion of russian assets in the world. Ukraine needs this money.
Canada is the first country to pass a legislative decision on the confiscation of russian assets in favor of Ukraine, and we can already wait for the first tranche of these funds. We expect the adoption of relevant decisions by Great Britain.
We enlist the best financial and legal specialists, who are constantly in contact and exchange experience. We already have the support of Bill Browder, an expert on the confiscation of corrupt assets, the author of the Magnitsky Act, and Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Their experience and influence on the public and politicians are essential elements for the successful completion of the confiscation of russian money.
There are two parallel processes:
— Development of the legislative part for the transfer of confiscated assets to Ukraine.
— Obtaining political support for such a bill, that is, gathering votes.
Despite the fact that the issue of aid to Ukraine is unifying completely different political forces in all countries, obtaining political support still remains a complex task. This is fair and logical: putin should pay for the crimes himself, not the taxpayers of the partner countries.
My team and I have been dealing with the issue of the confiscation of russian money for the benefit of Ukraine in recent months. Over the past six months, we have visited more than 20 countries worldwide and negotiated with parliamentarians, experts, lawyers, and financiers regarding the confiscation of russian assets. We believe that the taxpayers of our partners should not pay for the restoration of what was destroyed by putin, the russians should pay for it. Now, according to various estimates, there are about $550 billion of russian assets in the world. Ukraine needs this money.
Canada is the first country to pass a legislative decision on the confiscation of russian assets in favor of Ukraine, and we can already wait for the first tranche of these funds. We expect the adoption of relevant decisions by Great Britain.
We enlist the best financial and legal specialists, who are constantly in contact and exchange experience. We already have the support of Bill Browder, an expert on the confiscation of corrupt assets, the author of the Magnitsky Act, and Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Their experience and influence on the public and politicians are essential elements for the successful completion of the confiscation of russian money.
There are two parallel processes:
— Development of the legislative part for the transfer of confiscated assets to Ukraine.
— Obtaining political support for such a bill, that is, gathering votes.
Despite the fact that the issue of aid to Ukraine is unifying completely different political forces in all countries, obtaining political support still remains a complex task. This is fair and logical: putin should pay for the crimes himself, not the taxpayers of the partner countries.
