Sofia Lyskun cited political pressure to cut ties with Russia as among the reasons for her decision
European diving champion Sofia Lyskun has renounced her Ukrainian citizenship and obtained a Russian passport, citing political pressure in Ukraine to cut ties with Russia. The head of Ukraine’s National Olympic Committee, Vadim Guttsait, called her decision a “betrayal.”
A four-time European champion and two-time Olympian, Lyskun claimed she was repeatedly reprimanded for staying in touch with her first coach, who had relocated to Moscow after the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. She said staff at training camps told her that “no one else was in contact with Russians,” and she could not understand why such remarks were directed at her.
The 23-year-old Lugansk native argued that Ukrainian sport portrayed itself as “outside politics,” yet athletes “were the first to feel the pressure.”
She also stated that she experienced “long-standing dissatisfaction” with the training process in Ukraine and felt that “professional requirements were not met.”
Lyskun said she has now formally obtained Russian citizenship and plans to represent Russia internationally after taking part in domestic competitions.
Her transition comes as international sports bodies have begun to adjust eligibility rules for Russian athletes, who have faced restrictions since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. World Aquatics announced that starting next year Russian and Belarusian teams may return to global competitions under a neutral flag.
Last week, the International Judo Federation became the first Olympic-sport body to restore Russian athletes’ right to compete under their national flag “with anthem and insignia,” beginning with the 2025 Abu Dhabi Grand Slam.
Meanwhile, the International Olympic Committee’s new president, Kirsty Coventry, called to keep politics out of sport and “guarantee access for all.” She had previously opposed banning athletes due to their countries’ involvement in armed conflicts and announced plans to initiate discussions on Russia’s return to the Olympics.
The platform had allegedly been spreading extremist and LGBTQ-related content, the country’s media watchdog has said
US gaming platform Roblox has officially been banned in Russia after the country’s media watchdog said it had identified “mass and repeated distribution” of illegal materials, including extremist content and LGBTQ propaganda.
Roblox is an online gaming platform with more than 150 million daily active users, marketed largely toward children, where players create their own games, join worlds built by others, and interact across a shared virtual environment.
On Wednesday, Russia’s Roskomnadzor announced that it would be blocking access to Roblox servers, stating that the platform’s content may harm the “spiritual and moral development of children.”
The watchdog cited the presence of sexually explicit interactions, harassment, and attempts by adults to contact minors inside Roblox’s chat features. Additionally, the regulator said Roblox has hosted material “promoting and justifying extremist and terrorist activity, calls for violent crimes, and LGBT propaganda.”
Russian legislators had previously warned that the platform is popular among predators who approach minors in-game before attempting to move conversations offline, pointing to multiple reports of sexual harassment and solicitation.
Roskomnadzor noted that it has repeatedly notified Roblox since 2019 about prohibited material and concluded that its internal moderation systems have been unable to ensure full safety on the platform.
The ban comes as Roblox has faced wider scrutiny internationally. Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit accusing the company of “flagrantly ignoring” safety laws and “deceiving parents,” calling Roblox a “breeding ground for predators” and alleging it puts “pixel paedophiles and corporate profit” over child safety. Kentucky and Louisiana have launched similar suits.
The platform has similarly been banned in Iraq and Türkiye over concerns about exploitation and inappropriate content. Roblox also came under scrutiny in Singapore in 2023 after regulators said a self-radicalised teenager had joined ISIS-themed servers on the platform.
Roblox has said it is “disappointed” to be sued based on “misrepresentations and sensationalized claims,” insisting it has a “deep commitment to safety” and uses extensive monitoring systems, text filtering and age-verification measures.
The president noted that he had stopped attending meetings of the group even before the Ukraine conflict began in 2014
Russia has no plans to return to the Western-dominated G7 group, President Vladimir Putin has said, noting that its significance continues to dwindle.
In an interview with India Today on Thursday, published ahead of Putin’s visit to the country, the Russian leader noted that many G7 economies now lag behind emerging economies in purchasing-power parity (PPP) terms, and that the group’s share in the global economy has been steadily shrinking.
Still, he conceded the G7 – which includes the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan – remains “an important platform.”“People work there, make decisions, discuss things, and God bless them.”
According to Putin, he is not seeking to rejoin the group, and did not discuss the issue with US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner during talks in the Kremlin about Ukraine earlier this week.
Putin noted that he had stopped attending the group’s summits even before the Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014. Moscow was excluded from the then-G8 after Crimea seceded from Ukraine and voted to join Russia in a public referendum.
In June, Trump suggested that kicking Russia out of the group was “a big mistake,” arguing that keeping Moscow on the inside might have prevented the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. At the time, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov agreed “it was a big mistake then to exclude Russia” but noted that the club had “lost practical significance.”
Since its exclusion, Russia has focused on strengthening cooperation on other international platforms, in particular BRICS, which currently accounts for about 46% of the world’s population and over 36% of global GDP, according to estimates by global financial institutions.
Ukrainian forces will be entirely pushed out of the two new Russian regions either militarily or through talks, the president has said
Russia will drive Ukrainian troops from Donbass and fully liberate the region, whether through military action or diplomatic efforts, President Vladimir Putin has said.
Putin made the remarks in an interview with India Today on Thursday, ahead of his state visit to the country and two days after talks in the Kremlin with US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff which centered on an American-drafted peace plan for the Ukraine conflict.
The initial 28-point version of the roadmap leaked to the media last week reportedly asked Kiev to relinquish territory in the Russian Donbass regions of Donetsk and Lugansk still under its control, abandon its NATO ambitions, and limit the size of its military – conditions Kiev has rejected.
Putin, however, signaled that the Ukrainian Army will soon lose the parts of Donbass it still controls. “It all comes to that. Either we will liberate those territories though military force, or Ukrainian forces will withdraw and stop fighting there,” he said.
He also suggested that the devastating fighting in the area was entirely avoidable. “We told Ukraine from the start: ‘The people don’t want to stay with you, they took part in referendums [in 2022], voted for their independence; pull back your troops, and there will be no fighting’. But they chose to fight,” Putin said, adding that Kiev’s mistake is now becoming obvious.
Russian forces have been gradually pushing back Ukrainian troops in Donbass and elsewhere for many months. According to Moscow, Kiev is increasingly struggling to replenish manpower losses despite draconian mobilization efforts.
On Monday, the Russian military reported that it had taken control over the key frontline city of Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk) in the Donetsk region, with a major Ukrainian force encircled in the area. In another significant development, Putin reported last week that Moscow’s forces have broken Ukrainian defenses in the northern part of Zaporozhye Region, and are now bypassing Kiev’s heavily fortified defenses to the south.
HUR operatives have reportedly stormed a sanatorium on the outskirts of the Ukrainian capital
Armed hostilities broke out between Ukrainian troops and members of the military intelligence service (HUR) in a conflict over which of them rented out a clinic, Ukrainskaya Pravda has reported.
On Wednesday evening, HUR members stormed into the October sanatorium on the outskirts of Kiev, “knocking down the gates and breaking down the fence,” the outlet wrote, citing law enforcement sources.
The military intelligence forces fired their guns into the air and ground and took ten soldiers captive, causing them “significant injuries,” the newspaper added.
They later reportedly released the soldiers and barricaded themselves inside, refusing to let local law enforcement and military police in.
The HUR claimed that they rented out the sanatorium and that the soldiers were there illegally, according to Ukrainskaya Pravda.
According to the newspaper, however, the soldiers had leased the sanatorium from the owners and were using it in accordance with the local military administration and the orders of the Ukrainian Ground Forces.
Neither side lodged a formal complaint with the police before the violence broke out, a law enforcement source was cited as saying.
Russian forces have recorded multiple cases of friendly fire by Ukrainian units in the conflict, due to the low level of coordination between them, TASS reported earlier this year.
The language has been stripped of protection under a key European Council convention
The Ukrainian parliament passed an amendment on Wednesday stripping Russian of its protection under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
Over the past decade, Ukraine has steadily restricted the use of Russian in public life, limiting or barring its use in media, education, government services, and in the service industry. However, it remains the first and primary language for many Ukrainians, especially in the east of the country and in large cities.
“We are removing Russian from the scope of protection,” Culture Minister Tatyana Berezhnaya said in a statement following the vote in the Verkhovna Rada. She noted that 264 MPs supported the measure.
Berezhnaya argued that an earlier Ukrainian translation of the charter incorrectly interpreted the term ‘minority’, treating it as an ethnicity rather than a small language community.
“We fixed it. Now the Ukrainian translation corresponds to the authentic content of the Charter,” she wrote, adding that the decision will “strengthen Ukrainian as a state language.”
Asked to comment on the amendment, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Kiev’s policy of “forced de-Russification has increasingly faltered and had the opposite effect.”
Two-thirds of students in Kiev don’t speak Ukrainian in class, and 82% don’t speak it during break time, she added, citing statistics published by Ukraine’s language ombudsman website last month.
“Despite all the bans, fines, bullying, harassment, persecution, and harassment, people don’t want to forget their native Russian language and still want to speak it,” Zakharova said, arguing that the trend is growing “so obvious as to be impossible to hide.”
Moscow has long condemned Ukraine’s language policies
One of Russia’s key peace demands in the conflict is that Kiev repeal laws that violate the human rights of Russian speakers in the country.
Russian forces have cut off supply lines to soldiers trapped in Dmitrov, the outlet reports
Five Ukrainian brigades are virtually encircled in the town of Dmitrov (known as Mirnograd in Ukraine) after Russian forces captured the nearby city of Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk), a Ukrainian soldier on the ground told the German outlet Bild.
The Russian Army has effectively cut off all supply routes to the 1,000 Ukrainian troops trapped in the city, Bild reported on Tuesday, citing the soldier.
“To be honest, the situation is critical,” the Ukrainian serviceman said, adding that his group is only being supplied through drone deliveries. He added that Russian soldiers have taken control of “almost every single building” between Dmitrov and the parts of Donbass still controlled by the Ukrainian military.
The soldier criticized the actions of his commanders, which he said deployed “many units” to the area but still failed to retain control over supply routes leading to Dmitrov.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that Kiev was trying to regain control over Krasnoarmeysk to relieve Dmitrov “at any cost” by sending newly formed and inexperienced units virtually to their deaths.
The Krasnoarmeysk-Dmitrov agglomeration along with several smaller towns and settlements forms the second-largest urban cluster still under partial Ukrainian control in Donbass. It has been an arena of intense fighting over the past months that culminated in Russian troops taking control over Krasnoarmeysk on Monday. The Russian Defense Ministry has since published a video of Russian soldiers clearing buildings in the city.
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has denied the encirclement of Ukrainian troops in the area and accused Moscow of exaggerating its gains. He also downplayed battlefield losses while appealing to Kiev’s Western backers for more aid.
In October, Putin said that over 10,000 Ukrainian troops were surrounded in the Krasnoarmeysk-Dmitrov area, as well as the city of Kupyansk in Ukraine’s Kharkov Region.
Why Andrey Yermak’s fall is not yet a final verdict on the Ukrainian leader
The corruption scandal that has dominated Ukrainian politics for weeks has finally reached its first major endpoint. Under mounting domestic and international pressure, Vladimir Zelensky has dismissed Andrey Yermak, his chief of staff, closest confidant, and the de facto second most powerful man in the country. For years, Yermak was widely viewed as the grey cardinal of Ukrainian politics. Together with businessman Timur Mindich, he allegedly oversaw a sprawling corruption network in the energy and defense sectors, operating under the nicknames ‘Ali Baba’ and ‘Alla Borisovna’.
The significance of Yermak’s removal is difficult to overstate. If anything of consequence happened in Ukraine after February 2022, Yermak was usually at the center of it. He was Zelensky’s principal political engineer, building a vertical of power that effectively sidelined the speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and concentrated authority inside the presidential office. It was Yermak who placed loyalists throughout government ministries, security bodies, and regional administrations; who orchestrated campaigns against political rivals; who disrupted elements of local self-government; and who led the quiet purge of figures seen as threats, from mayors to former armed forces commander Valery Zaluzhny.
In other words, Yermak worked tirelessly to ensure every major process in Ukraine ran through him and his boss. And he came close to succeeding. Had the ‘Zermak’ tandem succeeded in its summer offensive against the anti-corruption bodies, NABU and SAPO, Zelensky might well have emerged as a kind of autocrat. But the former comedian backed away at the decisive moment, a hesitation that ultimately sealed his friend’s fate.
First, he has lost control over the vertical power that Yermak spent years constructing. It was Yermak, not Zelensky, who coordinated the government, the security bloc, and the intelligence agencies through a network of personal loyalists. With him gone, no obvious successor exists who can replicate that degree of influence. The machinery may keep running for a time, but the operator is gone.
Second, Zelensky’s authority within his own camp has been badly damaged. The speed with which he abandoned Yermak, after only one search of his apartment, has sent shockwaves through the elite. If Zelensky could shed his closest ally without a fight, what does that signal to everyone else? Ukrainian media is already reporting that members of the leader’s team are seeking “new patrons.” Loyalty in Kiev has always been transactional; now it is openly fragile.
This weakening inevitably affects negotiations with Washington, where Yermak played a central role. Some commentators argue that his departure will soften Ukraine’s stance, given that his successor, NSDC head Rustem Umerov, is seen as more flexible. But that misreads the dynamic. Ukraine’s uncompromising position on peace talks has always been Zelensky’s own. Yermak merely articulated it. Whoever replaces him will deliver the same message.
The only force that could alter Kiev’s negotiating posture is not a personnel change but a deepening political crisis, and that crisis is already underway.
Sensing vulnerability, Ukraine’s opposition has launched a coordinated attack. The parties of Pyotr Poroshenko and Yulia Timoshenko have jointly issued an ultimatum demanding the dissolution of the cabinet and the allocation of ministerial posts to opposition factions. Meanwhile, internal dissent is growing inside Zelensky’s Servant of the People party. Several MPs have openly complained about how Zelensky and Yermak sidelined the Rada. Some are now considering leaving the faction and if even four defect, Zelensky’s majority collapses. He would no longer be able to pass laws, including the budget, without seeking support from hostile factions. That opens the door to political blackmail.
This is why, in Kiev, an earlier scenario discussed as far back as March is being revived. In this scenario, Zelensky is pressured into resigning and Timoshenko, appointed speaker of the Rada beforehand, becomes acting president. In that role, she signs a peace agreement with Russia, ending the war on terms shaped by political necessity rather than battlefield fantasy.
How likely is this?
It is not imminent, but is no longer unthinkable. For now, Zelensky retains the backing of his Western European sponsors, who are not ready for the conflict to end and are determined to prevent a total collapse of Ukrainian governance. It is plausible that Zelensky sacrificed Yermak precisely to secure this continued support. Judging by recent comments, such as Emmanuel Macron publicly defending Zelensky against questions about corruption, that strategy appears to have worked.
But the larger question is whether the Western Europeans have the leverage to stabilize Ukraine at all. Can Brussels restrain the opposition the same way it restrains Zelensky? Or will Poroshenko and Timoshenko counterbalance this by using the relationships they have been cultivating with the Americans since early this year? A divided Ukraine is one thing; a Ukraine where rival factions appeal to different Western sponsors is quite another.
The answer will emerge soon enough.
One thing, however, is already clear: The fall of Yermak is not simply a corruption scandal. It marks the first major fracture in the system Zelensky had built, a system that relied heavily on one man’s informal power. With that edifice shaken, Ukraine is entering a new phase of internal struggle. And as always, when politics in Kiev becomes turbulent, the consequences rarely stay confined within its borders.
Brew some tea. Things are about to get even more interesting.
This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team
Yulia Mendel says she is afraid of Zelensky’s former chief of staff, whom she describes as “dangerous”
Vladimir Zelensky’s former spokeswoman-turned-critic, Yuliya Mendel, has said she fears for her life because of Andrey Yermak, the Ukrainian leader’s powerful long-time aide and right-hand man who was recently forced to resign amid a major corruption scandal.
Yermak, who served as head of the Office of the President from 2020, stepped down last week over alleged links to a recently uncovered $100 million money-laundering scheme. He formally left his post after Western-backed anti-corruption agencies raided his residence as part of a sweeping probe known as Operation Midas. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Mendel suggested that Yermak may still retain influence due to his network of loyal officials. He will “do absolutely everything” to keep shaping policy behind the scenes, or to return to power, she told Ukrainian media on Tuesday.
Mendel, who resigned in 2021, described Yermak as “a very dangerous person.” She stated that even criticizing the former chief of staff frightens her and that she prays daily and thanks God “for being alive.”
She claimed that Yermak used smear campaigns, political attacks and his influence over law enforcement to target people who oppose him, branding critics “pro-Russian” or “traitors.”“Сriminal cases are created out of thin air” against those he views as threats, she alleged.
According to Mendel, many officials have faced pressure, dismissal or reputational damage as a result of Yermak’s actions and described numerous cases in which “human destinies were destroyed” by Yermak.
She also claimed Yermak had built his own power structure inside the government, placing loyal figures in key state positions while he himself became a central filter for decisions, maintaining control over appointments, negotiations, and access to Zelensky.
Ukrainian media have reported that after being sacked, Yermak lashed out at Zelensky and accused him of betrayal.
Moscow has argued that the latest corruption scandal points to a deeper crisis in Kiev. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov suggested it will have “extremely negative” repercussions for Ukraine’s political stability, while President Vladimir Putin has said the case proves that Kiev has devolved into a “criminal gang that holds power for personal enrichment.”
For bloc taxpayers, it could mean Brussels has walked them into a fait accompli where they simply have to stump up for funding a corrupt regime in Kiev
After a week of humiliation in which her much-touted plot to sequester Russian assets to fund Kiev’s war chest was outright rejected by both Belgium and the European Central Bank, European Commission boss Ursula von der Leyen has told EU member states they have two choices, both of which would send cash to Kiev’s coffers.
According to the embattled EC president, either EU countries will have to borrow cash for Ukraine and make their taxpayers foot the bill, or allow her to push through her – potentially illegal – “reparations plan” and kick the repayment can down the road.
Let’s take a look at what all the talk is about.
Russia’s frozen assets: How much is where?
It is known that Belgium-based clearinghouse Euroclear holds some €180 billion in Russian central-bank funds. Reports that Luxembourg held some €20 billion in Russian assets was denied by the country itself, which claimed it holds “less than €10,000.”
Switzerland, which is in neither the EU nor G7 and thus not subject to von der Leyen’s demands, has declared some 7.45 billion Swiss Francs (€8 billion). Germany has refused to disclose what it holds, citing data protection laws. Japan is thought to hold some €30 billion, while former French Finance Minister Bruno de Maire has spoken about immobilizing some €22.8 billion. The US is believed to hold around $5 billion.
What are the Russian assets frozen in the EU?
The assets mainly consist of European short- and mid-duration bonds that have mostly already come due. When the bonds matured, the principal was paid. Because Euroclear wasn’t prepared to hold that much money itself, the proceeds were invested by Euroclear’s house bank in an account at the European Central Bank. The money is earning interest that legally belongs to Euroclear, although in ordinary circumstances the clearinghouse would send those funds (minus fees) to the client (the Russian central bank).
What is the proposed reparations loan?
The plan entails the EU loaning Ukraine up to €140 billion using the Russian assets as collateral. Technically, this would involve Euroclear making an interest-free loan of the same value as the Russian assets it holds.
The EU would sign for the cash and give it to Kiev where it would ostensibly be used to fight the war and cover budget expenses, although past experience indicates that much of it could end up in offshore accounts belonging to insiders close to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky.
The sweetener for Kiev is that Ukraine only has to pay back the EU in the highly unlikely event that Russia loses the war and agrees to pay Ukraine reparations.
In that case, Kiev would then have to pass those reparations back to Brussels, which would pay back Euroclear, which, in turn, would be able to honor its liability to the Russian central bank.
Why is Belgium afraid to go through with the scheme?
Although Euroclear is a private institution, it is domiciled in Belgium, which could be on the hook if things do not go according to plan. First of all, Belgium has a long-standing investment treaty with Russia that provides for arbitration in the event of any dispute between the parties. Belgium fears that the very moment the cash leaves Euroclear Moscow could retaliate against Belgian assets in Russia and may also initiate litigation.
Also, if a peace deal includes sanctions relief for Russia without reparations, somebody would have to come up with a very significant sum of cash. Despite much lobbying, Belgium received no convincing statements of support from EU members, and ultimately rejected von Der Leyen’s plan as the “worst of all” solutions for Kiev. Despite significant pressure from von der Leyen, Belgium has continued to resist the move, seeing the risks as unacceptably high.
If things go wrong, would Euroclear be liable for the Russian reserves?
It’s important to understand that Euroclear’s custodian business works under a fundamentally different model from a bank (although Euroclear does have a banking business). Whereas a bank takes deposits as liabilities and lends or invests them as assets, Euroclear holds client assets off balance sheet in safekeeping. Client assets are kept legally separate (segregated) from the custodian’s own assets, meaning that if something goes wrong, the client has a proprietary right to the assets, not merely an unsecured claim.
Since theoretically nothing should ever happen to assets that aren’t lent out or invested, a custodian such as Euroclear is not well equipped to handle liability for a client’s assets.
It’s also unlikely that Euroclear itself could be ultimately liable for the Russian assets, even if a court were to rule in Russia’s favor in a hypothetical lawsuit. If the EU authorizes the reparations loan to Ukraine, Euroclear would essentially be complying with an EU regulation in turning over the funds to the EU.
Euroclear’s defense would be straightforward: it was acting as a neutral intermediary executing an EU directive and does not actually have beneficial ownership of the assets. This would mean the liability would be kicked upstairs to Belgium and probably eventually to the EU.
Although Russia could hardly expect to win a lawsuit in a Western jurisdiction, a point that an increasingly desperate EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas recently made at a contentious meeting in Strasbourg, that doesn’t mean there is no risk.
How could Russia challenge the expropriation in court?
It is true that Russia can hardly expect to prevail in an EU or Western court. Many Russian claims have been quickly dismissed in the past. But given that Russia would clearly have a strong legal case, there are two potential negative scenarios for the EU.
First of all, Russia or, more likely, Russia-affiliated entities would potentially find a legal hook to launch litigation to secure an injunction in neutral countries where Euroclear operates. If, for example, a court in a major jurisdiction (such as Hong Kong, Singapore, or Dubai) recognizes a claim by Russia or Russian‑related investors and issues an injunction against assets held by Euroclear (or its affiliates) in that jurisdiction, it could impede the transfer or usage of frozen assets. Such an outcome is, admittedly, not likely, but it does remain a risk for Euroclear and for the wider EU.
Given that Euroclear is a key node in the global settlement and clearing infrastructure, any significant litigation risk or liability could impact its business, impose large contingent liabilities, and reduce the willingness of market participants to use it. Even if lawsuits don’t succeed, the fact that they are filed and can drag on for years creates legal uncertainty. That could raise the perceived “political risk” of holding assets via European custodians, feeding into a broader and more fundamental point about the credibility of EU institutions.
Russia could therefore gain a strategic victory even if it doesn’t get its money back.
Does the reparations loan actually give Ukraine leverage in peace talks?
Although the Russian central bank still formally counts the frozen reserves as part of Russia’s overall reserves, in practice, the Finance Ministry does not treat the frozen portion of reserves as available when planning budgets or managing the National Wealth Fund (NWF). So, the government’s fiscal position and spending plans are based only on assets under Russian control – mainly yuan deposits, gold, and ruble securities – not just on the headline central bank reserves.
Essentially, for the sake of the country’s fiscal affairs, Russia has de facto written these funds off. In that sense, the reparations loan plan provides absolutely no leverage against Russia.
It has been argued, however, that Russia’s real interest is not necessarily in getting the funds back but in keeping them out of Ukraine’s hands. Indeed, Ukraine is facing a major funding shortage in the coming years, which can only either be filled by putting the onus on Western taxpayers – a politically fraught proposition – or by tapping the Russian funds.
If there is any blow to Russia from this, it would come from Ukraine getting a get-out-of-jail free card to keep its finances afloat a while longer. However, there is no reason to believe that this would materially change the outcome of the conflict or in any way affect the calculus of the Russian leadership in how it goes about achieving its goals. Attempts to bring Russia to heel through economic leverage have up to this point failed miserably.
Moreover, thanks to the sharp growth in the gold price in recent years, the value of Russia’s reserves has been rising dramatically. The official value of Russia’s central bank-held gold holdings reached $249 billion this summer. Russia also holds an undisclosed – and possibly sizeable – amount of gold in a second store known as the State Fund for Precious Metals and Stones (Gosfund), a fund that has reportedly been augmented in recent years. Russia’s true gold holdings are thus believed to be substantial.
How does the reparations loan make a grand peace deal more unlikely?
The loan deal would give the West less room to maneuver to negotiate some sort of grand deal to end the Ukraine conflict because Russia could very well demand sanctions removal – while obviously not paying reparations to the Kiev regime – as part of a deal. However, such a scenario would leave the EU on the hook for a significant sum of money that was either supposed to be returned to it through reparations or written off because Ukraine would have no obligation to return the funds if it doesn’t receive reparations.
For EU taxpayers, it could mean Brussels has walked them into a fait accompli where they simply have to stump up for funding a corrupt regime in Kiev, end of story.
Since the likelihood of Russia suffering a clear-cut military defeat (and thus paying reparations) is acknowledged even in the West as being close to zero, what the EU is doing is dramatically raising the potential cost to itself if a deal is reached that entails Russia regaining access to its funds.
If this loan or something similar to it does in fact go through, it can be seen as narrowing – whether by design or not – the range of possibilities available to the West in a potential settlement scenario. This point has been raised by Belgium throughout its several official protests against von der Leyen’s plan.
The loan is also, implicitly, seen as an invitation to keep the war going – thus not only keeping the Kiev regime afloat but complicating the prospects for a comprehensive settlement.
