Why only 90% and why "from revenues generated from frozen assets" instead of the actual assest?
I suppose it's better to make the money work and use the extra money than use all of it and not get any interest?
Just speculating but it would.be fairly logical especially if you plan to do it for a while.
I mean, it probably depends on supply, because if being ready to spend all the funds right away and supply cannot meet demand - then it makes sense to make puchases gradually. I just suspect that they plan to unfreeze and return those funds to Russia in the future and that's bugging me. Bloody politics.
Also, how do these funds generating revenue if they are "frozen"?
I was more thinking of investing the money on the markets like your bank does with the money in your bank account.
It's never just money sitting in an account, it's an opportunity for some banker to invest money they don't own to get richer themselves.
Honestly think it's almost impossible this money will be returned.
You wouldn't seize that much money to return it years later. It would be essentially an admission of guilt to return it. Nothing to win there politically.
The only scenario where the money could be returned would be if Russia somehow won this war and managed to patch things up with the EU. Very unlikely.
Europe
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee