V enem stavku: Vodstvo EU in ključni evropski politiki so se ves čas zavedali, da ne morejo zapleniti ruskih sredstev in na njihovi osnovi organizirati posojila Ukrajini, vendar so igrali to igro, da bi kot “manjše zlo” spravili skozi sicer politično nesprejemljivo skupno zadolžitev EU in mutualizacijo novega skupnega med članicami EU.

Teorija zarote?

No, madžarski, slovaški in češki predsedniki vlad niso padli na finto. Naš pa je.

The core idea was never really to confiscate the frozen Russian assets. From the very beginning, Brussels knew that this option was legally unworkable on a large scale, due to international pressure, the systemic risk to the legal security of sovereign assets, and the precedent it would set for third countries.

The narrative around “confiscation” served a different purpose: to deliberately confuse European public opinion and create a false political dilemma. Either one accepted confiscation — presented as morally necessary but legally fragile — or one accepted, as the “lesser evil”, the mutualisation of debt through a large loan backed by the EU budget.

What matters is that this mutualisation was never allowed during the financial crisis that hit Spain, Greece, and other southern European countries. At that time, the response was austerity, conditional bailouts, and the transfer of costs onto the weakest states, under the banner of “fiscal responsibility” and an outright rejection of eurobonds.

Today, by contrast, a de facto mutualisation of risk has been imposed — not to stabilise European economies in distress, but to finance an external war, shifting the risk directly onto EU taxpayers.

The contrast is striking:

when the problem was internal, mutualisation was impossible;

when the objective is geopolitical, it suddenly becomes acceptable and urgent.

From this perspective, the debate over Russian assets was instrumental, not substantive. It was used to prepare the political and emotional ground for approving a measure that, in any other context, would have been unthinkable within the European Union.

The strategy did not change.

 The narrative did — to achieve the same outcome.