It has been said that all wars are “bankers wars,” however, against the modern era of inverted fascism where corporations tell the govt what policies take priority, the more accurate truism ‘is all wars being controlled by money’, not necessarily banks.
The European Commission has constructed a very special kind of proactive financing for Ukraine that doesn’t require them to give their own €uros to the historically corrupt country. Partly because the EU doesn’t have their own money, and partly because everything the EU does in the sphere of finance is always a false construct, what the EU put together was a financial system based on sanctioned, confiscated (ie stolen) Russian sovereign wealth funds {citation}.
As part of the sanction regime, the EU and western NATO alliance seized roughly €250 billion, $300 billion USD, in Russian sovereign wealth assets. As long as the USA was financing the Ukraine government and war effort, those funds sat on the sidelines undiscussed. However, once the USA stopped writing checks to Ukraine an alternate finance system was needed.
What the EU (Ursula von der Leyen) put together was a finance package using the confiscated $300 billion in the Russian sovereign wealth fund as collateral for loans to Ukraine. The EU would send the money to Ukraine as a loan that did not have a payback mechanism. Instead, the thinking goes that when the negotiations for a ceasefire take place, Russia would be forced to give up the confiscated $300 billion as part of a reparations package to Ukraine.
Ukraine doesn’t have to pay back the loans because Russia will be forced to give up their sovereign wealth fund, and those funds will repay the loans. That’s the way the EU financing of Ukraine is set up. {SOURCE} The EU isn’t giving Ukraine EU money; the EU is giving Ukraine the Russian wealth fund money.
Now, immediately you can see a few problems.
♦ PROBLEM 1 – What happens if Russia demands the return of their $300 billion as one of their baseline terms for a peace deal? If the confiscated money is given back to Russia, the EU and Ukraine are on the hook for the $300 billion they would have spent.
♦ PROBLEM 2 – With #1 in mind, there is now an incentive to never reach a peace agreement or ceasefire; at least never reach a solution that would consider the return of the $300 billion. Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has previously said the stolen money belongs to the Russian people and must be returned; he will never accept the theft.
Zero Sum Loggerheads – If Vladimir Putin refuses to accept the theft, and the EU won’t return the stolen assets, it seems the only option left is to escalate the Ukraine conflict, with the EU aiming to defeat Russia. It doesn’t seem like a coincidence that this appears to be their current approach.
Yesterday in a stunning interview with Sky News, President Zelenskyy said a few remarkable things. One, he has plenty of money and two, Zelenskyy wants to build big, big factories in Great Britain in order to build missiles and drones away from the threat of Russian countermeasures.
The sick irony is that Zelenskyy would be building missiles and drones in the U.K to attack Russia using money confiscated by the EU/U.K and given to Ukraine. However, in this bizarre world that’s the reality of the thing.
When you overlay the pragmatic, transactional nature of President Trump into this dynamic, we can see how things look even more muddied over this confiscated Russian sovereign wealth. President Trump has often advocated for “taking the oil” or assets of a country to pay for the military expenditures incurred by the USA. Both in Afghanistan (theoretical) and in Venezuela (reality) this Trumpian approach is visible. To the victors go the spoils.
Russia is militarily holding approximately 20% of the land mass of Ukraine, the Donbas region, with no intention of ever returning it. Putin wants his sovereign wealth fund restored, and, if his doctrine is to be consistent, President Trump has no room to say Putin shouldn’t get it back.
The Europeans likely understand that President Trump is ideologically on the side of President Putin on this national economic aspect. The EU is against the return of sovereign Russian wealth. This part is a very interesting dynamic to watch.
Meanwhile, there are ancillary interests that exist within the economics of the conflict with direct stakes into the billions of euros. One of those interests is held by Ukraine’s richest person, a very corrupt billionaire Rinat Akhmetov, the owner of mining and steel firm Metinvest and the Ukraine power company DTEK.
Pay close attention. Billionaire Rinat Akhmetov (DTEK) has a lot on the line in the Russia -vs- Ukraine conflict.
[…] Akhmetov lost more than half of his assets as a result of the full-scale invasion, with many of his industrial holdings, such as the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol, destroyed or damaged during the fighting. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, as of Oct. 31, Akhmetov’s net worth fell by 52% to $5.39 billion compared to the pre-war numbers.
Billionaire oligarch Rinat Akhmetov operated in that very lucrative space between Ukraine and Russia. Akhmetov’s assets are directly tied to both nations now in conflict. Akhmetov even has operational loans from Russian banks that have not been repaid due to the sanction’s regime, and if there ever was a resolution to the fighting, he would also be on the hook for repayment as well as the loss of his industrial assets in the Donbas.
[NOTE: Keep in mind, one of the primary issues that brought Putin to power was his opposition to the Russian oligarchs who surfaced as wealthy control agents following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The billionaire oligarchs controlled Russian politics until strong man Putin diminished them, smacked them in the nose and took back control.]
There is a lot of motivation for Rinat Akhmetov (DTEK Energy Co.) to support funding pro-Ukraine influence operations against Russia considering the billions at stake from direct energy company asset losses and reconstruction funds that he could also benefit from…
YAHOO NEWS – Ukraine’s richest man Rinat Akhmetov allegedly borrowed $400 million from Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank, the International Consortium of Investigate Journalists (ICIJ) said on Nov. 14, citing information obtained from leaked documents dubbed “Cyprus Confidential.”
The documents are part of a massive leak of millions of files obtained from Cypriot financial service providers.
The files also shed light on Akhmetov’s involvement in Russia’s coal industry after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. In 2016, Akhmetov’s energy company DTEK transferred ownership of a number of coal mines to a subsidiary of Fabcell Ltd., based in Cyprus. She bought these mines four years earlier in the southwest of Russia in the Rostov region. DTEK also transferred to the subsidiary a significant loan obligation in the amount of about USD 400 million from Sberbank (Russia’s largest state-owned bank).
In January 2017, Fabcell reclassified its shares into 7,999 common shares and one gold share. The gold share was assigned to Sberbank, which would allow the bank to gain control over Akhmetov’s company in case of non-fulfillment of its obligations.
[…] In response to the investigation, Akhmetov issued a statement to ICIJ saying that the loans provided by Sberbank and others before Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 were “standard practice for Ukrainian borrowers.”
Transferring the ownership of the Russian coal mines to the Cypriot subsidiary was a way of “limiting [DTEK’s] exposure to the claims of Sberbank as creditor and paved the way to exiting DTEK’s investment in the Rostov Coal Mines.”
In June 2022, Akhmetov filed a lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights against Russia for gross violations of his property rights. Akhmetov asked for “billions of dollars” to compensate for the blockade, looting, destruction, and theft of his grain and metal from Ukraine to Russia. (read more)
With all of that said, we now have a solid baseline for how some financial interests in Ukraine are positioned.
All of the above information should help us to understand the dynamics and stakeholders.
World War Reddit continues.



Now on Fox News they just showed a file photo of Zman and Lindsey embracing and all smiles
And voice coverage moved on to “tonight?” congressional activity to do with US assistance to Ukraine in fighting off Russian efforts
yada yada
I imagine they spent quite a few nights playing late night duets on the piano
F NATO F EU ! Oh by the way Ukraine is not a member.
Fox News
“Trump — Will take out Pickaxe Mountain if no deal”
and showing cartoons of the bunker-buster bombs and how they work
I envision mini-mini nukes in Pickaxe future.
Well that certainly feels familiar in the USA, doesn’t it…
For those interested in the breakdown of Russian Assets HELD Captive by Nation (in Billions of Euros):
Belgium 180B
France 19B
Luxembourg 10B
Japan 28.1B
UK 26.6B
Canada 15.1B
Switzerland 6.2B
USA 4.3B
Note: The fidelity, security and trustworthiness of the banks in these the nations listed, except for the US and Japan, makes up a major part of the economies of those nations. So, if the EU starts tampering with this money … the real question is what will be the impact on the ability of the Banking Industry in these nations to generate FUTURE BUSINESS as well as on the deals cut for any FUTURE BUSINESS.
This is the reason Belgium has given pause to agreeing to use the sequestered Russian Funds. Belgian Banks rank with Swiss banks in terms of how they operate internationally.
The cost of war.
I asked Googe AI:
How much World War 1 debt has the UK not paid back?
I received this answer in the first line:
The UK has paid off all of its official World War I debt,
with no remaining principal balance left unpaid. (my emphasis)
I repeated the question expanding it:
How can the Guardian claim World War 1 UK debt has been paid back
while Peter Hitchens said it has not been paid back but payments stopped in 1934?
I received a rather different answer:
The Guardian and Peter Hitchens are talking about two different things:
The Guardian refers to domestic war bonds owed to British citizens,
while Hitchens refers to international government-to-government debt owed to the United States.
Both statements are technically correct in their own contexts.
Google AI is misleading at best.
Peter Hitchens says that there was no need for the UK to get involved in World War 1.
There was a huge economic and social cost for the citizens of the UK.
(Listen to his recent interview on Triggernometry, “We Live in the Age of Delusions” on Youtube)
Similarly I believe the US, UK and EU should not have got involved in the Russia-Ukraine war while trying to deceive their citizens by not declaring war and sending their soldiers to fight on the front lines. Had they given no financial support, weapons and logistical help, I believe the war would have ended quickly and many lives spared.
Loss of lives, soldiers incapacitated for life, massive destruction of property and the outflux of millions of Ukrainains to various countries. The cost of reconstruction will be enormous and I do not believe citizens of the Western countries should contribute even a single dollar. Perhaps the arms industry and those with shares in the military industrial complex have a moral obligation because they have exploited the war.
The AI answer omitted that the Nations of Western Europe (especially the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands) used the “War Reparations” owed by Germany to pay off their “war debt”. This was a major influence on the rise of the Nazis Party 1920 to 1933.
The same is true for WWII war debts.
The US forgave war debts owed by Europe from WWI and WWII.
This is akin to the EU Members using the sequestered Russian Assets to pay off “war debts”. It will leave a highly volatile situation in place, if the EU ever decides to back away from fomenting a war.
In all of this nonsense, I place great faith and trust in: Vladimir Putin. He has been elected and re-elected many times in fair elections. He was there when the Soviet Union collapsed and the member nations, particularly including Russia, were suddenly scrambling for identity and autonomy. He was right there, adroitly doing that. And his people keep bringing him back.
Both his parents and his grandparents suffered greatly in war. When the “Ghost Regiment” marches, his family has many memories and photographs to share.
This is a man who loves his enormous “Motherland” passionately. And he is extremely devoted to leading it. He is well-educated, historically informed, articulate, patient, and level-headed. He looks at what Europe and Ukraine are doing, and he understands it clearly. Yet, when they try their best to provoke him, he is not easily provoked.
Russia has enormous military power – nuclear and otherwise – and very advanced weapons. Yet, he is keeping those capabilities sheathed. He could wipe Kiev off the map. He hasn’t. He is trying to spare civilian lives in this region, which has ancient familial ties to Russia. The “limited special” operation … still is.
He will always do what is best for Russia. But he doesn’t want World War, because he keenly understands what that actually is. Europe clearly does not.
So: Of the actors now on stage, I trust Putin and Trump greatly, and the European fools(!) not at all.
I read that Miss Lindsey had expected the Iran Conflict to last 3 to 4 weeks.
I wonder how bad they’re underestimating the timeline of WWOneHundredEleven?
Questions? Yeah, who was the genius who decided it would be a good idea to place Russian money under EU control?
I don’t know, but that’s likely his epitaph.