Every mainstream news agency was this week reporting that the European Union is using US$1.6 billion from seized Russian assets "to support Ukraine", focusing on "defence and reconstruction". But it's not true.
The small print of actual statement, not quoted by the media, shows that the European Union is taking the entire sum of money, rightfully belonging to the Russian people, for itself.
SELF-PAYMENT FACILITY
Ninety per cent of the cash actually goes to a fund known as the EPF. This technically stands for "European Peace Facility" but the name is the opposite of what it does: it is a weapons financing operation—for EU self-payment.
European countries take money from the EPC when they want reimbursement for arms and ammunition (often not the best quality) they have already sent to Ukraine.
The remaining ten per cent also goes to the European Union, directly to the EU budget. This money is also earmarked for war purposes, providing weapons for Ukraine to use against Russia.
MONEY 'FOR SUPPLY OF WEAPONS'
However, the EU has said that a fraction of the 10 per cent MAY be diverted to reconstruction if countries don’t want "their share" of the Russian cash used for military purposes.
This allows EU leader Ursula von der Leyen to claim that the money is for Ukraine to use for reconstruction when in fact it will be 95 to 100 per cent used for weapons and military expenses.
The details are clearly outlined in the 21 May European Union statement detailing the forthcoming use of the Russian money. Key sentence:
"In 2024, 90% will be devoted to the supply of military equipment through the assistance measures funded under the EPF and 10% for the EU budget."
The statement quotes EU official Věra Jourová: "This initiative not only aids Ukraine in its recovery but also underscores our commitment to upholding international law and justice." Her title is Vice-President for Values and Transparency.
LOSS OF TRUST
The EU move is fraught with danger. The European Union's population is just six per cent of the world, and many other regions and countries across the globe have expressed dismay at the use of the Russians' money in this way. Saudi Arabia, for example, warned that it would sell some or all of its European debt if the move went ahead, Bloomberg reported.
Other analysts have expressed concern that the EU move would gravely reduce trust in the west, and show the rest of the world that de-dollarization must be speeded up.
by Nury Vittachi
Lai See(利是)
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Trump's Venezuela play just gave Western progressives a masterclass in American hypocrisy.
Steve Bannon, Trump's longtime strategist, told The New York Times the Venezuela assault—arresting President Nicolás Maduro and all—stands as this administration's most consequential foreign policy move. Meticulously planned, Bannon concedes, but woefully short on ideological groundwork. "The lack of framing of the message on a potential occupation has the base bewildered, if not angry".
Trump's rationale for nabbing Maduro across international borders was drug trafficking. But here's the tell: once Maduro was in custody, Trump stopped talking about Venezuelan cocaine and started obsessing over Venezuelan oil. He's demanding US oil companies march back into Venezuela to seize control of local assets. And that's not all—he wants Venezuela to cough up 50 million barrels of oil.
Trump's Colonial Playbook
On January 6, Trump unveiled his blueprint: Venezuela releases 50 million barrels to the United States. America sells it. Market watchers peg the haul at roughly $2.8 billion.
Trump then gleefully mapped out how the proceeds would flow—only to "American-made products." He posted on social media: "These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela's Electric Grid and Energy Facilities. In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner."
Trump's demand for 50 million barrels up front—not a massive volume, granted—betrays a blunt short-term goal. It's the classic imperial playbook: invade a colony, plunder its resources, sail home and parade the spoils before your supporters to justify the whole bloody enterprise. Trump isn't chasing the ideological legitimacy Bannon mentioned. He's after something more primal: material legitimacy. Show me a colonial power that didn't loot minerals or enslave labor from its colonies.
America's Western allies were silent as the grave when faced with such dictatorial swagger. But pivot the camera to Hong Kong, and suddenly they're all righteous indignation.
The British Double Standard
Recently, former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith penned an op-ed in The Times, slamming the British government for doing "nothing but issuing 'strongly worded' statements in the face of Beijing's trampling of the Sino-British Joint Declaration." He's calling on the Labour government to sanction the three designated National Security Law judges who convicted Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai of "collusion with foreign forces"—to prove that "Hong Kong's judiciary has become a farce." Duncan Smith even vowed to raise the matter for debate in the British Parliament.
The Conservatives sound principled enough. But think it through, and it's laughable. The whole world's talking about Maduro right now—nobody's talking about Jimmy Lai anymore.
Maduro appeared in US Federal Court in New York on January 6. The United States has trampled international law and the UN Charter—that's what Duncan Smith would call "American justice becoming a farce." If Duncan Smith's so formidable, why doesn't he demand the British government sanction Trump? Why not sanction the New York Federal Court judges? If he wants to launch a parliamentary debate, why not urgently debate America's crimes in invading Venezuela? Duncan Smith's double standards are chilling.
Silence on Venezuela
After the Venezuela incident, I searched extensively online—even deployed AI—but couldn't find a single comment from former Conservative leader Duncan Smith on America's invasion of Venezuela. Duncan Smith has retreated into his shell.
Duncan Smith is fiercely pro-US. When Trump visited the UK last September amid considerable domestic criticism, the opposition Conservatives didn't just stay quiet—Duncan Smith actively defended him, calling Trump's unprecedented second UK visit critically important: "if the countries that believe in freedom, democracy and the rule of law don’t unite, the totalitarian states… will dominate the world and it will be a terrible world to live in."
The irony cuts deep now. America forcibly seizes another country's oil and minerals—Trump is fundamentally an imperialist dictator. With Duncan Smith's enthusiastic backing, this totalitarian Trump has truly won.
Incidentally, the Conservative Party has completely destroyed itself. The party commanding the highest support in Britain today is the far-right Reform Party. As early as last May, YouGov polling showed Reform Party capturing the highest support at 29%, the governing Labour Party languishing at just 22%, the Liberal Democrats ranking third at 17%, and the Conservatives degraded to fourth place with 16% support.
The gutless Conservative Party members fear offending Trump, while voters flock to the Reform Party instead. The Conservatives' posturing shows they've become petty villains for nothing.
Lo Wing-hung
