Europe needs funds to support Ukraine, so why is it hesitating to spend Russia’s frozen assets? This is the question posed by a CNN analysis regarding the freezing of approximately $300 billion in assets from the Russian Central Bank as part of stringent sanctions imposed on Russia in response to the war. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the West, led by the EU and the US, has frozen Russian assets as part of harsh sanctions. Three years later, as the war continues to devastate Ukraine, many are questioning why the EU isn’t utilizing these frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine both militarily and in its reconstruction. The issue is complex, involving legal and ethical challenges, according to the American media outlet. The war in Ukraine has left Europe with a hefty bill: nearly $122 billion in direct aid, with billions more funneled into armies and the continent’s defense industry. However, the bloc has so far refused to touch the $229 billion in cash from the Russian central bank ‘sitting’ in the EU since the invasion. Recently, French legislators passed a non-binding resolution urging their government to use the frozen Russian assets for military support and Ukraine’s reconstruction. Both the United States and Canada have already enacted laws allowing their governments to seize frozen Russian assets. Progress was made last week when the European Parliament agreed on a resolution concerning the seizure of Russian frozen assets for Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction. The text of the resolution has not yet been voted on by MEPs. The EU is already using interest from frozen funds to support multi-billion-dollar loans to Ukraine, but European governments remain hesitant about seizing the capital itself. Legal concerns are twofold: economic and legal. A statement by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak highlighted the complexity. While France considers legal avenues for using the funds, there are fears that touching these assets could create dangerous precedents discouraging foreign investments in Europe. China, aware of potential European sanctions if it invades Taiwan, might hesitate to place capital in the region. There is precedent for such actions by the US, which seized German, Afghan, and Iraqi assets in the past. Concerns expressed by European central banks suggest that seizing foreign capital could harm the euro as a reserve currency. However, ongoing support for Ukraine will continue to cost Europe money, and interest from Russian funds isn’t enough. Legally, Europe’s hesitation stems from a fundamental principle of international law: the immunity of state assets abroad from seizure. With about two-thirds of all frozen Russian capital located in the EU, the stakes—and potential benefits—are much higher for European governments than for the US. Lack of historical precedent contributes to Europe’s caution, unlike post-World War agreements where defeated Germany had to pay reparations through international treaties. Any action at the EU level would likely require unanimous agreement among member states, an unlikely outcome given Hungary’s and Slovakia’s support for Russia. Officials in the Biden administration hoped to use Russia’s frozen funds as leverage in peace negotiations, potentially forcing Putin to come to the negotiating table. With Donald Trump’s overtures toward Moscow and initial moves toward a peace agreement after three years of conflict, a European seizure of Russian cash is more likely to hinder than help negotiations. For now, Moscow’s ‘pocketbook’ appears safe outside European portfolios.