We are in agreement with Senator John Kennedy in wanting to see an end to the war in the Ukraine, but there are some problems with his proposal to seize Russia’s financial assets that need to be addressed.

First is the vindictive nature of it.  In Sen Kennedy’s view, asset seizure is a way of ‘punishing’ Putin and Russia for invading the Ukraine.  This is the attitude that the European powers took after World War I vis-à-vis Germany.  That led to deep resentment among the Germans, which in turn allowed Adolf Hitler and the Nazis to rise to power.  As we begin to contemplate international relations in a post-Ukraine war era, it is imperative that we not unleash forces that could lead to a worse conflict in the future.  As President Trump and many presidents before him have shown, it is possible to negotiate with world leaders we don’t particularly like and achieve beneficial results.  Taking Russia’s assets isn’t a constructive way to negotiate; but it is a fine way to blow up what’s left of positive relations between Russia and the West, which is precisely what a lot of globalists want.

Second, confiscation would generate tremendously negative consequences – namely, undermining the stability of the global financial system.  The West would suffer doubly from that, insofar as Western countries currently hold leadership positions in that system:

‘From an investor’s perspective, the central concern is credibility. Investors prize certainty, enforceable property rights, predictable dispute resolution, and adherence to international law.

‘A decision to transfer sovereign assets to a third party without an unmistakable legal mandate would complicate the calculus for global capital. Legal scholars and parliamentary briefings have underlined the absence of a clear precedent for confiscating a central bank’s reserves without Security Council authorization, which many argue would be required to square such action with established international legal norms. That legal uncertainty would do more than generate lawsuits: it would signal that states can re-engineer the rules of custody when geopolitics demands.

‘The question of legality is not merely technical. Several legal assessments, including recent European Parliamentary Research Service work and think-tank analyses, stress that unilateral seizure of sovereign assets risks breaching international legal protections for state property and central-bank immunity.

‘Without a United Nations Security Council mandate or an equivalently robust legal architecture, confiscation could invite reciprocal claims in international courts and undermine the Western legal architecture that underpins global finance. That is precisely the reputational hazard EU officials fear: an erosion of trust in Europe’s legal commitments’ (Ricardo Martins ‘By Confiscating Russian Frozen Assets, Europe Was Playing with Fire,’ journal-neo.su).

Western countries would probably lose much more than they would gain from taking Russia’s assets, as capital would flee from their banks to countries that respected property rights:

‘Political economy adds another layer. The Global South is watching. Reports published since 2024 show that some major Gulf actors signaled displeasure at the prospect of wide-scale asset seizures, warning privately that they could rebalance their portfolios away from Western holdings if property rights are perceived as politicized.

‘Media reporting and market intelligence suggested Saudi Arabia had in 2024 “veiled” threats to sell Western debt if large-scale seizures were attempted, a signal that the consequences would reverberate well beyond Russian capital flows.

‘For the EU, undermining the confidence of sovereign investors would be nothing short of self-sabotage: it would unsettle capital markets, accelerate fund withdrawals from Western banks, and strain diplomatic relations with powerful partners, such as the Gulf countries, whose vast reserves underpin Europe’s own financial stability’ (Ibid.).

Third, the regime Sen Kennedy is asking us to prop up with this damaging scheme is not worth the threat to the West’s reputation and financial well-being.  The inconvenient truth that The Powers That Be want to keep hidden in the dark is that the Zelensky regime is as corrupt and abusive as they come.  Every week or two brings forth new reports to confirm that.  Here is one of the latest – Ukrainian authorities are slowly murdering an innocent bishop of the Orthodox Church in his prison cell:

‘The head of the Rivne branch of the civic movement Myriany (Laity), Tetiana Tsaruk, has published an emotional statement on YouTube in which she not only voiced grave concern for the health of the abbot of the Holy Dormition Sviatohirsk Lavra, Met. Arseniy, but also sharply denounced the state of justice in Ukraine. This was first reported by UOJ’s Ukrainian bureau (SPZh).

‘“I am deeply worried about the health of Met. Arseniy. And I am also worried about the state of justice in Ukraine. What is happening to the bishop gives a very clear picture of our judicial system,” Tsaruk began.

‘She reminded viewers that Met. Arseniy has been held in pre-trial detention for a year and a half as if he were a dangerous criminal. Recently, he was rushed to a hospital in Dnipro. A cardiologist examined him and issued a grim diagnosis – the hierarch urgently needs surgery and a full medical evaluation.

. . . ‘“Let me repeat: the trial is still ongoing. The bishop’s guilt has not been proven in any way, and the public is outraged by the absurdity of the charges. Yet this respected hierarch, known throughout the Orthodox world, has been kept behind bars since the very first day of his indictment – since April 25, 2024. For a year and a half, they have kept a monk, a bishop, the abbot of a shrine renowned throughout the Orthodox world, in a cage. For what? For a sermon!” Tsaruk said bitterly.

‘She stressed that the court hearings are constantly postponed, endlessly delayed, while the measure of restraint is simply prolonged again and again in gross violation of due process.

. . . ‘“In fact, the judges and prosecutors overseeing this process are consciously destroying the bishop’s health. They are slowly killing him. To me, it’s an unspeakable shame, grief, and horror that such a thing is happening today to a hierarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. And there is no way to stop it, no way to save him, to at least examine him or provide him with the necessary care at his age and in the conditions he’s kept in,” Tsaruk declared.

‘She said that since the outbreak of war in the East, Met. Arseniy had spent years tirelessly helping people in need.

‘“In my view, the Sviatohirsk Lavra under Met. Arseniy became a true island of hope, a haven of peace – a refuge for thousands upon thousands of people amid the fire of war. The humanitarian mission of the monastery under his leadership was incomparable to anything the state was doing at that time,” Tsaruk emphasized’ (‘Ukrainian Laity Movement: Authorities Are Slowly Killing Met. Arseniy,’ uoj.news).

One doesn’t have to work very hard to find numerous other cases similar in nature to that one committed by the Zelensky regime.  Is this really a country that we should demolish the financial system to support?

We emphasize again that we agree with Sen Kennedy that we would like to see an end to the Ukraine-Russia war sooner rather than later.  But his proposal to seize Russia’s assets is not the proper way to go about this.  Working constructively with both parties – the Ukraine and Russia – as the Trump administration has been trying to do, offers a more promising future for all those involved.  May God grant them all wisdom as they negotiate.

No country will forever be a friend of the United States or forever their enemy.  Each new generation of people in a nation, and their leaders, will bring forth new possibilities for good or ill.  Little more than 50 years ago, Vietnam was a bitter enemy of the States, whose soldiers had killed thousands of our soldiers.  Today, Vietnam is one of the top 10 trading partners of the US.

We ought to keep the door of diplomacy open vis-à-vis Russia.  The policy of vindictiveness of Sen Kennedy, Sen Lindsey Graham, and other Russia hawks would slam it shut.  That is unwise.

Sir Edmund Burke, England’s conservative exemplar, offers a better alternative:  the politics of prudence (a theme Burke’s influential disciple in Michigan, Dr Russell Kirk, emphasized over and over again in his own talks and writings).  One never knows when a friendly relationship with Russia might come in handy when faced with difficult situations with China, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.; or exploring and developing the resources in the Arctic; and so on.

In short, the enemy of today could turn into a dear friend tomorrow.

Let us heed the timeless wisdom of Burke, then.  Let us practice prudence rather than vindictiveness in foreign relations.  The latter has had catastrophic effects in recent world history; we ignore those lessons at our own peril.