Edward Marchesi The war in Ukraine has prompted Western powers to seek unconventional diplomatic solutions. In this context, the United States has advanced a bold proposal: to release a portion of Russian sovereign assets frozen after the invasion and transfer them to a financial vehicle overseen by Washington, with the aim of revitalizing peace negotiations.
The initiative was discussed at a meeting in Miami attended by Ukrainian delegates, officials from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and representatives of the European Union and NATO . The proposal, however, met with strong opposition from European countries, who rejected the project without further negotiations.
US proposal to unfreeze Russian assets
According to emerging details, Russian sovereign assets include treasury reserves and state funds blocked by international sanctions. The plan called for the creation of a neutral entity, managed by US authorities, capable of channeling this capital toward reconstruction or humanitarian aid initiatives in Ukraine, hoping to create a concrete incentive for Moscow to return to the negotiating table.
The American promoters emphasized that the mechanism would guarantee maximum transparency and that the funds would be subject to strict controls, preventing any misuse. However, European representatives emphasized the risk of setting a precedent for the management of confiscated assets and expressed doubts about the legitimacy of a vehicle unilaterally controlled by Washington.
European reactions to the plan
The European Union 's response was firm: delegates declared that the proposal violates the principles of national sovereignty and multilateral coordination on which sanctions are based. In particular, Germany and France argued that any transfer of capital must take place through recognized international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, rather than through an exclusive US channel. The result was a categorical rejection, which resulted in the discussion returning to focus on other forms of economic and diplomatic pressure against Moscow.
Conflict on the ground: new deaths in Kropyvnytskyi
Meanwhile, on the operational front, violence shows no sign of abating. Last night, Russian airstrikes hit the town of Kropyvnytskyi , killing three civilians. Local authorities confirmed the deaths and reported damage to residential buildings, raising the level of alarm in the region. This incident highlights how, despite diplomatic efforts, military operations continue to result in human losses and keep tensions high between the parties involved.
Starlink at the center of the dispute
The issue of satellite communications has come to the forefront in recent exchanges. Ukrainian President Zelensky accused Moscow of exploiting technical difficulties with Starlink to organize more intense strikes, arguing that connectivity issues allow Russian forces to coordinate more lethal attacks. A senior US official, on the other hand, denied any involvement from the previous administration, stating that former President Trump had no influence on the alleged limitations on the service. Meanwhile, SpaceX founder Elon Musk reiterated that the Starshield systems —the military variant of Starlink—are the property of the US government and that any restrictions on speed or use are determined by the military and, ultimately, the president.
Starshield's role and Washington's decisions
According to Musk, Starshield management is the responsibility of US authorities, meaning operational decisions, including any bandwidth limitations, are made by the Department of Defense and the highest strategic command. This approach, sources say, is designed to prevent the technology from being used unauthorized, but raises questions about the extent to which government control can influence the operations of such a closely allied country. The question remains open, as Kiev continues to complain about the impact of any disruptions on its defense efforts.