https://archive.is/20250623093918/https://www.ft.com/content...
I have doubts the current US administration would let them without some sort of retaliation (e.g. more tariffs)
I have doubts the current US administration would let them without some sort of retaliation (e.g. more tariffs)
If of course it's just a bargaining tool, you would think there is a quit pro quo.
Whilst the impact of a refusal to repatriate would be high remember the gold is probably not performing very much of a role, beyond a defensive one, and is nothing like the whole of their stocks. And the cost to US standing in enacting a refusal to NATO allies would be significant: You would expect future gold deposits to seek safer harbours for one, and the retention of the dollar as a hedge currency would be called into even more question.
In any case, it's a matter for law. On what grounds could the US refuse?
yeah, I mean, this administration really doesn't seem to mind taking on significant costs - to the country I mean. I don't think the administration likes the idea of bearing significant costs themselves.
> On what grounds could the US refuse?
"You need our trade more than we need your trade" is a very useful property to have when it comes to international law. Putting people you don't like on sanction lists, like people investigating your ally's war crimes, also seems to work pretty well. When push comes to shove, there's always "we have more guns than you", though American diplomatic action generally prefers to overthrow governments and install new, more US-aligned leadership as a head of state.
If it's a matter of law, you need someone to enforce that law.
This isn't difficult.
The US has enough leverage over Germany that the Nord Stream incident is still an unsolved mystery where everyone just moved on. Probably the Russians did it. That's a lot of leverage.
Our foreign minister for example in Poland, thanked USA for doing so :P I for example I'm happy NS2 got blown up, as it means relative safety for us. Germans won't be able to just go on about their business with Russia in the future.
Sorry, that's what I get for writing w/o thinking and I can't edit it now.
The Andromeda ship was operated by an Ukrainian national, and rented by a company from Uzbekistan, the owner of which holds a Russian and a Ukrainian passport which resident is located in the annexed Crimea.
In addition there are around 5 more ships that have been in the area.
There have been and still are multiple investigations. Sweden and Denmark dropped the cases citing lack of jurisdiction/basis to continue investigation. Germany issued an arrest warrant toward suspected operators of the Andromeda ship.
There was an alleged leaked Dutch intelligence report that implicated Ukrainians that was given to the The Washington Post, but military analysts from Sweden and Denmark has expressed strong doubts of the practicality of an 15.4-metre sailing boat to do a 80 meter technical dive using a crew of 6 to plant that much explosives (over 500kg) and at 3 different sites. As such they has described the Andromeda theory as a distraction and false flag.
Knowledge or agreement by Selensky is unclear, but there seem to be hints. Poland might have been complicit or at least turned a blind eye and seems to have let a wanted suspect escape to Ukraine.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/...
[2] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nord-stream-wie-e...
[3] https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explos...