In a meeting of foreign ministers in Madrid this week, Spain's José Manuel Albares called for confiscated Russian assets to be used for the benefit of Ukraine. The EU currently holds 200 billion euros in frozen Russian funds, 180 billion of which is in the Belgian securities depository Euroclear. Albares claimed that this money could be used as an "advance" on the war reparations that Russia will eventually have to pay to Ukraine, which the World Bank predicts will cost over 500 billion dollars to repair - but it's not quite that simple.

Last June, the EU loaned Ukraine 50 billion dollars, secured against the interest earned by frozen Russian funds within Europe. But there is a crucial difference between backing a loan with profits made by confiscated assets (or profits you expect them to make in the future) and seizing the assets themselves. Charging tourists to view stranded Russian yachts in Marbella, then sending the money to Volodymyr Zelensky, would be safer than selling the boats themselves.

France, Germany and Belgium have resisted plundering Russia's frozen money, claiming that it would weaken the EU's position in ceasefire negotiations (although if Donald Trump has his way, the EU won't be included in those talks). Germany, which still faces compensation claims from Poland and Greece relating to the Second World War, has another reason for opposing reparation payments to Ukraine: not wanting to set a precedent that could be used against it.

Using the Russian funds in the way Albares proposes would be unprecedented. Victims of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 were compensated with state assets, in the form of profits from petroleum exports; but that was part of a post-conflict deal brokered by the UN. Iraq made its final payment to Kuwait in early 2022, just before Russia invaded Ukraine: the total came to 52 billion dollars.

France, Germany and Belgium also claim that unlocking confiscated Russian funds would create financial uncertainty, by deterring other countries from using European financial institutions and the euro. The risk is surely exaggerated: freezing Russian assets in the first place, immediately after the invasion, had no negative impact on European markets. True, foreign governments or individuals with imperialist intent may think twice about keeping money in Europe - or, preferably, cancel their invasion plans. But hopefully that's a pretty small group.

Despite the difficulties, Albares is not alone in calling for the Russian assets to be unfrozen and channelled into Ukraine. Kaja Kallas, the EU's foreign affairs chief, has said that it should be Russia, not Europe, that funds the invaded country's reconstruction. Poland, the UK and the Baltic states also support the idea. Perhaps those empty Russian yachts in Marbella should be sold after all.