In the international arena, financial strategy has long become the leading sword in the game of great powers. Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, this sharp sword has hung in the sky of global financial security, which is gripping. The United States and Europe, as financial giants, have inflicted a series of unprecedented heavy blows on Russia economically. Together, they act like a war without gunpowder, trying to force Russia into submission by freezing its assets abroad.
According to public reports, about half of Russia's foreign exchange reserves, amounting to $300 billion, have been frozen by the West. Of this, $220 billion is deposited in European bank accounts, which is not only a direct blow to the Russian economy, but also a severe test of the global financial order.
But the United States is clearly not satisfied, and has made a bolder proposal to invite the G7 to jointly transfer these seized Russian assets to Ukraine to support its confrontation with Russia in the ongoing conflict. Such a move would undoubtedly further escalate the situation, and the volatility effect of the US proposal has gone far beyond the economic sphere.
If Russia has remained calm under heavy sanctions, then Russia's response to such provocative US proposals can be described as extremely angry. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov directly said that if $300 billion in assets falls into the hands of Ukraine, Russia will not hesitate to sever diplomatic relations with the United States.
Earlier, Russian Secretary Dmitry Peskov had already paved the way for this situation, saying that they were ready to respond to any possibility of any attempt to seize Russian assets. Retaliatory measures have been put on the table – a clear warning that each side has significant assets and interests within the other's borders, and this clear warning is effectively a reminder to the international community that any illegal transfer of property could trigger a series of unpredictable reciprocal retaliatory measures.
Russia's tough response is not unfounded. Under the framework of international law, the unilateral freezing or confiscation of assets of other countries is always a sensitive and complex issue, no matter how difficult the diplomatic friction is. It crosses the red line of national sovereignty and is seriously controversial in law. It is on this basis that Russia has issued a warning to the international community that cannot be ignored.
** Man-to-man warfare is a common tactic used in the United States
On the chessboard of global politics, the United States has long used the strategy of human war to suppress its opponents. The latest proposal related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict – the use of seized Russian assets to support Ukraine – is clearly an extension of this strategic thinking. This approach not only provides Ukraine with financial guarantees for the continuation of the confrontation, but also tries to indirectly weaken Russia by means of war.
Behind this plan, however, lies a deep-seated game of international relations and its potential risks。When the strategic room for maneuver between the two nuclear powers gradually shrinks, the flame of conflict can be ignited. Attempts by the United States to suppress a country with an equal nuclear deterrent by providing military support could actually exacerbate international tensions and instability, with unpredictable consequences.
From a historical point of view, the Soviet Union used the first-class war strategy in Afghanistan during the Cold War, and as a result, it was countered by the United States. And now, the actions taken by the United States seem to echo that history that is still fresh in people's minds, but in a different setting and role.
If U.S. actions end up weakening Russia's economic resources and squeezing its strategic space, Russia's response could go far beyond traditional diplomatic practice. With the Russian deputy foreign minister's warning of the severance of diplomatic relations, this act has made it clear that Russia will not accept this situation silently.
The U.S.-Russia relationship is shaping the global landscape
Contemporary US-Russian relations obviously bear the afterglow of the Cold War, and although they do not have the saber-rattling tension of the ideological confrontation of the past, under the entanglement of conflicts of interests and geopolitics, old hatreds and new hatreds have made the relations between the two countries tense again. It is worth noting that even during the most tense Cold War period, the United States and the Soviet Union actively sought a platform for dialogue, and even when the Cuban Missile Crisis brought them to the brink of nuclear war, the two sides eventually explored a way to ease the antagonism through communication.
In contrast to today's U.S. proposal to freeze Russian assets to support Ukraine, Russia's response is not only reflected in its tough diplomatic language, but also in the security risks that a country may face in the global financial system. The freezing and confiscation of assets, without the consent of the State, is in fact a challenge to the bottom line of international law, and such a precedent is a wake-up call for any country.
On the other hand, the freezing of Russian assets also sends a clear signal to other countries: in the current international order, the central bank's foreign exchange reserves are not completely safe, the storage of national wealth may need to be reconsidered, and the construction of a diversified network of financial and partner partners to guard against similar risks is becoming an issue that countries must face.
Against this background, the United States and Russia, as important participants in the international arena, will greatly affect the stability and development of the world through their modes of action and mutual relations. If the two countries can seek and establish effective mechanisms for dialogue – whether through the United Nations or other multilateral or bilateral frameworks, as they did before the end of the Cold War – the world can hopefully avoid more serious conflicts and conflicts.
In this era of rapid information flow and increasingly complex international relations, rational dialogue and balanced diplomacy are the best way to avoid miscalculations and miswars, despite differences.
Communication is the way to solve problems
We should note that the tension between the United States and Russia is not just a matter for two countries, it affects the global political balance, economic development and even cultural exchanges. In this context, dialogue is no longer a multiple-choice question, but a mandatory one. Dialogue here refers not only to direct communication between leaders, but also to diplomatic activities conducted through various multilateral or bilateral channels, as well as the participation of civil society organizations, think tanks and the public.
Dialogue among major powers can resolve misunderstandings, clarify positions, and, more importantly, lay the groundwork for a common security architecture. History has shown that confrontation and isolation policies often only deepen suspicion and escalate tensions to the point where they lead to unforeseen consequences。On the contrary, through dialogue, even if differences cannot be resolved immediately, we can seek the least common divisor and gradually expand the space for cooperation on the basis of respecting each other's core interests.
The global challenges of the 21st century – from climate change to terrorism to digital security – require major powers to face together. Without the involvement of even one party, the global solution will be greatly compromised. Therefore, major powers such as the United States and Russia should demonstrate strategic thinking beyond a simple zero-sum game, strive to find their own role in the overall situation, and at the same time assume corresponding international responsibilities.
Dialogue and cooperation among major countries is not only necessary to safeguard world order, but also an effective way for all parties to address global issues and achieve win-win development. In this regard, the United States, Russia, or any other country should shoulder their due responsibilities and roles.
100 help plan