Robert Zoellick’s piece is prescient (“Transferring frozen Russian reserves to Ukraine is elegant justice”, Opinion, January 22). Putting to one side the moral argument for confiscation, the pros and cons of the debate seem finally balanced from an economic standpoint. However, one possible consequence of such action that was not mentioned is that the threat of confiscation could act as a useful indicator of future intent.
If a belligerent nation had serious intentions to take part in a near-term event that could draw international ire, and if there was a precedent set for confiscation, then we would surely witness a sharp transfer of funds by that country away from currencies that could be subjected to requisition.
This would allow significant foresight into the intentions of that nation and give the international community vital time to react.
David Coombs
Corby, Northamptonshire, UK
