> we can say that it's a process started long time ago and now simply accelerating and escalating after Ukrainian conflict and confiscation of a european partner assets?
For France, not really. It was De Gaulle and his successors wanting to remove levers that the America government could use against France. It was a sovereignty issue, not really fear that the gold would be seized or frozen. It took decades because it was not really a top priority either.
For the Netherlands (which is why the BBC is talking about this), it’s directly a consequence of Trump using underhanded tactics against allies. In the words of the Dutch government, "geopolitical lawlessness". It has more of a sense of urgency, as well.
> what is the sense of having it abroad if the abroad partner can switch idea of ownership anytime?
There are practical reasons to have some gold abroad. The stuff is heavy and cumbersome, and vulnerable in transit. So, when transactions can be managed by just moving a bunch of ingots from one pile to another in the same facility, it makes transactions easier.
Other than that, countries do not do that if they don’t trust the reserves won’t be seized. In practical terms, either they are close allies, or they have some leverage so stealing the gold has a cost. In the end, it’s a risk/reward analysis on both sides.
For France, not really. It was De Gaulle and his successors wanting to remove levers that the America government could use against France. It was a sovereignty issue, not really fear that the gold would be seized or frozen. It took decades because it was not really a top priority either.
For the Netherlands (which is why the BBC is talking about this), it’s directly a consequence of Trump using underhanded tactics against allies. In the words of the Dutch government, "geopolitical lawlessness". It has more of a sense of urgency, as well.
> what is the sense of having it abroad if the abroad partner can switch idea of ownership anytime?
There are practical reasons to have some gold abroad. The stuff is heavy and cumbersome, and vulnerable in transit. So, when transactions can be managed by just moving a bunch of ingots from one pile to another in the same facility, it makes transactions easier.
Other than that, countries do not do that if they don’t trust the reserves won’t be seized. In practical terms, either they are close allies, or they have some leverage so stealing the gold has a cost. In the end, it’s a risk/reward analysis on both sides.