Ukraine’s Fate: Crisis in Brussels 🇺🇦💔

World News

Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, will meet with European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen and Belgium’s prime minister Bart De Wever on Friday for emergency talks focused on securing additional financing for Ukraine. The three leaders will dine privately in Brussels, a German government spokesperson announced on Thursday, as Belgian officials continued to express strong opposition to the scheme, which involves the unprecedented use of frozen Russian assets. With Russia’s attacks intensifying and Washington pushing for a peace deal favoring Moscow and Kyiv, and with Kyiv rapidly running out of money and Europe struggling for influence at US-led talks, the bloc must find a solution to avoid a significant blow to its credibility. Two weeks before the crucial 18 December EU summit, von der Leyen proposed two main options for the EU to raise the tens of billions of euros Ukraine needs to fund its military and basic services. The EU has pledged to keep Ukraine afloat next year, aiming to raise €90bn (£80bn) to meet approximately two-thirds of Kyiv’s needs for 2026 and 2027, thereby enabling Ukraine to negotiate a peace deal “from a position of strength.” The bloc could either borrow against its shared budget on the international markets or issue a loan secured by immobilized Russian assets – primarily held in Belgium – that Kyiv would repay from Russia’s postwar reparations.

Obstacles remain to both alternative approaches. Many member states express reservations regarding common borrowing, a mechanism that would require repayment. Furthermore, achieving unanimity on any decision remains a significant challenge, particularly given Hungary’s longstanding opposition to funding for Ukraine. The frozen assets plan, initially proposed nearly two months ago, continues to be vehemently rejected by Belgium, which houses approximately two-thirds of the estimated €290 billion in Russian assets held within Euroclear, a securities depository located in Brussels. “It’s never easy to reach agreement at 27, and we acknowledge that,” stated Belgium’s foreign minister, Maxime Prévot, on Wednesday. “However, if we are unable to secure funds for Ukraine – a truly existential matter – we will have ultimately failed, both ourselves and Ukraine.” The core rationale behind utilizing the frozen assets as collateral for a substantial loan to Ukraine—a strategy designed to demonstrate Kyiv’s continued ability to resist for extended periods, thereby strengthening its negotiating position, rather than outright confiscation, which experts broadly agree would be illegal—is being met with resistance. Belgium’s prime minister, speaking at an event in Brussels this week, characterized the proposal as “a nice idea, stealing from the bad guy to give to the good guy. But stealing the frozen assets of another country has never been done.” He added, referencing historical precedent, “Even during the second world war, we did not confiscate Germany’s money. In a war, you freeze sovereign assets.”

“The losing side must relinquish all or part of those assets to compensate the victors,” he stated. He personally emphasized that Belgium would face eternal consequences if Russia seized these assets. The commission maintains that the plan fully complies with EU and international law, and a “three-tier defense” would protect Belgium from legal challenges. In an op-ed published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper on Thursday, the German chancellor cautioned his fellow EU leaders that the decisions they made in the coming days would “determine the question of European independence.” He described “imperialist Russia” as “striving to extend its sphere of influence into the states of Europe” and “preparing militarily for a conflict with the west,” arguing it was vital to “send an unambiguous signal to Moscow” by utilizing the frozen assets. He advocated for assurances that the risks of the plan would be borne fairly by all EU member states, with each country “incurring an equal share of the risk, as a function of their respective economic performance.” Europe must “decide and shape what happens on our continent,” he concluded, noting that “the financial resources of an aggressor have been lawfully frozen within the jurisdiction of our constitutional state. What we decide now will determine the future of Europe.”