Belgium Opposes EU’s Plan to Use Frozen Russian Funds for Ukraine Loan
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has sharply criticized the European Union’s proposal to use frozen Russian assets to fund a €14,000 billion loan for Ukraine. In a strongly-worded letter to EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, De Wever warned that the plan could jeopardize prospects for a peace deal with Russia and expose Belgium to significant legal threats. The PM argued that leveraging frozen Russian state assets held at Brussels-based Euroclear as collateral for a “reparations loan” would remove a crucial bargaining tool in any potential settlement with Moscow.
De Wever emphasized that hastily proceeding with the proposed scheme could inadvertently prevent the EU from reaching a peace agreement, with potential collateral damage including Belgium facing legal claims for the return of its sovereign assets. He warned that if Russia were to challenge the move, Belgium could find itself in a precarious legal position, with the country potentially being viewed as having wrongfully taken the assets.
In addition to the legal risks, De Wever cautioned that the plan could trigger turmoil in EU financial markets, as the utilization of frozen assets for such a loan might be perceived as an act of economic aggression. The controversy has sparked broader debates within the EU about the ethical and legal implications of using frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s financial support.
Meanwhile, several EU states have accused Belgium of mishandling the revenue from these frozen assets. Diplomats have expressed concerns that the proceeds from the Russian funds held at Euroclear may not be fully allocated to Ukraine as promised, with some believing that the money could be integrated into Belgium’s national budget. This has raised questions about the transparency and accountability of the financial process, with one senior EU diplomat stating that the ongoing delays suggest that Europe’s security is being overlooked in this matter.
Belgium’s officials have rejected these criticisms, asserting that all the income generated from the frozen Russian assets is being directed to Ukraine as intended. However, the dispute highlights the growing tensions within the EU as different member states navigate the complex issue of how to handle the frozen assets while balancing their strategic interests with the broader goal of supporting Ukraine.
Russia has consistently denounced Western actions to freeze its funds, calling them an act of theft. President Vladimir Putin has warned that any moves to tap these assets to aid Ukraine would damage the West’s credibility and provoke retaliatory measures from Moscow. The ongoing debate over the use of frozen Russian assets reflects the deepening geopolitical and economic complexities of the conflict, with implications for both the EU’s internal cohesion and its relationship with Russia.