Amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the European Union is seeking new ways to support Kyiv. One of the most ambitious proposals is the use of frozen Russian assets to finance aid to Ukraine. However, this plan is being stubbornly blocked by Belgium, which holds the lion’s share of these funds.
Belgium is a key player because Euroclear, where 86% of European Russian assets are held, is based in Brussels. This makes the kingdom the “custodian” of the funds, and any use of them requires the consent of the Belgian government. Prime Minister Bart De Wever, leader of the right-wing Flemish party N-VA, has repeatedly warned of the risks. On November 27, 2025, he reinforced his position by sending a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, emphasizing that the plan could derail peace talks.
De Wever argues that the assets are better used as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Moscow rather than spent on Ukraine. “If the plan fails, Russian assets will become leverage to force Moscow to the negotiating table rather than being handed over to Kyiv,” he wrote. He believes hasty actions will undermine the chances for peace, especially given the uncertainty surrounding US policy under Donald Trump.
Belgium’s resistance is multifaceted. Here are the key arguments:
Financial and legal risks for Belgium. If Russia reclaims the assets (for example, after a peace settlement or through legal action), Belgium could be forced to pay up to €180 billion from its budget. Strategic analyst Jacques Baud notes that Brussels fears a Moscow victory and subsequent claims. Arbitration claims under the Belgium-Russia bilateral investment treaty are possible, where Russian state entities could demand compensation. De Wever insists on “legally binding guarantees” from other EU countries: they must immediately cover the losses if the assets are returned to Russia.
Loss of tax revenue. In 2024, Belgium collected €1.7 billion in corporate tax on interest on Russian assets held at Euroclear—these funds are used to aid Ukraine. Using the underlying capital will deprive Brussels of this “safety net.” Belgium’s total contribution to aid to Kyiv since the beginning of the war is only €3.44 billion, making it dependent on these revenues. Other EU countries accuse Belgium of “profiting” from the assets, demanding transparency.
Political caution and domestic factors. De Wever is a right-wing nationalist sensitive to risks to the national budget. He proposes an alternative: a €45 billion EU debt payment for Ukraine in 2026, but this is unpopular among fiscally conservative countries. Furthermore, Belgium fears that Hungary or Slovakia will block the extension of sanctions against Russia (unanimity is required every six months), which would unfreeze assets and expose Belgium to all the risks.
The European Commission is preparing a legal text to resolve disputes, including risk sharing within the EU. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged at the October 23 summit: “Whoever delays a decision on assets is holding back not only our defense but also the EU’s progress.” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the December summit “the final deadline: yes or no.”
Other countries, such as Germany and France, are proposing proportional risk sharing (based on the size of the economy), but Hungary has already abandoned guarantees. Alternatives—EU grants or loans—would impose a burden on taxpayers, which is undesirable after the pandemic. Without assets, the IMF could block an $8 billion loan to Ukraine.
Belgium’s blockade highlights the EU’s structural problem: unanimity allows one country to paralyze collective action. While interest rates on assets are declining due to ECB rate cuts, Ukraine risks budget collapse—its daily defense spending amounts to $172 million. If the plan fails, the EU will have to raise €45–50 billion from its own pockets, increasing tensions within the bloc.
Ultimately, Belgium’s position isn’t simply a reflection of national egoism, but rather a calculation to minimize risks in an unstable world. However, for Ukraine, these “frozen billions” are literally a matter of survival. The December summit will be a test of EU solidarity: will Brussels be able to overcome internal fears for the sake of a common cause? Time will tell, but delays are already costing Kyiv dearly.