In the heart of Brussels, a high-stakes debate is brewing over the future of Ukraine’s finances—and Belgium, it turns out, is right at the center of the storm. On December 3, 2025, Belgium’s Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot made headlines across Europe when he publicly rejected the European Union’s latest plan to use frozen Russian central bank assets as collateral for a massive loan to Ukraine. The proposal, designed by the European Commission, aims to channel roughly €140 billion—potentially up to €210 billion—of immobilized Russian reserves into a so-called “reparations loan” to help Kyiv weather the ongoing war and keep its economy afloat through 2026 and 2027.
The plan, which EU officials have touted as essential for Ukraine’s survival, is anything but straightforward. According to AP and NPR, the vast majority of these frozen Russian assets—about €194 billion as of June 2025—are parked at Euroclear, a Brussels-based financial clearing house. That means Belgium’s consent is not just helpful, but absolutely vital for any scheme that goes beyond merely using the windfall profits generated by the assets. And Belgium, it seems, is not convinced.
Standing before reporters at NATO headquarters, Prévot did not mince words. “Our concerns are being downplayed. The texts the European Commission will table today do not address our concerns in a satisfactory manner. … We demand that the risks Belgium is facing as a result of this scheme are fully covered,” he declared, as reported by Reuters. He later added, “The option of the reparations loan is the worst of all, as it is risky. It has never been done before.”
So what, precisely, is Belgium worried about? In a nutshell: legal and financial retaliation from Moscow, the risk of being left alone to shoulder the consequences if the plan backfires, and the unprecedented nature of the proposal itself. Belgian officials, from the prime minister down, have sounded the alarm that their country could face “crippling legal and financial retaliation” should Russia or affected investors challenge the use of the funds. Euroclear and the National Bank of Belgium have also issued warnings about the potential impact on financial stability and investor confidence, while the European Central Bank has flagged concerns that the plan could undermine the international standing of the euro.
Belgium’s resistance is not just technical—it’s deeply political. As Financial Times and Politico have detailed, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever sent a pointed letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on November 27, 2025. In it, he described the reparations loan as “fundamentally flawed” and warned that pushing ahead with such a scheme while the war is ongoing could complicate any eventual peace settlement, provoke Russian reprisals, and embroil Belgium in protracted and costly legal disputes. De Wever’s message was blunt: Belgium wants “ironclad” guarantees from other EU countries that it won’t be left carrying the bag if courts later order the release of assets or compensation claims mount.
Prévot echoed these concerns at NATO, stating, “It is not acceptable to use the money and leave us alone facing the risks.” He urged the EU to consider a more conventional approach: borrowing money for Ukraine on international markets, backed by member states or the EU budget, much like the joint borrowing model deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic. “It is a well-known, a robust and a well-established option with predictable parameters,” Prévot explained. In his view, the reparations loan, by contrast, is “highly risky, unprecedented in international practice and insufficiently shielded against litigation by Russia or affected investors.”
Belgium’s stance has not gone unnoticed by its European partners. Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul acknowledged, “We take Belgium’s concerns seriously. They are justified, but the issue can be resolved. It can be resolved if we are prepared to take responsibility together.” The Netherlands’ David van Weel was equally emphatic: “These funds are really, really important. We need to support the Ukrainian economy, otherwise they will have a very tough time next year. We understand the Belgian concerns, and we are willing to at least make sure that they are not alone in this.” Several EU countries have already agreed to provide financial guarantees if things go wrong, but Belgium remains unconvinced that these assurances go far enough.
Behind the scenes, the numbers are staggering. Ukraine’s budget and military needs for 2026 and 2027 are estimated at around €130–136 billion, according to EU documents cited by AP and Politico. The EU has already committed over €170 billion to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022. The reparations loan, as envisioned, would provide Ukraine with up-front financing, with repayment in the future linked to Russian war reparations. If Moscow refuses to pay, the assets would remain frozen. For Belgium, however, the prospect of being left exposed if Russia challenges the arrangement in court is a bridge too far.
Adding to the complexity, Belgium is not alone in its skepticism. The European Central Bank has expressed concerns that relying directly on frozen Russian reserves could damage confidence in the euro. Euroclear, which holds the lion’s share of the assets, is worried about the impact on its reputation and business interests if litigation erupts. And while most EU governments see the reparations loan as a creative way to secure a multi-year financial lifeline for Ukraine without further straining national budgets, Belgium insists that it is not questioning the need to support Kyiv—just the balance of risk.
Belgium’s position is further complicated by the fact that other major holders of frozen Russian assets—Japan, the US, the UK, and Canada—have not yet committed to sharing the risks or going beyond using only the interest generated by those assets. De Wever has insisted that these countries should play a commensurate role if the West moves forward with the reparations loan model.
As the December 18–19 EU summit in Brussels approaches, diplomats say Belgium’s firm opposition could well derail the reparations loan plan. If no alternative package is agreed, fresh questions will loom over how the EU intends to guarantee Ukraine’s financial stability beyond 2025—a prospect that has many officials in Brussels on edge.
For now, Belgium stands its ground, determined not to be left holding the bag. As Prévot put it, “We are not seeking to antagonize our partners or Ukraine. We are simply seeking to avoid potential disastrous consequences for a member state that is being asked to show solidarity without being offered the same solidarity in return.” With the summit just weeks away, the fate of both Ukraine’s finances and the EU’s unity hangs in the balance.