As the European Union edges closer to a critical decision on how to use €140 billion in frozen Russian reserves held in Brussels, Belgium finds itself at the center of a tense standoff with its EU partners. The issue, which has simmered for months, is reaching a boiling point ahead of the European Council meeting scheduled for December 18, 2025, where the bloc’s leaders are expected to debate whether to channel these immobilized Russian assets as a reparations loan to Ukraine.
According to POLITICO, frustration among EU member states has been mounting, with diplomats from several countries accusing the Belgian government, led by Prime Minister Bart De Wever, of failing to fully disclose how it handles the windfall tax revenue generated from these frozen assets. The assets, held in Brussels-based depository Euroclear, have been a lucrative source of corporate tax income for Belgium, generating an estimated €1.7 billion in 2024 alone.
The European Commission’s plan is straightforward: secure unanimous agreement from all 27 EU countries to use the frozen Russian funds to support Ukraine’s battered economy as it continues to resist Russian aggression. But Belgium has emerged as a key holdout, with Prime Minister De Wever arguing that releasing the funds could expose Belgium to significant financial risk if Moscow were ever to successfully reclaim the billions. “Belgium could be held liable if Moscow were to successfully reclaim the billions,” De Wever has maintained, as reported by POLITICO.
Yet, behind the scenes, some EU diplomats suspect that Belgium’s reluctance is not solely about legal liability. Five diplomats from various European countries, speaking on condition of anonymity, have pointed to the substantial corporate tax revenue Belgium collects from the interest on these Russian holdings. “In light of this ongoing foot-dragging behavior, one wonders whether it has actually been understood that it’s Europe’s security which is at stake here,” a senior EU diplomat told POLITICO. “And in view of the data, there are doubts as to whether Belgium is delivering on its promise to send its windfall tax gains to Ukraine.”
The controversy centers on transparency—or the lack thereof. Last year, Belgium made an international commitment to disclose exactly how it uses tax proceeds from the frozen Russian reserves, especially since these funds were intended to support Ukraine. However, diplomats say that Belgium continues to incorporate the tax revenue into its national budget, making it nearly impossible to verify whether the country is fully honoring its obligations. Data from the Kiel Institute cited by diplomats suggests that Belgium’s total commitment to Ukraine from the start of the war to August 31, 2025, stands at €3.44 billion—a figure that includes both direct support and the tax revenue generated from the Russian assets.
Despite the mounting criticism, Belgium has consistently denied any wrongdoing. “The Belgian government has committed to allocating all corporate tax revenue from the interest income on Russia’s immobilized assets at Euroclear to support Ukraine,” a Belgian official stated to POLITICO and other outlets. “For 2025, this revenue is currently estimated at around €1 billion.”
Belgian authorities have also emphasized that their support for Ukraine goes beyond the tax revenue from the Russian assets. “In addition to the full use of the corporate tax on the windfall profits, which is fully used for military support to Ukraine, the Belgian federal government has provided since 2022 roughly just under 1 billion euros in military and other support to Ukraine,” the official said. The 25 percent corporate tax levied on profits from the interest on the Russian holdings, according to Belgian officials, is directed toward military-related aid—including hardware, training, and, in some cases, civilian items such as ambulances.
But for many of Belgium’s EU partners, these assurances are not enough. The transparency issue was supposed to have been resolved in 2024, after several Western countries accused Belgium of using part of the tax revenues to cover ordinary budget expenses. The previous Belgian government responded by pledging to transfer the tax revenues to an EU and G7 financial instrument for Ukraine—a promise that, to date, has not been fulfilled. When pressed on why the special mechanism has not been implemented, Belgian officials have remained silent.
“The tax revenue was already part of their domestic budget, and they didn’t want to give it up,” a second senior EU diplomat explained, summarizing the skepticism among Belgium’s allies. This sentiment has only intensified as the December summit approaches, with diplomats warning that Belgium’s continued opposition could lead to even greater scrutiny in pre-summit meetings. Questions abound: Is Belgium profiting from the tax income, or simply delaying payments to Ukraine? Is it using regular tax revenue to support Ukraine, as other EU countries do, or relying solely on the taxes from the Russian reserves?
The stakes are high, not just for Ukraine but for the EU’s unity and credibility on the world stage. The European Commission views the use of the frozen Russian assets as a crucial step in supporting Ukraine’s economy and signaling a united European front against Russian aggression. Yet, without full transparency and cooperation from Belgium, the plan risks being derailed.
For its part, Belgium insists that all funds are “entirely earmarked for Ukraine and go toward the provision of military-related support (military hardware, training, etc.) as well as limited civilian items such as ambulances.” But the lack of a clear financial trail and the failure to implement the promised EU and G7 mechanism have left many EU partners unconvinced.
As the December 18 European Council meeting draws near, the impasse threatens to complicate what was intended to be a unified EU response in support of Ukraine. The issue has exposed deeper questions about trust, transparency, and the balance between national interests and European solidarity. With Europe’s security—and Ukraine’s future—hanging in the balance, all eyes will be on Brussels to see whether Belgium can deliver on its promises and help forge a path forward.
In the coming weeks, the pressure on Belgium is unlikely to subside. Whether the government can satisfy its critics and demonstrate that it is indeed honoring its commitments to Ukraine remains to be seen. For now, the debate over the frozen Russian reserves is a stark reminder of the complex financial and political realities that underpin Europe’s response to the war in Ukraine.