European leaders have once again found themselves at a crossroads over how best to support Ukraine as the war with Russia grinds on, with billions of euros in frozen Russian assets hanging in the balance. On October 23, 2025, after hours of tense negotiations in Brussels, the European Union agreed to cover Ukraine’s financial needs for the next two years, but stopped short of unlocking €140 billion (about $148 billion) in Russian assets currently held in a Belgian clearing house. The decision on whether to use these funds to help Ukraine defend itself was pushed to December, highlighting both the urgency and the complexity of the situation.
The idea on the table is as bold as it is controversial: Ukraine, battered by Russia’s ongoing invasion, would receive a so-called “reparations loan” backed by Russian assets frozen in Europe. According to AFP, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been vocal in his push for this plan, telling reporters in Brussels, “Russia brought war to our land, and they have to pay for this war.” The logic is straightforward—use Russia’s own money to help repair the damage it has caused. But, as with most things in international diplomacy, the devil is in the details.
The reparations loan was first floated by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in September 2025. The plan would see Ukraine receive a loan now, with repayment not required until it has received reparations from Russia after the war. To sidestep the thorny legal issues associated with outright confiscation, the proposal suggests converting the frozen assets—nearly $200 billion worth immobilized across Europe—into bonds. This clever workaround, however, has not convinced everyone.
Belgium, where the majority of these Russian assets are held in the Euroclear bank, has emerged as the most significant roadblock. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has been clear about his country’s concerns. “Can this (plan) be legal? That is a very good question ... There are no clear answers,” De Wever said, as reported by BBC. “We will in any case be buried in litigation. That seems like a certainty.” Belgium fears that if the legal foundation of the plan is shaky and Russia mounts a successful challenge, it could be left holding the bag, potentially triggering a major financial crisis.
These worries are not unfounded. The European Commission is now looking to other G7 countries where Russian assets are also frozen, hoping to spread the risk and reassure Belgium. But the effort suffered a setback when, according to Bloomberg, the US declined to participate in the scheme. Without Washington’s backing, Belgium’s reluctance only deepened, and the EU as a whole was forced to delay a final decision.
Despite the absence of a breakthrough, President Zelensky tried to put a positive spin on the Brussels talks. Describing the discussions as “maybe not simple” but “very good,” he welcomed the outcome as a sign of “political support” for the idea of using Russian assets to keep Kyiv in the fight. The final text adopted by EU leaders stopped short of endorsing the reparations loan outright, instead asking the European Commission to provide “options for financial support based on an assessment of Ukraine’s financing needs.”
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen acknowledged the complexity of the issue. “This is a topic that is certainly not trivial. It’s very complex,” she said after the summit. “It was also very clear there are points to be clarified.” European Council President Antonio Costa, meanwhile, tried to reassure Ukraine and the world that the bloc’s commitment was not in doubt. “Russia should take good note of this: Ukraine will have the financial resources it needs to defend itself,” Costa told a news conference.
Legal and political complexities aside, the stakes are high for all sides. The EU’s latest round of sanctions, unveiled on the same day as the Brussels summit, targeted the Kremlin’s oil revenues and extended to three Chinese businesses involved in trading Russian crude oil. The intention, as Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas put it, is “meant to deprive Russia of the means to fund this war” and to send a clear signal that “Russia can’t outlast us.” China, for its part, condemned the move, with a commerce ministry spokesperson claiming it “seriously undermined the overall framework of China–EU economic and trade co-operation.”
Russia, meanwhile, has responded with predictable fury to the EU’s proposals. “Any confiscatory initiatives from Brussels will inevitably result in a painful response,” warned Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. The Kremlin has made it clear that it sees any move to seize or repurpose its assets as an act of economic aggression, one that could have unpredictable consequences for Europe’s financial system.
The debate over the frozen assets comes at a moment of heightened urgency for Ukraine. On October 24, 2025, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is set to host a London summit of the so-called “coalition of the willing,” where he will urge European leaders to increase supplies of long-range missiles to Kyiv. Zelensky is expected to attend, alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and other key European leaders. The timing is no coincidence: Ukraine is eager to use long-range missiles to strike Russian oil and energy plants, which are vital to Moscow’s war machine. But getting those weapons has proved difficult. Last week, the US refused Ukraine’s request for Tomahawk cruise missiles, citing their complexity and the lengthy training required to operate them.
The United States, for its part, has continued to ratchet up the pressure on Russia. On October 22, 2025, Washington announced new sanctions targeting Russian oil giants Rosneft and Lukoil. Former President Donald Trump, who announced the measures, also confirmed that a planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Budapest had been shelved indefinitely. “Every time I speak to Vladimir, I have good conversations and then they don’t go anywhere,” Trump said. Putin, for his part, dismissed the sanctions as “unfriendly” but insisted they “will have certain consequences, but they will not significantly affect our economic well-being.” Oil remains one of Russia’s most important exports, and both sides are maneuvering to control the flow of money that fuels the war.
For now, the question of whether Europe will tap into Russia’s frozen riches to help Ukraine remains unresolved. The coming weeks will see intense legal wrangling and political horse-trading, with Belgium’s concerns front and center. As the December deadline approaches, the world will be watching to see if the EU can turn its political promises into concrete support for Ukraine—or if the legal and financial risks will prove too daunting to overcome.
One thing is certain: Europe’s commitment to Ukraine is being tested not just on the battlefield, but in the boardrooms and courtrooms of Brussels and beyond.