On December 3, 2025, the European Union unveiled an ambitious and controversial proposal to use billions of euros in frozen Russian assets to help fund Ukraine’s financial and military needs over the next two years. The plan, intended to cover two-thirds of the 137 billion euros ($160 billion) that the International Monetary Fund estimates Ukraine will require for 2026 and 2027, has sparked fierce debate within the bloc—most vocally from Belgium, which holds the lion’s share of these assets and insists the scheme is simply too risky.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen presented the details in Brussels, emphasizing the EU’s long-term commitment to Ukraine. “Today we are sending a very strong message to the Ukrainian people. We are with them for the long haul,” von der Leyen said, as reported by the Associated Press. The plan would provide 90 billion euros ($105 billion) from the EU, with the remaining third expected from other international partners. The centerpiece of the proposal is a “reparations loan,” using Russian assets as collateral to fund Ukraine’s economy and war effort.
The EU has already funneled over 170 billion euros ($197 billion) to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. However, the search for additional, reliable funding sources has become urgent as the war drags on and Ukraine’s needs mount. The frozen Russian assets, amounting to 210 billion euros ($245 billion) in Europe—most of it, about 194 billion euros, held in Belgium at the Brussels-based financial clearing house Euroclear—represent the largest pool of ready funds. Smaller amounts are held in Japan, the U.S., the U.K., and Canada.
Von der Leyen argued that leveraging these assets would not only help Ukraine but also send a tough message to Moscow. “The prolongation of the war on their side comes with a high cost for them,” she said, noting that the proposal had already been communicated to the Trump administration in the U.S. She also claimed that using the assets would strengthen Ukraine’s hand in any future peace negotiations with Russia and the West.
Despite the Commission’s enthusiasm, Belgium has emerged as the plan’s most vocal critic. Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot minced no words, calling the reparations loan “the worst of all, as it is risky. It has never been done before.” According to BBC reporting, Prévot has repeatedly urged the EU to instead borrow the necessary funds on international markets—a “well-known, robust, and well-established option with predictable parameters,” as he described it. He warned that the Commission’s proposal “entails consequential economic, financial and legal risks,” and insisted, “It is not acceptable to use the money and leave us alone facing the risks.”
Belgium’s concerns are not abstract. The government fears that if Russia challenges the use of the funds, Euroclear could face damaging legal action, potentially threatening Belgium’s financial stability. Prévot was blunt: “If Russia takes us to court it will have every chance of winning and we, Belgium, will not be able to repay those €200bn, because that represents the equivalent of an entire year of the federal budget. It would mean bankruptcy for Belgium.”
Prime Minister Bart De Wever has echoed these warnings in a letter to von der Leyen, calling the plan “fundamentally wrong.” Valérie Urbain, head of Euroclear, has also voiced concern, arguing that Euroclear has a contractual obligation to return the money to the Russian central bank if sanctions are lifted. Veerle Colaert, a professor of financial law at KU Leuven University, told BBC that Belgium’s worries are justified: “If sanctions are lifted and at that moment Euroclear hasn’t got the money because it’s being lent to the EU, Belgium would have to step in, but the amount involved is simply too large. That’s why Belgium wants legally binding, on-demand guarantees from the other member states to share the risk.”
The European Commission has attempted to address these fears by including safeguards in its proposal. These include protections against “possible retaliation from Russia,” a prohibition on the release of the frozen assets, and mechanisms to ensure burden-sharing among EU nations. “We have listened very carefully to Belgium’s concerns, and we have taken almost all of them into account in our proposal,” von der Leyen insisted. “We will share the burden in a fair way, as it is the European way.”
Other EU partners have tried to reassure Belgium. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul told reporters, “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.” Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel added, “These funds are really, really important. We need to support the Ukrainian economy, otherwise they will have a very tough time next year.” Several EU countries have reportedly agreed to provide financial guarantees if things go wrong.
Still, Belgium remains unconvinced. The government argues that the risk of being left alone to face Russian retaliation—or the collapse of the plan if sanctions are lifted—remains too great. Belgium has been earning some tax income from the frozen assets, and the interest generated has already been used to fund a loan program for Ukraine organized by the Group of Seven. But using the assets themselves, rather than just the profits, is a far more contentious step.
The European Central Bank has also weighed in, warning that the reparations loan could undermine confidence in the euro on international markets. Veerle Colaert, the KU Leuven professor, pointed out to BBC that tapping foreign reserves for such a purpose could seriously dent trust in Europe’s financial system. She argued that while using Euroclear’s frozen funds is interest free, “it is not risk free.”
Russia, for its part, has condemned the EU’s plan, labeling it “theft.” Andrei Kostin, president-chairman of Vneshtorbank (VTB), one of Russia’s leading state-owned banks, threatened the EU with “50 years of litigation” should the scheme move forward. “As for the seizure of our money, in the end, we can manage without it,” Kostin said. “The only problem is that this money might be used for war, not peace.”
With the stakes so high, EU leaders are scheduled to discuss the proposal—and Ukraine’s broader financial and military needs—at a summit in Brussels on December 18, 2025. Whether a consensus can be reached remains uncertain. While the majority of EU countries support the reparations loan plan, Belgium’s resistance and the warnings from financial experts and the European Central Bank have thrown a wrench in the works. For now, the future of both Ukraine’s funding and the EU’s financial unity hangs in the balance, with the world watching closely as the bloc debates how far it is willing to go in support of Kyiv—and at what risk to itself.
As the December summit approaches, the EU faces a defining test of solidarity, risk appetite, and its commitment to Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression.