Afrasianet - In  a sudden and rapid turnaround during the Brussels summit, the "European dream" of confiscating frozen Russian assets in Belgium and using them as loans to Ukraine collapsed. Reality collided with illusions, and the result was painful: Europe acquiesced to the fait accompli, deciding to borrow $105 billion (€90 billion) to finance Kyiv, rather than taking a penny from Moscow. 

Without taking into account the deteriorating economic situation of the European peoples thanks to the stupidity of their rulers, who were hysterically and emotionally driven to try to support Ukraine against Russia.

The same people will pay what goes to Ukraine and will live in more living crises.

In the background of this great decline, how the "war hawks" turned into "peacemakers" as soon as the bill touched their pockets.

First: Belgium's lesson – "Don't rob a central bank smiling" 

The node was in Belgium (where  Euroclear is based and frozen assets). Brussels refused to be a scapegoat, and demanded open guarantees from the European Union against any Russian retaliation (judicial or financial), which other countries rejected.

The Reuters news agency mentions the following: Russian assets frozen, based on the text provided:

Friedrich Mears' surprise plan

Announcement via the press: Valerie Orban, the director general of Euroclear, learned of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's proposal through the Financial Times on September 25, without prior notice.

The essence of the proposal: the creation of a mechanism to lend Ukraine 140 billion euros, guaranteeing frozen Russian assets but without directly confiscating them.

Decision date: EU leaders are due to discuss the proposal during the European Council summit on December 18-19.

The Importance of Euroclear in the Financial System

Asset size: The Brussels-based institution manages around €200 billion of Russian assets frozen since the invasion of Ukraine

Global gravity: Euroclear is a key pillar of the global financial system, managing deposits of up to €42.5 trillion (14 times France's GDP).

Nature of business: The institution acts as a "custodian" for central banks and major investment funds, where all transactions are carried out digitally (informally).

Legal and political challenges

The foundation's position: Euroclear has previously hinted at the possibility of suing the EU in the event of illegal seizure, in order to protect itself from Russian prosecutions and ensure financial stability.

Finding a way out: European leaders are seeking a formula that balances supporting Ukraine financially and avoiding destabilizing international investors' confidence in the euro and the European financial system.

The French newspaper Le Monde says.

Euroclear, the Belgian institution that manages frozen Russian assets and which 'will not rule out' EU prosecution

Euroclear, a little-known but key player in the European financial system, has frozen 193 billion euros worth of Russian assets that have come under intense scrutiny since the invasion of Ukraine. The Director-General of Labor, Valerie Orban, warns that the confiscation – which is illegal under international law – will weaken Europe's position.

Like others, Valerie Orpin learned about the shocking show by reading the news. The general manager of Euroclear, a European stock repository that holds around €200 billion in Russian assets frozen since the invasion of Ukraine, was not informed by Friedrich Mertz. Thus, as early as September 25, while checking her phone, she saw the front page of the Financial Times: The German chancellor had a plan to draw up a law to lend 140 billion euros to Ukraine using frozen Russian assets, but without confiscating them. Since then, the proposal has been the focus of intensive discussions to be decided by EU heads of state and government at the upcoming European Council summit, on December 18 and 19.

Although Orbín has not been alerted, she still has the keys to these elements. He headed Euroclear, a little-known but essential institution for the financial system. This warehouse is where central banks and major international investment funds deposit their securities (stocks, bonds, financial products). Euroclear manages deposits worth €42.5 trillion – 14 times larger than France's GDP. However, at its headquarters in central Brussels, there is no trace of a vault. Everything is immaterial, with data hosted in multiple data centers around the world.

In general, Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Weaver summed up the lesson with a statement of history:

"We don't want a war with Russia. The reality is that you are not stealing foreign central bank money. "Stealing the Central Bank is like stealing an embassy."
Fear of Russian retaliation and a collapse in confidence in the euro forced everyone to back down.

Second: The shameful transformation - Macron suddenly discovers "diplomacy"  

The irony picked up by analysts:

As soon as the plan to steal Russian assets failed, and European leaders realized that they would be paying from their own budgets,  French President Macron suddenly came out to call for a "renewed push towards diplomacy with Moscow"!

The meaning is clear: when the bill was to be paid out of Russia's money, they wanted war. When the bill was on them, remember the virtue of dialogue. Financial logic governs political morality.

Third: The eternal debt trap – the old continent borrows to keep Kyiv alive .

The end result is disastrous for the European economy:

Instead of Russia paying reparations, EU countries will issue $105 billion in "common debt."

Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia jumped out of the ship and refused to participate.

The EU is now the sole "guarantor" of the Ukrainian economy. 

Without this money, the Ukrainian currency (hryvnia) will collapse and hyperinflation will occur. Europe is stuck in the financing trap: either pay forever, or let what they have invested politically in for years collapse.

In short:

Putin warned in 2024 that "the use of the dollar as a weapon is a blow to American power," and Europe seems to have learned the lesson too late. They failed to make Russia pay for the war, and they ended up charging the European taxpayer endless debt interest. In Brussels, realism triumphed over ideology, and Russian money remained frozen, but safe from confiscation.

Everyone thinks that Ukraine is swallowing money in order to continue the war without being defeated, there are lines of contact where armies meet, but unfortunately, the war has not been decided by one side against another.

In the end, everyone will sit at the same table and the war will be over. 

After that, he will discover that all that money went to the leaders and the pockets of the war merchants, then the people wake up to see that they were under a trick that made them fuel for that war and the loss of their children and all their property . 

Russia sees the future and sets its feet in it, a 20-50 and post-2100 plan 

European politicians seem to have lost a lot of their skills.

Von der Leyen addresses EU members on the use of Russian funds for Ukraine

On: Monday, November 17, 2025 – According to Reuters:  European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has written to EU heads of state and government on how to mitigate the risks associated with the seizure of frozen Russian funds, in light of Belgian concerns in particular.

She also explained how to fill a gap in Ukraine's budget of more than 100 billion euros, if the bloc does not agree to use the Russian central bank's funds.

This could be done through contributions from the EU's national budgets, co-loans or a combination of the two, according to the letter seen by dpa. The letter explains that these solutions will be much more expensive.

Belgium has called for funding options to be detailed before further talks, as most of the Russian funds are managed by Belgium-based Euroclear. The Belgian government fears the consequences for European companies still active in Russia.

In her letter, von der Leyen also detailed how Russian money held by commercial banks in other EU countries could be used, estimating the amount at around €25 billion ($29 billion).

The Commission had earlier reported that the value of Russia's central bank's assets frozen with the European Union under sanctions on Moscow is estimated at around 210 billion euros, most of which is held by Brussels-based financial institution Euroclear.

Russia has warned European countries against seizing their assets.

Later, at the European meeting to discuss the issue of the theft of Russian funds, von der Leyen told reporters: "We will not end the meeting until we agree on a decision." I will not leave the council without a solution to fund Ukraine."But what happened left her very disappointed.

So we will talk realistically:

What are the reasons why EU countries have not agreed to exploit frozen Russian assets in European banks?

So what are the implications that can be drawn from this?

What is its impact on the settlement and war tracks?

These questions posed themselves after marathon meetings of EU countries to decide on the seizure of frozen Russian funds, but without being able to overcome the disagreements over making such a decision, because of the legal consequences and negative repercussions of taking it, and therefore an alternative plan based on "syndicated loans" was sufficed.

First, in terms of the reasons for disagreement,

The obstacles ranged from legal, economic, and severe to political:

1.  Legal risk and sovereignty: Central bank assets enjoy sovereign immunity under international law. Countries such as Italy, Austria, and Belgium fear that the seizure will set a legal precedent that would allow other countries to seize European assets in the future, undermining the foundations of the global financial system.

2  On the level of euro protection and financial stability: The ECB has warned that this move could prompt other countries (such as China and Saudi Arabia) to withdraw their euro reserves for fear of a similar fate, weakening the euro's position as a global reserve currency and leading to capital flight.

3.  On the position of Belgium and Euroclear: Belgium hosts most of these assets (through Euroclear). Therefore, Belgium has demanded legal and financial guarantees from the European Union that protect it from Russian lawsuits, which the other countries have not been able to provide definitively.

4  At the level of Russian threats of retaliation: Moscow has threatened to confiscate (reciprocity) the assets and properties of Western companies remaining inside Russia, which puts great pressure on Germany and France, whose companies have investments that are still stuck there.

5.  At the level of the American factor: Reports indicate that President Donald Trump's administration preferred not to compromise the assets at the moment, to use it as a "negotiating paper" in any future peace settlement, which has created a division between those who want immediate funding, such as the Baltic states, and those who prefer to wait, such as Hungary and Slovakia.

Second: The Conclusions Drawn, The Division of European Unity,

1  The failure of the agreement has shown that the "European consensus" is fragile when it comes to decisions with long-term economic implications.

2.  Financial interests take precedence over principles: The decision reflects that preserving the reputation of the European financial center and the stability of the euro still takes precedence over the desire to finance the Ukrainian war effort.

3  Postwar anxiety: European leaders are aware that a final expropriation could mean "cutting the line of return" with Moscow altogether, something some capitals hoping for a return to economic ties one day do not want.

Third: The Impact on the Tracks of War and Settlement

As for the course of the war, it can be said that it will be negative for Ukraine, as reliance on loans will increase the debt burden on Kyiv, and delays in financing may weaken Ukraine's ability to survive on the ground, in light of its need for an additional 136 billion euros to avoid bankruptcy by the spring of 2025.

Hence, the recent decision taken by the EU countries to resort to a joint loan of 90 billion euros financed by only 23 countries is an attempt to "buy time" without entering into a dark legal tunnel that may end in a judicial defeat before international courts.

ECB rejects €140 billion loan bailout for Ukraine

Prior to this crisis, which has shown how fragile the EU is,  the Ukraine loan crisis reveals a deep division within the EU over the legality of the use of frozen Russian assets.

The Financial Times revealed that the European Central Bank has  rejected a request from the European Commission to provide a financial support mechanism for a massive €140 billion (about $162 billion) loan linked to frozen Russian assets.

The ECB's analysis concluded that the Commission's plan "violates the mandate" given to it, as it is a direct support for government commitments, which economically classifies as "monetary financing" prohibited under EU treaties, due  to inflation and a loss of confidence in monetary policy.

Crisis in the European Plan

The Commission has proposed the creation of what it called a "compensation loan" financed by member states with sovereign guarantees, to be paid later from the proceeds of Russian assets frozen in Belgium through Euroclear.

But commission officials  warned that member states "will not be able to raise funds quickly in an emergency", which could push markets into a state of financial pressure.

For this reason, Commission officials asked the ECB if it could be a "lenders of last resort" to the Belgian institution's lending arm Euroclear, but the bank's answer was "impossible."

"Such a proposal is not up for discussion, as it would potentially violate the law of EU treaties prohibiting cash financing," the ECB told the newspaper.

A frantic search for alternatives

The Commission has begun working on alternative options to provide "temporary liquidity" to protect the giant loan, as it is unable to obtain cover from the European Central Bank.

A Commission spokesperson told the Financial Times that Brussels had been "in close contact with the ECB since July 2022," adding that the bank had "actively participated in all discussions related to the loan" and that "ensuring the necessary liquidity for any asset repatriation commitments to the Central Bank of Russia is a key element" of the plan. 

Euroclear declined to comment.

Belgium leads the opposition

Belgium, which hosts Euroclear's headquarters, opposed the loan from the outset, because the release of Russian funds in the event of a political settlement or court decision could force the corporation to return 210 billion euros (about $244 billion) to Russia, which it would not be able to repay immediately.

Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Fevre called the commission's plan "fundamentally wrong" and called on the other 26 countries to provide "legally binding, unconditional and irrevocable legal guarantees that are disbursable upon request" to share in the risk-taking.

De Vèvre said these guarantees were necessary "if sanctions were suddenly lifted", because renewing sanctions every six months would require unanimity, which has become threatened with objections from countries such as Hungary.

American pressure and European apprehension

The FT report notes that the European Union has become more concerned after the Trump administration's second administration pushed alternative proposals for the use of Russian assets, in parallel with a U.S. peace initiative that could lead to a deal with Moscow that would require Euroclear  to return the funds immediately.

Belgium is particularly concerned about a scenario in which Washington makes a unilateral deal, which could render European sanctions baseless and thus trigger a wave of immediate demands for Moscow's refunds.

The European plan, as the Financial Times confirms, states that Ukraine will only be obligated to pay if Russia agrees to pay reparations to Kyiv, a highly complex political condition that adds further uncertainty to the future of funding.

Will the European peoples accept funding for Ukraine from their own pockets, while everyone knows the extent of the corruption that has become exposed in Ukraine, even though no one from the European side is talking about this issue?

Commenting on the failure  of the EU  summit in Brussels to agree on the confiscation of Russian assets to finance Ukraine, Senator  Aleksei Pushkov, a member of the Constitutional Committee of the Council of the Russian Federation, said: "The alternative option is supposed to be through the financing of a loan of 90 billion euros to Ukraine, from the pockets of European taxpayers and pensioners. This is a very different matter, and it is unlikely that the people of the European Union will accept it."

He pointed out in a statement that financing Ukraine was a difficult decision for the European Union, because these countries had to waste their "hard-earned money" on the Kyiv regime, explaining that "the confiscation of Russian funds would have allowed the EU to finance Ukraine for two to three years, without resorting to the budgets of member states. This is painless for the EU. But in this case, Europe's image as a safe haven for safeguarding assets will collapse in the outside world."