A divided EU races against time to tap Russian assets for Ukraine

BRUSSELS — European leaders are racing to push through plans to unlock Russia’s frozen assets before Ukraine runs out of money and before the United States and Russia decide to use the funds as part of negotiations on the war.

As leaders of the European Union’s 27 nations convene here on Thursday, Kyiv’s chief backers vowed they would not leave until they agree to a solution before the new year to keep financing Ukraine’s state and army.

EU officials hope to break the impasse on a plan to give Kyiv a “reparations loan” over the next two years, underpinned by up to 210 billion euros in Russian assets. To do that, they need to overcome objections from Belgium, where most of the assets are held since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

But while they cast this as a do-or-die moment for Ukraine’s fate and Europe’s voice, the debate over money has thrown a harsh light on European divides.

The continent’s top leaders are issuing increasingly dire warnings. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU executive arm that drafted the proposal, the European Commission, called this Europe’s “independence moment.” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk told his counterparts on Thursday they had a choice: “either money today, or blood tomorrow.”

“I’m not talking about Ukraine only. I’m talking about Europe,” he said. “This is our decision to make. And only ours.”

The plan faces opposition from Belgium, where the funds are held in a financial services institution called Euroclear, despite weeks of tensions and a diplomatic flurry by the E.U.’s power brokers to get Belgian buy-in. Diplomats expect negotiations to go down to the last minute at the gathering of EU leaders, which remained locked in heated debate Thursday night.

Belgium, a founding member of the EU and home to its headquarters, finds itself in a delicate position: It is confronting threats from the Kremlin, which denounced the plan as theft, and calls from its EU neighbors to play ball — even as Belgium says it doesn’t have enough guarantees others will share the full risk of any Russian response.

Belgian officials — worried about retaliation against Euroclear, huge liabilities and financial instability — also want other countries holding smaller pots of Russian funds to use them. And Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has voiced concern that a U.S.-brokered deal on Ukraine would want to tap into the funds as well.

European officials say their decision, or lack thereof, sets the stage for how the EU meets this moment in the face of Russian threats, American antagonism and the expensive bill of the war now resting with them.

It would be a blow to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s leverage and his European partners if Kyiv runs out of money to fight while Washington leads negotiations with Moscow over its future. European officials expect a funding crisis in Ukraine in early spring, adding to the urgency of endorsing a solution before the new year.

Ukrainian negotiators headed to the United States to continue talks with President Donald Trump’s administration, Zelenskyy said Thursday. The Kremlin, meanwhile, is also “preparing certain contacts with our American counterparts,” spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

As talks intensify, European officials say Moscow and Washington have both piled pressure on EU capitals that are squeamish about tapping into Russia’s central bank assets.

“I understand Belgium is under a lot of pressure from Russia, from European countries, but also from the United States,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told reporters Thursday. As a result, she said, there should be a European agreement, so “whoever has any concerns can go to court against the European Union.” Kallas put the chances of a deal at “50/50.”

“We are 27 democracies; discussions take time,” she said. “We will stay here as long as we have to.”

The U.S. interest in the Russian assets sets up a possible collision course between the Trump administration and European leaders. Though Europe holds most of the roughly $300 billion frozen in the West, versions of the U.S. proposal for a peace deal have envisaged using it for U.S. reconstruction efforts in Ukraine and joint U.S.-Russian investments.

European leaders see the money as a way “to send a signal to the Americans,” after Washington released a national security strategy berating the European Union, said Agathe Demarais, a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former French treasury adviser in Russia.

The EU is trying to push back and “use the assets as leverage to count in the negotiations,” she added, while “Donald Trump the businessman sees $300 billion.”

After years of fretting about the legal and financial risks of setting a precedent by seizing sovereign assets, the EU plan emerged out of a need. The United States has stopped paying for weapons to Kyiv, and European voters are growing more restless about public spending.

EU officials say a decision on the assets proposal — crafted with some financial and legal gymnastics — could be made with a weighted majority rather than unanimity, but that they would not want to move ahead without Belgium.

“There can be no flexibility on matters that threaten the financial security of Euroclear and Belgium: Let that be very clear,” De Wever told Belgian lawmakers early Thursday. “We are a reliable partner and are ready to make sacrifices but there is no free money.”

Still, some analysts expect Belgian officials to eventually sign off, and De Wever appeared to leave the door open. He said the European Commission had taken steps toward a solution and that it would be a “total failure” if the EU could not agree on funding for Ukraine.

“I hope we can come out of the meeting, either tonight or whenever it is, and we have found a political solution to support financially a country that is losing every week thousands of compatriots in a terrible war for freedom,” De Wever said.

He made clear that Belgium dislikes the assets idea but suggested it might be possible if Europeans share the risk: “You give us a parachute, and we jump all together.”

Belgium has maintained that it prefers the other, even less popular option tabled — common borrowing against the E.U.’s budget to help Ukraine — but several other countries are against that, and it would require unanimity.

Hungary’s Kremlin-friendly Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, who has often sought to block EU aid for Ukraine, rebuked both ideas. He said Thursday morning the assets plan was “killed, dead end.”

“The whole idea is a stupid one,” Orban told reporters. “That is marching into the war.”

Despite the standoff, most EU member states including Belgium agreed last week to indefinitely freeze the Russian assets, which would be key to unlocking the funds. The move, which triggered further ire from Orban, bypasses the need for a vote every six months and the possibility of a veto from Hungary.

The decision, based on emergency powers designed for natural disasters, circumvents a core EU tenet, unanimous consensus on foreign policy, as the commission stretches the bounds and cites the severity of the moment.

While Belgium may be the main focus, a few other countries have in recent days expressed hesitation too, including Italy.

On Thursday, Zelenskyy joined the summit to stress Ukraine’s need. He met with De Wever and said he understands the risks for Belgium.

“But we are at war and I think that we face bigger risks,” Zelenskyy added. “It’s important that he is transmitting signals that anyway we need to sort this issue, that Ukraine is not left without financial support.”

In Kyiv, a corruption scandal that recently engulfed Zelensky’s administration also stoked some unease about a big payout and weakened his standing in U.S. negotiations.

The Ukrainian leader acknowledged that Kyiv would be “more confident at the negotiating table” with the Russian assets. Otherwise, “I don’t see how Ukraine can stand strong, economically strong,” Zelenskyy said ahead of the summit. “I don’t see how we can cover such a deficit with some obscure alternatives or obscure promises.”

—

• Kostiantyn Khudov in Kyiv and Natalia Abbakumova in Riga, Latvia, contributed.