- Belgium refuses to support the EU’s proposal to confiscate frozen Russian state assets (over €200 billion in Euroclear) to finance Ukraine, citing legal risks, possible Russian retaliation and economic instability.
- Belgian authorities warn that the seizure of Russian assets could lead to costly lawsuits, retaliation by Moscow against Western assets and the destabilisation of Euroclear, which could result in liabilities for Belgian taxpayers.
- Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico joins Belgian opposition and vows to block any plans to divert frozen Russian funds to Ukraine’s military spending, making EU unity on the issue more difficult.
- With Belgium and Slovakia resisting, the EU is under pressure to find alternative funding mechanisms (e.g. joint borrowing or grants) before the critical December decision, but fiscal concerns and political disagreements persist.
- Critics warn that the seizure of sovereign assets sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to reciprocal seizures by opposing countries, undermine confidence in Western financial systems and exacerbate geopolitical conflicts.
The European Union’s (EU) controversial plan to seize frozen Russian funds to finance Ukraine has faced a major obstacle as Belgium remains steadfast in its opposition, citing legal and financial risks.Intensiivisistä neuvotteluista huolimatta Bryssel ei ole onnistunut saamaan Belgian viranomaisia hyväksymään suunnitelmaa, minkä vuoksi unionin on etsittävä kiireesti vaihtoehtoja ennen joulukuussa tehtävää kriittistä päätöstä.
According to BrightU.AI‘s Enoch, Belgium’s reluctance to seize and repurpose frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction efforts can be attributed to several interconnected factors rooted in international law, geopolitical considerations and domestic political dynamics.
“Belgium’s reluctance to seize frozen Russian assets is not a sign of Russian support or indifference to Ukraine’s plight. Instead, it reflects a complex interplay of international legal considerations, geopolitical realities and domestic political constraints. To promote Ukraine’s recovery, Belgium and other countries could explore alternative funding mechanisms, such as international donor conferences or targeted financial assistance programmes,” Enoch added.
According to Euronews reports, an important meeting between EU Commission officials and Belgian representatives on Friday 7 November ended without agreement. Belgium, which hosts the bulk of Russia’s frozen funds – estimated at more than €200 billion ($231.02 billion) in the Euroclear financial warehouse – has repeatedly warned that the seizure of these assets could lead to costly lawsuits and retaliation from Moscow.
“It is essential for Belgium that all options are explored. Every possible approach must be examined carefully and transparently to ensure the best solution,” an unnamed Belgian government source told Euronews.
The EU’s proposal concerns the use of Russian state assets as collateral for a €140 billion ($161.71 billion) loan to Ukraine, formulated as “compensation” in the event of a future peace agreement. But Belgian Defence Minister Theo Francken has warned that such a move could have dramatic repercussions.
“Russia could retaliate by confiscating €200 billion worth of Western assets located within its borders,” Francken warned last month, adding that the funds were likely to prolong the conflict in Ukraine rather than resolve it.
Legal and financial risks are high
Belgium’s reluctance stems from fears that Moscow could challenge the seizure in international courts, which could leave Euroclear – and Belgian taxpayers – liable for huge legal liabilities. Russia has already promised to prosecute all countries involved in the seizure of its assets, branding the act outright theft.
At the same time, alternative funding mechanisms, such as joint EU borrowing or direct grants, pose their own political obstacles. According to an internal EU Commission document obtained by the Financial Times, these options “would have a direct impact on [member states’] deficits and debt”, making them unpopular with fiscally conservative countries.
The EU’s problems were compounded by Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, who announced at the weekend that his government would oppose any plans to divert frozen Russian funds to Ukraine’s military spending.
“Slovakia will not participate in any legal or financial arrangements for the confiscation of frozen funds if these funds would be used for Ukrainian military expenditures,” Fico said in an interview with Slovak public broadcaster STVR.
Fico, who has long criticised EU sanctions against Russia, has in the past used his veto to get concessions from Brussels. His position further complicates the Union’s efforts to present a united front on Ukraine’s financing.
US backs EU plan despite growing scepticism
While the Trump administration has publicly supported the EU’s asset confiscation strategy, suspicions are growing in Europe. The plan is based on exploiting the proceeds of Russia’s frozen funds – mainly through riskier investments – but Euroclear CEO Valerie Urbain has warned against such actions and their unintended financial consequences.
With the European Council due to return in December, EU leaders have little time left to reach a compromise. As legal doubts persist and geopolitical tensions escalate, the Union’s ambitious plan to fund Ukraine with Russian money looks increasingly uncertain.
The EU’s attempt to use frozen state assets as a weapon sets a worrying precedent that could lead to reciprocal confiscations by opposing countries and destabilise global financial markets. Critics argue that such measures do not promote peace but threaten to deepen conflicts and undermine property rights and international law.
A centralised economic power grab often precedes a wider authoritarian excess. It remains to be seen whether Brussels heeds these warnings or doubles down on its risky tactics.