Belgium is under growing pressure to allow the use of frozen Russian assets for a “reparations loan” to Ukraine after Berlin and other western capitals shifted their stance.
About €190bn in Russian sovereign assets held at Euroclear, the Brussels-based central securities depository, were frozen in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. But many western nations, including the US, Germany and Belgium, were reluctant to access the funds for fear of legal and financial repercussions.
Europe’s position has changed in recent weeks, particularly after the Trump administration called on G7 allies to seize “or otherwise use” Russia’s underlying assets “to fund Ukraine’s defence”, according to a US position paper seen by the Financial Times.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz wrote in a recent FT op-ed that €140bn of those funds should be used as a loan to arm Ukraine. The European Commission has since laid out how such a “reparations loan” could be structured, arguing that Moscow should bear the costs of President Vladimir Putin’s illegal war.
But Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has asked the other 26 EU countries to cover the legal and financial risks associated with this loan, and to guarantee the full amount to avoid Belgium having to pay it back.
His stance has drawn condemnation from other capitals, particularly since Euroclear’s profits have been subject to Belgian corporate tax.
“[Belgium] has spent three years saying Euroclear is Belgian and so are the benefits,” said one senior EU diplomat involved in talks on the matter. “Now, when it wants to share the risks, it claims Euroclear is European.”
Patience with the Belgian officials was running thin, said three diplomats involved in the preparations for another round of EU talks on Wednesday.
Other capitals argue that Ukraine’s predicament requires solidarity, and point out that Poland agreed to host the main supply hub for arms to Ukraine, and Denmark to send F-16 fighter jets to Kyiv without asking for risks to be shared by others.
“There is no more low-hanging fruit,” said another EU diplomat. “Everyone has to do what they can.”
The commission has already sought to allay some of Belgium’s concerns, by adding a provision for the loan to be covered by national contingent liabilities in the event Russia starts paying war reparations.
“We think actually that the risks here for Belgium are rather limited,” said a senior EU official. “That is not to say that there is no risk at all and it is not to say that we do not want to engage in a very serious discussion with Belgium . . . But these risks are probably manageable.”
The commission, backed by the majority of EU capitals, argues that the loan is structured in a way that does not amount to asset confiscation and points out that court rulings outside the bloc are not recognised by the EU.
But the Belgian government said that “the current plan that is circulating is not satisfactory”, and that contingent liabilities did not “address the issue of risk coverage”.
The EU is aiming to agree on the €140bn loan by December, with first disbursements planned for the second quarter of 2026.
According to Euroclear, since 2022 the Belgian government has collected €3.6bn in taxes on the profits arising from assets belonging to Russia’s central bank and to Russian entities subject to EU sanctions.
The Belgian government said that those tax revenues were “earmarked entirely for the support of Ukraine”.
Not all the money has been transferred to Kyiv, however. “Some people say behind my back that I’m a war profiteer . . . because I want to keep one billion in tax money,” De Wever said last week. “That’s what we call in my language, small money, one billion, for the risk we are taking.”
De Wever’s stance had irked some fellow EU leaders at a recent summit in Copenhagen, officials briefed on the discussions told the FT. They also pointed to Belgium’s relatively low level of military support to Ukraine over the past three years, compared with Denmark, Sweden and Germany, who had provided far more.
Belgian officials claim De Wever’s position is justified, as he is defending his national interest.
“There’s a value in looking them in the eye and telling them where the red lines are,” said one.
But other EU leaders said his lack of flexibility was starting to backfire.
“What is the alternative?” Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told the FT when asked about opposition to the frozen assets plan. “We have to find a way with financing, and if it’s not this way then I haven’t heard of any [other] ideas.”
Additional reporting by Richard Milne in Copenhagen
