Brussels, December 3, 2025 – Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot sharply criticized the European Union’s proposal on Wednesday to use profits from frozen Russian central bank assets to back a massive loan for Ukraine, warning that Belgium’s serious concerns remain unaddressed.
Speaking to reporters ahead of a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels, Prévot said the text the European Commission is set to present “does not address our concerns in a satisfactory manner.” He described Belgium’s position bluntly: “We have the frustrating feeling of not having been heard; our concerns are being downplayed.”
Prévot reiterated Belgium’s long-standing opposition to the so-called “reparations loan,” calling it “the worst of all” options because of the enormous legal and financial risks it would impose on his country. “It is not acceptable to use the money and leave us alone facing the risks,” he stressed, demanding that any exposure Belgium faces be “fully covered” by the rest of the EU.
The Belgian government’s resistance is rooted in the fact that the vast majority of the €210 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets—approximately €190–194 billion—are held by Euroclear, the Brussels-based securities depository. Belgium fears it could become the primary target of Russian retaliation, including lawsuits, counter-seizures of Western assets in Russia, or claims under bilateral investment treaties that could cost tens or even hundreds of billions of euros.
Last week, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever escalated the dispute by sending a strongly worded letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, describing the proposed mechanism as “fundamentally flawed” and warning that it could violate international law. De Wever argued that using the assets now would remove a valuable bargaining chip in any future peace negotiations and expose Euroclear—and by extension Belgium—to catastrophic financial and reputational damage. He likened the risk profile to a “plane crash”: low probability but devastating if it occurs.
Euroclear itself and the National Bank of Belgium have also written separately to EU leaders, cautioning that the plan could be perceived internationally as de facto confiscation, potentially driving up borrowing costs across the eurozone and undermining confidence in European financial infrastructure.
At the heart of the controversy is the EU’s plan to raise up to €140 billion (approximately $161 billion) by using the frozen Russian assets as collateral for loans to Ukraine. The money would fund military procurement (including weapons produced outside the EU), budget support, and reconstruction, with repayment contingent on Russia eventually paying war reparations—an outcome many consider highly uncertain.
Proponents of the scheme, including Germany, the Baltic states, and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, insist it is the most powerful and symbolically important way to make Moscow bear the cost of its aggression without crossing the legal red line of outright seizure. The plan builds on an existing arrangement under which windfall profits from the immobilized assets—around €3–5 billion per year—are already being redirected to Ukraine through a separate G7 loan facility.
Belgium, however, is demanding iron-clad guarantees: shared liability among all 27 member states, contributions from non-EU countries holding Russian assets (such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Japan), and explicit legal protection for Euroclear. Without these safeguards, Brussels warns it will block the initiative, potentially forcing the EU to fall back on smaller, slower alternatives such as bilateral grants or new joint borrowing—options that require unanimity and face stiff resistance from fiscal conservatives.
The standoff comes at a particularly precarious moment. Ukraine’s financing needs are projected to reach €136 billion for 2026–2027 alone, and incoming U.S. President Donald Trump has signaled a desire to scale back American commitments. European leaders are under pressure to demonstrate they can sustain Kyiv independently, yet internal divisions—exacerbated by Hungary’s frequent vetoes and now Belgium’s red lines—are threatening that unity.
As EU heads of state prepare for a crucial summit on December 18–19, the outcome remains uncertain. Commission President von der Leyen has promised “strong safeguards” for Belgium, while several member states have indicated willingness to discuss risk-sharing mechanisms. For now, however, the Belgian government shows no signs of backing down.
In the words of Prime Minister De Wever: “We simply want to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences for one member state without receiving the same solidarity in return.”
For Ukraine, watching anxiously from the sidelines, every week of delay translates into harder choices on the battlefield and in its battered economy. For the European Union, the dispute over frozen Russian billions has become the latest test of whether solidarity can withstand the immense pressures of a protracted war on its doorstep.
