The President of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, has been trying for three months to convince the Belgian president to accept the confiscation of “Moscow gold” in order to financially help Ukraine. And this despite the fact that all international and financial organizations have put their hands behind their heads. Even the president of the European Central Bank refuses to release the 145,000 billion of the Russian Central Bank frozen and deposited at its headquarters by the Belgian stock exchange Euroclear because this goes against the treaties. And time is running out. Not only because of Christmas, but because the solution depended on the Council of the 18th. There was no room for another before March, when Ukraine will enter “default”, with no option for economic survival.
This figure rises to 210 billion, as do the countries opposed to this measure. After seventeen hours of negotiations, European Union leaders reached an agreement to jointly raise 90 billion euros for Ukraine, but gave up using Russia’s frozen assets for kyiv. This represents a setback for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who presented the proposal, and for other leaders who supported the solution. Furthermore, there was no unanimity either, only 24 of the 27 voted in favor.
The solution could have been to modify the treaty which requires unanimity, since not all countries agree to continue financing the war. Ah, can’t we quickly change the treaties? Well, we return what we have and we take out of the hat by art of birlibirloque article 122 of the Treaty of the European Union, which allows extraordinary and urgent financial aid in the event of a natural disaster to another Member State. First of all, there is no natural disaster. Second, there is no urgency for a rescue. And thirdly, Ukraine is not a member of the European Union, although the farce of inviting it to all councils of the Union’s leaders continues.
The magic thing is that in this way the confiscation of money from the Central Bank of Russia could be approved by a qualified majority, and not under the requirement of unanimity, or whatever we want. This was the case in practice the week before the Council, when, following an unusual written procedure, Member States’ ambassadors agreed by majority to approve one of the Commission’s two proposals. Concretely, they decided to permanently freeze Russian sovereign assets deposited on European territory, mainly at the Belgian headquarters of Euroclear, so that the Kremlin government cannot use their money.
This measure was approved in March 2022 but on a temporary basis and, since then, every six months it had to be renewed unanimously. The Russian state remained the owner, but it did not have access to the 210 billion in Treasury deposits held at Euroclear’s European headquarters, nor to its financial products. Hungary and Slovakia voted that day against a permanent freeze. And once again, in the Council, they opposed, together with Czechia, the approval of the 90 billion interest-free loan that Ukraine needs in 2026 to pay pensions, salaries of doctors, teachers, public administration and Zelensky himself.
And they continued to fight against the Commission’s second proposal: the confiscation of money from the Russian Treasury to give it as credit to Ukraine. A sort of advance on war damage repairs that the European Union estimates Russia will have to pay at the end of the conflict. At that time, the group had already grown since the two rebels were joined by Belgium, Italy, Malta and the Czech Republic. Belgium resisted pressure from von der Leyen and his senior officials. It will not assume any risk as guarantor of the securities deposited at the Belgian headquarters of Euroclear. The legal claims from the Kremlin and Euroclear itself, already announced, would weigh on international financial reliability and on the Belgian Treasury.
Meanwhile, Chancellor Friedrich Merz tightens the rope as the author of the happy idea. Well, it comes from behind, from the G7, but no one else has dared to raise it directly and with such haste. Like for example Keir Starmer, who is no longer part of the EU and who no one is pressuring to obtain the 37 billion pounds sterling deposited by the Central Bank of Russia in the City of London. The President of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron, remains in the background because the elections are approaching and the streets are lit.
And what pushed Merz to take the lead, besides the fact that his electoral scenario is far away? Let’s see who the losers are here, in this order: Euroclear, Belgium and the European Union as a whole. Who can benefit from it, apart from Ukraine and the arms lobby? Direct competitor of Euroclear: Clearstream, subsidiary of the German Stock Exchange. Both are two large central depositories of international securities in Europe. And if Germany finds itself without an industry after losing the advantage of being the distributor of cheap Russian gas via Nord Stream, it will at least be able to fight for financial control on the continent.
But let the leaders decide how to water Ukrainian sunflower fields with euros and blood, so that the country can hold out until 2027 and until the last Ukrainian. This is precisely the year planned by the Union for the kyiv government to exhaust the Russian funds at stake and for the end of the conflict, if Trump does not achieve his goal of shutting it down this Christmas in pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize. The night is young and Hungarian President Viktor Orbán has promised that he will not leave his chair until next year until an agreement is reached. Or as long as he doesn’t fall into the trap of article 122 again.
About The Author
