If the European Commission and the rest of the European Union countries believe that it is a matter of time until Belgium agrees to release the Russian reserves frozen due to the sanctions imposed on the Moscow regime, reality takes things in another direction. … Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever said again on Thursday that he could not accept that those 140 billion euros of Russian money remaining in a Brussels-based entity (Euroclear) could be used as collateral for a loan aimed at financing Ukraine for fear of possible legal consequences.
Other countries that support the Commission to use these funds, as a kind of “advance” on future reparations that Russia is supposed to pay when the war ends, are putting pressure on Belgium and accusing the government in Brussels of acting out of convenience, so as not to lose income of up to 1.7 billion euros from the corporate tax it collects to maintain these funds.
So far, the EU collects interest on that money (after Belgium collects taxes) and gives that money to Ukraine. After three years of war, Kiev’s finances were practically bankrupt, and the European Union committed to supporting Volodymyr Zelensky’s government.
At the European Council meeting in October, heads of state or government were expected to approve a plan to use the frozen funds as financing to keep Ukraine afloat, but objections from the Belgian government prevented this. In return, the European Council then made clear that the EU was committed to supporting Kiev financially over the next two years and asked the Commission to prepare a formula that would enable it to use those funds, so that the delivery could be approved at the next meeting scheduled for 18 December.
De Wever warns that “hasty progress on this plan may make reaching a peace agreement impossible.”
In recent weeks, Ursula von der Leyen has made efforts to try to convince the Belgian Prime Minister. Bart Deweever. But he responded on Thursday via a letter in which he told him that in addition to the fact that Belgium faced the risk of having to pay an astronomical fine, “progressing too quickly on the proposed compensation loan scheme would have the consequence, as collateral damage, that we, as the EU, would effectively prevent a possible peace agreement.”
In fact, the Trump administration has also shown interest in these funds. The 28-point draft peace plan calls for a portion to be used to finance Ukraine’s eventual post-war reconstruction and to create one or more Washington-led “investment vehicles.” There is even speculation that he expected the United States to receive part of the benefits of these investments.
The war continues, as evidenced by the recent missile and drone attack on Kiev that killed at least two people in the early hours of Saturday. For now, the Commission officially maintains that the idea of using the frozen funds remains the first priority, but it has also presented the alternative of the issue of collective European debt, which has the disadvantage of requiring unanimity and a potentially complex process of national ratification, not to mention the sensitivity with which many governments adhere to the idea of European debt mutualization. The third possibility is direct national loans.
Many countries will try to increase pressure on Belgium, especially by questioning its true commitment to the Ukrainians. This is what European diplomats did in Politico: “In the face of this infuriating slowness, it is worth asking whether it is really understood that what is at stake is Europe’s security.”