Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot expressed concern that his country could be exposed to significant financial risks if its European Union partners do not guarantee sufficient support for the use of Russian assets to support a loan to Ukraine. According to the media that published the original content, in his meeting with his NATO colleagues, Prevo suggested that the European Union study other possibilities, such as going to capital markets, to raise funds in order to grant a loan to Ukraine, instead of using frozen Russian assets.
According to the same mediator, the Belgian Foreign Minister criticized the European Commission’s position, considering that his concerns, based on Belgium’s special status as the headquarters of Euroclear – the entity responsible for looking after the majority of Russian assets subject to sanctions in Europe – had not been adequately addressed. “Our concerns are being downplayed and the text that the Commission will present today does not satisfactorily address our concerns,” Prevot declared, in remarks gathered upon his arrival at the meeting with other ministers in the field.
The official reiterated Belgium’s rejection of the plan presented by the European Commission, which is considering the possibility of using profits generated from frozen Russian assets to support a reparations loan of up to 140 billion euros to support Ukraine. According to Prevo, “It is unacceptable to use the money and leave us alone to face the risks. It is clear that the proposed repair loan is not a preferred option and is the worst of all.”
The Belgian representative insisted, according to the media, that resorting to Russian assets as collateral for this type of financial operation would be tantamount to incurring unprecedented legal or financial risks for his country and perhaps for Euroclear itself, a strategically important institution located in Brussels. In his argument, Prevo noted that this type of loan would be particularly risky and stressed that a similar mechanism has never been implemented, which increases difficulty and anxiety among the parties involved. “We are simply seeking to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences,” he noted, stressing that the request for solidarity from Belgium must be accompanied by concrete and equivalent guarantees from the rest of the European partners.
As reported by the media, the debate about responsibility and the distribution of risks resulting from this decision also affected other NATO member states. Dutch Minister David van Weel indicated during the meeting that member state governments are ready to provide guarantees to Belgium against possible Russian demands or retaliation. The source also stated, “These assets are critical, and we understand Belgium’s concerns. We are prepared to at least make sure that they are not alone in this, in case things go wrong and there are financial consequences.”
During his interventions, the head of Belgian diplomacy stressed that the decision to use Russian assets does not represent the preferred way to resolve the need to finance the Ukrainian recovery. He warned that there is no precedent for a plan with these characteristics within the societal environment, which, in the opinion of the Belgian authorities, could lead to legal and financial complications if their Russian counterparts appeal to international courts or file claims against institutions based in Belgium.
The disagreement expressed by Prevot adds to a series of previous warnings issued by the Belgian government and Euroclear officials, who have maintained cautious positions regarding initiatives that involve the mobilization of assets from third countries without explicit guarantees of collective European support, as reported by the same outlet. Moreover, the Belgian government has emphasized on several occasions that the ability to respond to potential lawsuits or financial consequences would fall disproportionately on its territory, due to the concentration of frozen assets in accounts managed from Brussels.
At the aforementioned meeting, Prevot proposed analyzing alternative ways of using Russian assets, such as issuing collective European debt on international markets, with the aim of distributing risks among all member states of the Union and avoiding exposure of Belgium and Euroclear in an individual manner. However, the Minister reiterated that, so far, the European Commission has not provided a satisfactory response and has not included in the final proposal the elements of protection and distribution of responsibilities requested by the Belgian government.
Discussion over financing for Ukraine’s reconstruction and how EU member states could use frozen funds linked to Russia continues to spark internal debate. Belgium’s position, expressed once again by Prevot before his international counterparts, reflects a scenario of tension between the need for European solidarity and the demand for concrete guarantees for those who bear the practical and legal weight of the decisions adopted by the Union as a whole.