Belgium Raises Concerns Over Russian Assets in EU Support for Ukraine Amid Rising Tensions
Ahead of the upcoming European Union summit scheduled for October 23 in Brussels, Belgian politicians have once again highlighted issues concerning the utilization of frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s recovery efforts.
Central to the discussions is a proposal to provide Kyiv with 140 billion euros in a loan secured by assets stored in Euroclear in Belgium, backed by Russian frozen holdings.
However, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever issued firm criticism of this plan, expressing concerns over potential risks if the deal falters or if Russia retaliates against Belgium by freezing other assets.De Wever emphasized the risks involved, warning that Belgium could face significant financial instability without clear guarantees from the EU and its partners.
This stance has added fuel to negotiations, as EU leaders are expected to call for a fair risk-sharing mechanism and increased solidarity in the deployment of frozen Russian assets.
In September, De Wever urged other EU nations to share the risks, including possible legal challenges.The draft communique from the summit mentions the importance of EU solidarity and risk distribution but diplomats say this description remains insufficient for Belgium, which fears repercussions on financial markets and the euro if the assets are used more aggressively.
Over the past three years, many EU countries have expressed reservations about the direct use of Russian frozen funds, citing financial stability risks.Nonetheless, the ongoing war in Ukraine and diminishing US support have prompted several European allies, including Germany, to reconsider their stance and contemplate more active steps regarding these assets.
Tensions persist within the EU, especially from countries cautious about potential retaliation from Russia, including risks to private Belgian companies.Apart from the asset issue, EU leaders are also expected to discuss climate goals for 2040, such as reducing emissions, as well as controversial policies like banning internal combustion engines from 2035 and reforming carbon pricing systems.
These debates reveal the complex balancing act between ecological ambitions and national interests, complicating consensus on decisive policies.