The EU has decided to freeze Russia’s sovereign assets held within its borders indefinitely, a move that comes as Moscow intensifies threats against Euroclear, the Brussels-based custodian of most of the Kremlin’s immobilised funds.
EU leaders approved using emergency powers to freeze €210bn (£185bn) of Russia’s central bank assets, a step that could eventually channel these funds to bolster Ukraine’s defense. European Council president António Costa announced that the bloc has fulfilled a commitment made in October to keep these assets immobilised until Russia ends its aggression in Ukraine and compensates for the damage caused.
Previously, the frozen assets required renewal every six months, leaving room for a Kremlin-aligned government, such as Hungary, to veto the extension. The new move comes shortly after Russia’s central bank announced it would sue Euroclear in a Moscow court, alleging that the Brussels depository’s actions damaged its ability to manage funds and securities. Euroclear, which has long been a quiet backbone of international finance, is not responsible for deciding how the funds are used. A Euroclear spokesperson noted the firm is confronting more than 100 legal claims in Russia.
Last week, the European Commission floated a plan for a €90bn loan to Ukraine, secured by immobilised Russian assets in the EU. That proposal has faced pushback from Belgium, which fears a wave of lawsuits from Moscow and potential seizures of Belgian assets inside the country.
Belgian prime minister Bart De Wever met UK opposition leader Keir Starmer at Downing Street to discuss an EU-UK reset, migration, and the Russian asset issue. A De Wever spokesperson said the pair talked about using the value of immobilised Russian sovereign assets and agreed to continue close coordination on this complex matter. A Downing Street spokesperson echoed that sentiment, stressing that maintaining economic pressure on Russia and strengthening Ukraine’s position remains essential to achieving a just and lasting peace.
The meeting precedes an EU summit next week, where leaders are expected to decide on funding Ukraine for 2026–27 amid warnings that Kyiv may exhaust its funds next spring for defense and essential public services.
EU officials assess that the proposed €90bn loan would cover roughly two-thirds of Ukraine’s needs over the next two years, with the remainder expected from other international partners. Belgium has insisted on guarantees from EU partners that it will not be left to cover a multibillion-euro bill if Russia sues. De Wever has described the loan plan as fundamentally flawed, arguing it would violate international law and jeopardise the euro’s stability.
Tensions around the plan are evident, with Belgium, Bulgaria, Malta, and Italy noting that only EU leaders should decide how immobilised assets are used. They supported the emergency powers clause to freeze funds indefinitely on Friday but urged ongoing discussion of alternative options that comply with EU and international law.
Belgium has proposed borrowing on capital markets to fund Ukraine, secured against unused headroom in the EU budget. Yet several member states resist increasing common debt. Germany, typically cautious about debt, backs the frozen-asset approach and has pledged up to €50bn in guarantees for Belgium.
EU officials argue that the legal risk to Euroclear—and thus to Belgium—would be limited. Under the framework, the EU would borrow cash from Euroclear to lend to Ukraine, while Russia remains the legal owner of the assets. Ukraine would repay only if Moscow provides reparations for the extensive damage caused by the war.
The UK, which holds €27bn (£23bn) of frozen Russian assets, supports moving forward and expects other G7 nations to follow suit after a decision on Euroclear-held assets. The United States’ involvement remains uncertain, given that it holds a comparatively modest €4bn (£3.5bn) in immobilised assets.
And this is where the discussion gets especially controversial: does using immobilised assets as collateral for aid to Ukraine cross legal lines or set a risky precedent for asset seizures during conflict? Some argue this approach could pressure Russia while others warn of broader legal and financial risks for member states. What’s your view on whether such a scheme should proceed, and which safeguards would you consider essential?
