Business & Economics
Belgium & Euroclear Stall EU Plan to Leverage €183 B in Frozen Russian Assets for Ukraine Loan
On 15 Nov 2025, Belgium and Brussels-based Euroclear signaled they may block or litigate an EU proposal to fund a €183 billion loan to Kyiv by pledging the interest on Russia’s immobilized assets held in Belgium.
Focusing Facts
- Roughly €193 billion of Russian central-bank reserves—two-thirds of all such frozen assets—sit in Euroclear accounts in Brussels.
- Euroclear has grown its legal team from about 12 lawyers in 2022 to 200 in 2025 and says it “will not rule out” suing the EU if ordered to hand over the money.
- Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever wants non-EU states such as the U.S., U.K., and Japan to co-guarantee the scheme before agreeing.
Context
States have frozen adversaries’ assets before—Washington locked Tehran’s funds in 1979 and still controls roughly $7 billion, while the 1919 Versailles Reparations Commission commandeered German gold to enforce payments—but outright re-routing reserves to a belligerent’s foe is unprecedented. The standoff spotlights two long-term trajectories: the weaponization of global settlement infrastructure and the erosion of the post-Cold-War assumption that reserve currencies and custodians are politically neutral. If Brussels compels Euroclear to finance Ukraine, investors from China, Saudi Arabia or even EU partners may diversify away from euro-area custody, accelerating the slow drift toward a multipolar financial order already visible in the rise of renminbi energy trades and BRICS payment experiments. On a century scale this moment could mark either a footnote—like the 1950s British use of blocked sterling balances—or the inflection where Euroclear, SWIFT and the euro lose their quasi-sovereign immunity, reshaping how great-power conflict is fought with balance sheets instead of battleships.
Perspectives
International business press
e.g., Mint — Portrays the EU’s loan plan as an urgently needed financial lifeline for Kyiv, with Belgian resistance framed as a solvable political-legal hurdle that must be cleared to keep Ukraine armed. Focuses on the financial mechanics and downplays broader geopolitical or legal objections, echoing EU officials’ talking points while giving little space to Russian or Belgian constitutional arguments.
Mainstream continental European media focused on legal-financial risk
e.g., Le Monde — Stresses that Euroclear, the Belgian clearing house holding the frozen assets, is prepared to sue Brussels, underscoring significant legal jeopardy if the EU presses ahead with the asset-backed loan scheme. Centers the concerns of Euroclear’s executives and investors, which may amplify corporate fears and soften discussion of Ukraine’s wartime needs or the moral case for using Russian funds.
Russian state-owned media
e.g., TASS — Highlights Euroclear’s threats of litigation as proof the asset seizure is illegal and would backfire on the eurozone, presenting the EU plan as reckless economic self-harm. Advances Russia’s strategic narrative that Western sanctions are illegitimate and self-destructive, omitting any mention of Ukraine’s defense imperatives or Russia’s responsibility for reparations.