Business & Economics
Belgium and Euroclear Imperil EU Scheme to Underwrite €183 B Ukraine Loan With Frozen Russian Reserves
On 15-17 Nov 2025 Belgium’s government and Euroclear’s CEO openly threatened to block or sue over the European Commission’s plan to leverage €193 billion in Russian central-bank assets parked in Brussels to finance a €183 billion, G-7-backed defense loan to Ukraine.
Focusing Facts
- Euroclear holds roughly €193 billion of Russia’s €300 billion in frozen sovereign funds—about one-third of the EU’s GDP exposure if the plan fails, Belgian officials warn.
- Euroclear has expanded its legal team from 12 to 200 lawyers since 2022 and its CEO Valerie Urbain said in a 15 Nov interview she is ‘prepared to sue’ the EU over any confiscation order.
- Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever demands non-EU guarantors (US, UK, Japan) before approving the loan, while Hungary still vetoes alternative EU-backed borrowing for Kyiv.
Context
Major powers have frozen adversaries’ assets before—Washington seized $130 m of Japanese funds in July 1941 and Tehran’s $7 bn in 1979—but outright confiscation has almost always been walked back or litigated for decades (the 1917 repudiation of Tsarist bonds still haunts French courts). Brussels is now testing whether a post-Bretton-Woods reserve currency bloc can convert immobilised sovereign money into war finance without shredding its own legal order. The resistance from Belgium and Euroclear underscores a deeper, 30-year trend: the politicisation of payment plumbing that began with 9/11 sanctions and accelerated after the 2014 SWIFT cut-offs. If the EU forces confiscation, investors from the Gulf to Beijing—already building alternatives like CIPS and gold clearing—may conclude that euro assets carry unpriced political risk, eroding the currency’s status over the coming half-century. Conversely, if the plan collapses, Ukraine’s funding gap could expose the limits of Western financial statecraft. Either way, this skirmish will be a case study in how hard-power conflict now plays out through the balance sheets of global custodians—a dynamic likely to shape the next century of international finance.
Perspectives
European mainstream financial press
Mint, Le Monde — Frame the standoff as the EU’s most viable way to keep Ukraine funded while painstakingly negotiating Belgium’s fears over legal liability and market stability. By treating the use of frozen Russian assets as a practical policy question rather than an ethical or geopolitical rupture, they echo Brussels’ priorities and play down broader diplomatic fallout.
Russian state media
TASS, RT — Portray Euroclear’s threat of litigation as evidence that Brussels’ plan is illegal, would undermine the eurozone and shows Western desperation to bankroll a failing Kyiv. The reports spotlight worst-case scenarios and legal hurdles to paint the EU as reckless, deflecting attention from Russia’s aggression and reinforcing Kremlin talking points.
U.S. anti-establishment alternative media
SGT Report — Warns that even discussing confiscation is already scaring Chinese and Arab investors and will slash future investment in Europe. Emphasizes investor panic to fit an anti-EU, anti-globalist narrative, relying on selective CEO quotes without contextualizing the legal debate or Ukraine’s needs.