Global & US Headlines
EU Moves to Lock €210 B Russian Assets via Article 122 Before Dec 18 Summit
Brussels is racing to invoke emergency Article 122 powers so a qualified-majority vote—expected within days—can freeze €210 billion of Russian central-bank funds indefinitely, sidestepping Hungary’s anticipated veto at the 18 December 2025 EU summit.
Focusing Facts
- The draft measure would shift sanctions renewal from 27-nation unanimity to a qualified majority of 15 states representing 65 % of the EU population under Article 122 of the treaties.
- Commission plans tie the permanent freeze to a proposed €90 billion loan for Kyiv over 2026-27, backed by income from the immobilised assets.
- Euroclear in Belgium holds roughly €185 billion—about 88 %—of the targeted Russian funds, making Belgium potentially liable to Moscow’s claims.
Context
Great-power conflicts have repeatedly led to asset seizures—Britain froze Iranian funds in 1952, the US locked $12 bn of Iranian reserves in 1979, and the Allies impounded German assets after 1945—but each case was later litigated or repaid, underscoring the legal minefield the EU is now entering. This maneuver reflects the 21st-century trend of weaponising the financial system (SWIFT bans, sanctions, reserve freezes) as a substitute for direct military escalation, accelerating the fragmentation of the post-Cold-War monetary order. If the eurozone is seen as willing to override sovereign-immunity norms whenever political winds shift, reserve-holding states may diversify further into gold, yuan, or crypto, echoing how sterling lost reserve-currency status after Britain’s 1931 devaluation. On a 100-year horizon the move matters less for the immediate €90 billion Ukraine loan than for whether it cements a precedent: that major powers’ reserves are no longer sacrosanct in rival blocs. Should that norm break permanently, the financial plumbing built since Bretton Woods (1944) may splinter into competing, sanction-proof networks—reshaping global capital flows long after the Russo-Ukrainian war fades from the front pages.
Perspectives
Pro-Ukraine, pro-EU mainstream outlets
e.g., Ukrainian Pravda, Firstpost — Portray the rushed law as a pragmatic way for Brussels to secure €210 billion in Russian assets, bypass Orbán’s veto, and keep leverage and funding flowing to Kyiv. By stressing urgency and strategic necessity, these outlets largely gloss over the legal grey areas and the precedent of overriding member-state unanimity, reflecting their alignment with Kyiv and the EU policy line.
Russia-aligned or Moscow-sympathetic media
e.g., RT, TASS — Frame the plan as outright theft and a ‘coup’ inside the EU that violates international law and risks severe retaliation from Moscow. Their language is highly charged and focuses on delegitimising Brussels while amplifying threats of Russian counter-measures, echoing the Kremlin’s geopolitical narrative.