Global & US Headlines
EU Shelves Russian-Asset Scheme, Opts for €90 B Budget-Backed Loan to Ukraine
After 14-hour talks at the 18-19 Dec 2025 summit, EU leaders dropped the plan to leverage €210 bn in frozen Russian reserves and instead agreed that 24 member states will raise a €90 bn loan for Kyiv, underwritten by the bloc’s common budget.
Focusing Facts
- Deal: €90 bn will be borrowed on capital markets for 2026-27; Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia are exempt but cannot veto the issuance.
- Belgium, which custodies ~€185 bn (≈90 %) of the frozen Russian assets, refused to proceed without ‘uncapped’ guarantees, blocking the reparations-loan concept championed by Germany and the Commission.
- On 12 Dec 2025 the EU voted to keep the €210 bn of Russian central-bank assets frozen indefinitely, a legal prerequisite for any future confiscation attempt.
Context
Great powers have tried to turn adversaries’ money into leverage before—the Allies seizing German overseas assets for Versailles reparations in 1919, or Washington freezing $12 bn of Iranian funds after 1979 (a dispute settled only in 2016). Each episode bred new financial plumbing and, over decades, wariness toward the dominant currencies involved. Brussels’ clash reprises that pattern: the euro is now being tested as a safe reserve while the Union again inches toward mutualised debt, echoing the crisis-era 2010-12 Eurobond debates. The split between Belgium and Germany signals that fiscal and legal risk-sharing inside the EU remains highly conditional, limiting Europe’s ability to weaponise finance compared with the United States. Whether the bloc ultimately taps Russian principal or not, this moment will be cited in future textbooks as the point when the sanctity of sovereign reserves—and the EU’s own unity—became negotiable. Over a century horizon, the episode may matter less for Ukraine’s balance sheet than for accelerating the gradual fragmentation of the dollar-euro financial order and prompting new forums, perhaps BRICS-style, to insulate reserves from Western jurisdiction.
Perspectives
Mainstream pro-Ukraine European and UK media
e.g., Financial Times, POLITICO, Daily Mail — Present the EU wrangling over frozen Russian assets as a high-stakes but ultimately moral and strategic effort to keep Kyiv funded and defend European security. Coverage stresses urgency and frames hold-outs like Belgium as obstacles, downplaying the legal and financial risks of asset seizure and assuming continued military support for Ukraine is the default good.
Russian state and pro-Kremlin aligned media
e.g., RT, Global Research — Depict the EU initiative as an unlawful attempt to 'steal' Russian wealth in order to prolong a futile, disastrous war and distract from Europe’s own socioeconomic crises. Narratives emphasise Western hypocrisy and collapse, ignore Ukraine’s fiscal plight and cast Moscow strictly as a victim, serving the Kremlin’s strategic communication goals.
Chinese state-owned media
e.g., People’s Daily/Xinhua — Highlight the EU’s legal dilemmas and political divisions over confiscating Russian assets, questioning whether Europe can risk financial instability and dollar-euro credibility. By spotlighting Western hesitation and U.S. pressure, the coverage amplifies narratives of a fracturing West and subtly promotes Beijing’s interest in a rules-based financial order that shields its own reserves.