Global & US Headlines
Brussels Showdown Over €90 Billion Ukraine Loan Backed by Frozen Russian Assets
On 18 December 2025 EU leaders opened an emergency summit to approve a two-year €90 billion loan to Ukraine secured against €210 billion in frozen Russian central-bank reserves, but the plan hung in the balance amid last-minute Belgian resistance.
Focusing Facts
- €185 billion of the €210 billion in Russian assets are parked at Brussels-based Euroclear, placing Belgium at the legal and financial epicentre.
- The proposed loan would disburse €90 billion in 2026-27 and can pass with qualified-majority support, yet Belgium demands unlimited guarantees before dropping its veto threat.
- Russia’s central bank has already sued Euroclear in a Moscow court for ₽18 trillion ($229 billion), with the first hearing set for mid-January 2026.
Context
Major powers have frozen enemy assets before—Washington seized $12 billion of Iranian funds in 1979 and only released them under the 1981 Algiers Accords—but diverting sovereign reserves to finance a third party’s war effort recalls the 1946 Allied use of German gold, not recent practice. The clash exposes two long-running currents: the weaponisation of financial plumbing that began with SWIFT sanctions in 2014, and Europe’s struggle for strategic autonomy as U.S. policy under President Trump turns openly transactional. Whether the EU forces through the scheme or folds will reverberate far beyond Kyiv: endorsing it could normalise the conversion of reserves into war chests, encouraging Russia, China or others to desert Western clearing houses; failure would advertise the EU’s structural inability to act without unanimity, weakening its bargaining power in any peace talks. In a century-scale lens, this moment tests the post-1945 assumption that state assets held abroad are sacrosanct—an assumption on which the globalised capital market, and Europe’s prosperity, was built.
Perspectives
Pro-Ukraine European mainstream media
e.g., The Guardian, The New York Times, BBC, Sky News — They present tapping the €210 bn in frozen Russian assets as a moral and strategic imperative for Europe, arguing it is vital for Ukraine’s survival and for proving the EU can act decisively. By foregrounding urgency and unity they skate over the legal complexities and financial risks Belgium cites, implicitly framing dissenting states as obstructive rather than legitimately cautious.
Financial-business focused outlets
e.g., Financial Times, Guardian investigations — Their coverage stresses the serious legal exposure, possible Russian retaliation and knock-on effects for Euroclear and western companies if the frozen funds are used. This risk-centric lens can amplify worst-case scenarios that align with corporate and investor interests, potentially inflating fears compared with the commission’s legal analyses.
Political analysis media spotlighting U.S./Trump pressure
e.g., POLITICO, قناة العربية — They frame the stalemate less as an intra-EU problem and more as the result of the Trump White House lobbying allies to block the asset-backed loan, urging Europe to resist outside meddling. By pinning responsibility on Washington they may downplay genuine Belgian and Hungarian reservations, shifting accountability away from European divisions for dramatic transatlantic narrative effect.