Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has issued a scathing letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, urging her to abandon plans to tap into €140 billion in frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war efforts.
His intervention comes just days before the EC is expected to reveal a revised proposal intended to address Belgium’s longstanding objections.
“Rushing ahead with the proposed timetable for a new agreement would have the collateral effect of preventing us, as the EU, from reaching a possible peace settlement,” De Wever warned. He was referring to the leaked peace plan reportedly being developed by the US and Russia.
According to that evolving 28-point plan, the frozen Russian assets would be released and used to rebuild Ukraine and capitalise a US–Russian investment fund.
Point 14 of the US plan, drafted without European capitals’ input, reads: “$100 billion [€86.4 million] in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine. The US will receive 50 per cent of the profits from this venture.
“Europe will contribute a further $100 billion to increase the investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen.”
The remaining Russian assets would “be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle implementing joint projects in specific sectors”, it says.
“This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and deepening shared interests so as to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.”
By contrast, the European Union and several member states reportedly want to move swiftly on the Russian assets, ensuring that Washington cannot act unilaterally.
In his letter, De Wever demands watertight, legally binding and unconditional commitments from the other member states that they will jointly transfer the billions to Euroclear should sanctions be lifted and the funds need to be returned to Moscow.
Without such guarantees, he says he will veto von der Leyen’s plan.
Belgium is also seeking assurances that other countries will underwrite any potential arbitration rulings stemming from breaches of its investment treaty with the former Soviet Union. De Wever insists that all member states holding frozen Russian assets must take part in the negotiations.
Apart from Belgium, an estimated €25 billion of Russian assets are frozen in EU banks elsewhere, mainly in France and Luxembourg, according to Reuters.
“We may choose to believe that the proposal is consistent with international law and does not constitute illegal confiscation but the uncomfortable reality is that others will see it differently — and act accordingly,” the Belgian Prime Minister cautioned.
He warned that the move could harm international trust in European financial institutions.
De Wever argued that his preferred alternative is for the EC to borrow €45 billion on the financial markets.
“Such an option would be cheaper than the other proposals, especially once all risks are properly accounted for,” he said.
“Talking is cheap, but helping Ukraine will, unfortunately, be expensive.”
Just before De Wever’s letter, Euroclear, the Brussels-based clearing house that holds most of the Russian assets frozen in Europe, issued a similar warning.
Euroclear CEO Valérie Urbain said von der Leyen’s plan amounted to “confiscation” and warned that it could set a dangerous precedent, scaring off investors and pushing up interest rates.
She also cautioned about legal consequences, including retaliation from Moscow through lawsuits or counter-seizures.
Belgium’s resistance has thrown a spanner in the works of Brussels’ hopes for a swift agreement ahead of a crucial December summit. It potentially jeopardises a key financial lifeline for Ukraine at a pivotal moment in the nearly four-year conflict.
“Euroclear wants guarantees that all countries will contribute to any costs incurred if the money is used for Ukraine, even though the Commission has put everything on paper and claims the plans are legally watertight,” Urbain warned in her own letter, seen by the Financial Times.
“Another question is: How will the rest of the world see this?”
Yesterday the Governor of the Belgian National Bank, Pierre Wunsch, also wrote to von der Leyen and António Costa, the President of the European Council, with a similar message.
“The bank is concerned about any current or future financing option that could directly or indirectly affect the risk profile of Euroclear Bank as defined in EU regulations,” Wunsch said.
The frozen assets represent the immobilised reserves of Russia’s central bank, seized following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Under von der Leyen’s controversial proposal, the EC would assume legal ownership of the funds and use the windfall profits generated by them as collateral for a vast “reparations loan” to Kyiv.
This loan would cover Ukraine’s projected €153 billion in budgetary and defence needs for 2026–27, with repayment contingent on Russia eventually paying for war damages.
Supporters argue that is the “most effective way” to maintain Ukraine’s defence and economy without placing additional burdens on EU taxpayers, particularly as the bloc has already committed nearly €200 billion in aid.
Alongside Belgium’s legal and political objections, it is also important that Brussels uses the interest generated by the Russian capital held at Euroclear to support its own budget.
Taxes on these earnings are channelled into aid for Ukraine and are counted as military spending, helping Belgium meet the NATO spending target.
Bart de Wever is right to reject the Russian asset sequestration scheme. It puts Belgium at risk financially, since it has most of the Russian money. It would permanently lock the door on any peace deals, not only the current one under negotiation. Third, and most importantly, it…
— Wolfgang Munchau (@EuroBriefing) November 28, 2025
