COLUMN: Russian Money Lies Dormant, Ukraine Bleeds, and Europe Borrows

Two hundred ten billion at a standstill

The figure that fills the room

Approximately 210 billion euros in Russian sovereign assets remain frozen in the European Union, most of it held by Euroclear in Belgium. The figure is so vast that it creates the illusion that a solution has already been found. A reserve exists. Russia has destroyed. Ukraine needs. All it would take is to connect the three.

But the money isn’t moving. On August 25, a senior European official quoted anonymously by EurActiv stated that the obstacles and reservations of several states had not changed. He saw few signs of the reparations loan returning to the negotiating table in Brussels anytime soon.

A stalemate that takes its toll every day

Russian assets are legally frozen, but the cost of the war continues to flow into European budgets and to fund Ukraine’s needs.

We must be precise: no formal act has definitively buried the proposal. Nor has it been adopted. What exists is persistent reluctance, a political deadlock, and a financial emergency that does not put its timeline on hold while lawyers debate.

Two hundred ten billion remains frozen. The war, however, has never stopped.

The plan that was supposed to make Moscow pay

A loan backed by Russian assets

The European Commission had advocated for a “reparations loan”: using the liquidity tied up in frozen Russian assets to finance Ukraine, with Ukraine repaying the loan only after Moscow had potentially paid reparations. The mechanism sought to avoid outright confiscation while mobilizing funds that would otherwise remain frozen.

This framework was ambitious because it sought to transform a defensive freeze into a capacity for action. It was also risky: it had to withstand the scrutiny of international law, Russian reactions, Euroclear’s liabilities, guarantees among member states, and investor confidence.

A Political Promise Turned into a Maze

The idea seemed simple in an op-ed: the aggressor pays. In the legal texts, it became a forest of guarantees where each branch carried a different national risk.

The project was not a check seized and then handed over to Kyiv. It was based on loans, receivables, conditional repayments, and an extended freeze. This complexity does not prove that it was a bad plan; it explains why a shared moral conviction never automatically translated into a common decision.

Between “Russia must pay” and “here’s how,” Europe has laid down a continent of caution.

Belgium Is Not Just a Geographical Detail

Euroclear places Brussels at the center of the risk

Euroclear, a Brussels-based custodian, holds the majority of Russian assets frozen within the EU. This concentration means that a collective European decision could result in lawsuits, countermeasures, or losses concentrated on Belgian infrastructure. Prime Minister Bart De Wever refuses to let his country bear this exposure alone.

His argument deserves better than to be caricatured as cowardice. When an asset held under Belgian jurisdiction becomes the foundation of an unprecedented European operation, the legal consequences do not automatically and magically get divided among twenty-seven nations.

Refusal to Bear a Collective Risk Paid for Locally

Belgium is not saying that Ukraine does not deserve aid. It is saying that a European decision cannot leave a single country to bear the responsibility for a Russian response.

The problem is that this legitimate caution can turn into a never-ending veto if the other member states refuse to offer credible guarantees. The question, therefore, is not only: Why is Brussels blocking progress? It is also: Why hasn’t the Union yet established a risk-sharing mechanism robust enough to break the deadlock in Brussels?

A Belgian lock often hides a poorly constructed European lock.

Interests circulate, but the principal remains behind the glass

One billion four, yes

On August 5, the European Commission announced that 1.4 billion euros in interest generated by frozen Russian assets would be made available to Ukraine. The funds had been transferred to the EU on August 3. This transfer is real, approved, and separate from the frozen principal.

According to the breakdown reported by EUobserver, 70 million euros were to finance military aid through the European Peace Facility, while approximately 1.33 billion were to be channeled through a mechanism designed to service loans already granted to Ukraine.

The contrast that official statements downplay

Europe is using the proceeds of Russian money, but still does not dare to touch the source itself. This legal distinction becomes a difference in power.

That 1.4 billion counts. It shouldn’t be dismissed just to bolster an argument. It genuinely supports Ukraine. But compared to the 210 billion tied up and given the scale of the funding needed, it also highlights the limitations of a policy that has figured out how to collect interest without deciding the fate of the capital.

Money works. Only a small portion of its work crosses the border.

The 90-billion loan: a solution and an admission

Borrowing Rather Than Deciding

In December 2025, European leaders chose to finance a 90-billion-euro loan to Ukraine for 2026 and 2027 by borrowing, in the absence of an agreement on a loan backed by Russian assets. This decision prevented an immediate halt to support.

It also shifted the burden. The EU retained the frozen Russian assets and decided to raise funds on its own. In other words, Europe is safeguarding Ukraine’s continuity but is putting its own borrowing capacity on the front lines while the reserves tied to the aggressor remain politically inaccessible.

Solidarity paid for by those who vote for it

The European loan proves that the Union can act when an emergency demands it. It also proves that it has chosen to make its own finances bear the cost of its prudence.

This choice is not absurd. Preserving financial stability and avoiding a legally tenuous decision has value. But we must call the mechanism by its name: aid continues because Europeans are borrowing, not because Russian capital is directly financing the defense it made necessary.

The bill hasn’t disappeared. It has merely shifted to a temporary debtor.

A shortfall of twenty-three and a half billion

The shortfall announced after the major agreements

Volodymyr Zelenskyy indicated that Ukraine still faces a budget shortfall of 23.5 billion euros, in addition to the European funding already pledged. The figure was reported in late August, as Kyiv requested that the next installment of the European loan be expedited.

This figure remains tied to a Ukrainian request and an evolving need. It should not be treated as a final assessment. A war shifts expenditures, revenues, military needs, and available aid. But it gives a sense of the shortfall that the decisions already announced have not yet filled.

Financial Time and Military Time

A deficit is not an abstract figure when it funds an army at war, public services under pressure, and a state that must continue to exist tomorrow morning.

The EU can spend months negotiating guarantees. Ukraine must pay as its deadlines approach. This difference in timing is the real danger: a perfect solution that arrives after an essential capacity has been depleted resembles a legal victory built upon a material defeat.

The lawyers’ timeline matters. The Ukrainians’ timeline is not their own.

Legal caution is not neutrality

The law also protects Europe

The objections are not fictitious. Confiscating or permanently mobilizing sovereign reserves touches on state immunities, property rights, the risk of litigation, and the reputation of European financial centers. A poorly conceived decision could weaken the legal order that the EU claims to defend.

Russia has initiated or supported legal challenges and is threatening retaliation. Euroclear has found itself at the center of legal proceedings and cross-exposures. To claim that these dangers do not exist would be to turn a moral imperative into financial improvisation.

But failing to make a decision is also a decision

The law is not a piece of furniture behind which politics can hide. If it bars one path, we must build another rather than celebrate stagnation.

Every month without a solution shifts the burden of financing to European borrowing, national budgets, or a Ukraine already under strain. Caution, therefore, has a measurable cost. It is not neutral between the aggressor, whose capital remains intact, and the victim, who is still seeking billions.

A risk avoided here does not disappear. It resurfaces elsewhere, often among the most vulnerable.

What Moscow Understands About the Stalemate

Time as the Kremlin’s Ally

Russia rejects the principle of reparations and labels any confiscation of its assets as theft. It also knows that European unanimity, legal differences, and the concentration of assets in Belgium are slowing the process of converting the freeze into direct support.

In a war of attrition, this slowness is valuable. It does not grant Moscow access to its reserves, but it still prevents Ukraine from drawing on their full financial capacity. The capital is neutralized without being converted into power for the benefit of the party under attack.

The relative comfort of inaccessible funds

Moscow cannot use these 210 billion. Neither can Kyiv. In the meantime, Russia can hope that Western taxpayers will grow weary before its own ambitions are thwarted.

One must not confuse freezing with ineffectiveness: immobilizing the reserves has imposed a real cost on Russia. But the Kremlin is watching the debates and gauging the divisions. Every delay fuels its strategic gamble that Western political will will erode faster than its ability to continue the war.

The freeze prevents Russia from retrieving its money. It does not yet compel it to make reparations.

The Aggressor, the Victim, and the Taxpayer

A moral chain turned into a budgetary chain

Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The European Union subsequently froze assets of the Russian central bank and ramped up sanctions, loans, and aid. Four years later, the fundamental question remains: who is actually bearing the cost of the destruction?

For now, several answers coexist. Russia is losing access to its reserves and the windfall revenues they generate. Ukraine is paying in destruction and debt. Europeans are funding aid, guaranteeing loans, and borrowing collectively.

Justice That Stops Short of the Cash Register

Saying that the aggressor must pay is one position. Building the mechanism that makes them pay without breaking the law is the responsibility that remains unfulfilled.

The European taxpayer is not Ukraine’s enemy. He has supported a massive and necessary effort. But a sustainable framework must explain why he continues to bear the primary burden while a massive amount of Russian capital remains under European control.

Solidarity is honorable. It should not become an excuse for our indecision.

The False Choice Between Brutal Confiscation and Passivity

Middle ground exists

Public debate often reduces the options to two camps: seizing all the principal immediately or leaving it untouched. The reparations loan was precisely intended to find a middle ground. Other structures—such as guarantees, risk pooling, or the extension of exceptional revenues—can be explored.

No solution comes for free. The more the Union wants to quickly mobilize a large sum, the more it must agree to explicitly share the legal and financial risks. What is missing is not just a legal theory; it is a coalition willing to accept the consequences.

Pooling what Belgium cannot bear

If the twenty-seven consider the project just, they must jointly guarantee Euroclear and Belgium. Otherwise, their outrage ends exactly where their own balance sheets begin.

Collective responsibility could take the form of proportional guarantees, a common fund, or a compensation mechanism. The details are up to the negotiators. The principle is clear: a European policy cannot rest on the solitary financial heroism of the country where the depositary is located.

Unity is not measured by the number of statements, but by how risk is shared.

The precedent is cause for concern beyond Moscow

A central bank’s reserves enjoy special protection because the international financial system relies on states’ confidence in the safekeeping of their assets. A seizure or permanent mobilization could prompt other countries to move reserves out of Europe.

This concern must be taken seriously without becoming all-consuming. The circumstances themselves are exceptional: a war of aggression, coordinated sanctions, massive destruction, and the issue of reparations. A precedent can be limited by strict criteria rather than denied or applied without safeguards.

Reputation versus Credibility

Europe fears undermining financial confidence if it takes action. It should also fear undermining its political credibility if no act of aggression ever allows access to the aggressor’s funds.

Financial law protects stability. International law also protects states against aggression. The challenge is not to choose one and disregard the other, but to prevent a rule designed for normal circumstances from offering a perfect sanctuary to the capital of a state that has shattered that normality.

A rule that survives only by ignoring the exception ultimately protects the wrong thing.

The word “reparations” carries a longer-standing debt

A loan pending an unlikely payment

The proposed mechanism assumed that Ukraine would repay the loan once Russia paid reparations. However, Moscow rejects this prospect. The loan would therefore have been based on an uncertain—perhaps distant—political horizon and on the prolonged continuation of the freeze.

This uncertainty does not invalidate the principle. It necessitates acknowledging that the financing is not a simple advance to be repaid soon. It is a long-term commitment backed by a moral and legal claim, the fulfillment of which will depend on a future balance of power.

The Danger of a Name That Is Too Clear-Cut

“Reparations loan” sounds like a debt that has already been acknowledged. In reality, the moral debt is evident, but its recovery remains entirely a political matter.

The Union must therefore avoid promising its citizens automatic or rapid restitution. It must develop a policy that can hold up even if Russia does not pay voluntarily, if legal disputes drag on, and if assets remain frozen for years.

Simply naming reparations does not make them happen. It merely serves as a reminder of why they are owed.

A Generous, Yet Still Fragmented Europe

What Has Already Been Accomplished

The EU has adopted sanctions, frozen assets, transferred windfall revenues, approved a 90-billion loan, and continued to support Ukraine. To reduce all of this to mere cowardice would be false and unfair. The European effort exists, comes at a cost, and is ongoing.

This positive truth must remain in the text. It then allows for harsher criticism: despite this mobilization, the EU has not resolved the central contradiction between its slogan—“Russia must pay”—and its persistent reliance on its own borrowing to support Ukraine.

Scattered Courage

Europe is not standing still. It moves forward while carrying twenty-seven different brakes, then is surprised that the emergency always catches up with it.

The problem is not a lack of shared values. It is the lack of a mechanism robust enough to turn those values into decisions when risks are unevenly distributed. Belgium bears the brunt of the exposure. Others dominate the discourse. Ukraine bears the brunt of the consequences.

A fragmented power can be generous. It remains too slow to live up to its own promise.

What an Honest Compromise Should Include

Written guarantees, not moral pressure

A credible compromise would begin by acknowledging Belgium’s risks rather than humiliating the country. It would establish who pays in the event of an unfavorable ruling, retaliation against Euroclear, or financial loss, and how that burden would be shared among member states.

It would clearly distinguish between principal, extraordinary revenues, loans already approved, and future instruments. This transparency is essential: conflating these categories gives the impression that money already spent can be spent a second time.

Thresholds, a Timeline, and an Exit Strategy

The best response to uncertainty is not endless waiting. It is a rule that specifies when to act, how much to mobilize, and who bears the risk.

The compromise could proceed in stages, linked to verified Ukrainian needs and strengthened guarantees. It should also address what happens if reparations are paid, if a peace agreement alters the status of the assets, or if courts invalidate part of the mechanism.

Caution becomes courage when it paves the way for action rather than replacing it.

Separating the urgency from the final solution

Ukraine is calling for the promised funds to be disbursed more quickly. This request must be evaluated on its own merits, without becoming hostage to a much broader agreement on Russian assets. The 90-billion loan was specifically chosen to ensure continuity in 2026 and 2027.

Delaying payments that have already been approved in order to retain internal negotiating leverage would be the worst possible mistake. The budgetary urgency requires the use of existing instruments while the Union continues to work on a more ambitious mechanism.

Don’t Make Kyiv Pay for Brussels

Ukraine should not have to suffer the delays caused by the disagreement between Belgium, the Commission, other capitals, and a financial infrastructure over which it has no control.

The approach is twofold: pay out what has been approved on time; negotiate relentlessly on what has not yet been approved. Confusing these two paths would create a false dichotomy between immediate aid and long-term financial justice.

We can build for tomorrow without withholding the money promised for today.

The verdict is not against Belgium

The mirror held up to the twenty-seven

It would be convenient to portray Bart De Wever as the selfish guardian of a European treasury. But that would be to forget that the treasury is located in his country, that the legal proceedings target specific institutions, and that the guarantees demanded must come from partners who share less direct exposure.

The lock is Belgian by location. It is European by design. Every country that demands access to the assets while refusing to guarantee its share of the risk contributes to the deadlock it then denounces.

A responsibility that cannot be outsourced

We do not ask an ally to shoulder a historic precedent alone, only to then accuse it of lacking courage when it asks history to bear witness as well.

Belgium must negotiate in good faith and not turn risk into a perpetual excuse. The others must stop demanding boldness while outsourcing the consequences. A compromise will not arise from greater moral pressure, but from a more equitable distribution of responsibility.

Shared courage begins when no one can pass their fear on to their neighbor.

Money sleeps, but our choice remains awake

What Has Not Yet Been Decided

The reparations loan proposal is not officially dead. It has simply not returned to the center of the agenda, despite the urgency and despite Ukraine’s reported deficit. This nuance protects the truth; it does not protect Europe from judgment regarding its slowness.

Interest payments may continue to be made. European loans will move forward. The courts and negotiators will continue their work. But as long as the principal remains frozen, the Union must explain how it will finance the process without exhausting its solidarity or allowing Russia to bet on this fatigue.

The Bill and the Signature

The real question is no longer whether Russia must pay. It is whether Europe will finally agree to collectively shoulder the necessary risk to compel it to do so.

Two hundred ten billion remain behind the glass. Ukraine, for its part, is still reporting a shortfall of 23.5 billion. Between these two figures, there is no accounting gap. There is our political architecture, our fears, our law, and our will.

The Russian money lies dormant. It would be a mistake for the European conscience to fall asleep along with it.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist’s Transparency Box

Editorial Stance

I am not a journalist, but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analyzing the geopolitical, economic, and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work consists of dissecting political strategies, understanding global economic trends, contextualizing the decisions of international actors, and offering analytical perspectives on the transformations that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim to possess the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which is limited to factual reporting. I strive for analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation, and a deep understanding of the complex issues that affect us all. My role is to make sense of the facts, place them within their historical and strategic context, and offer a critical analysis of events.

Methodology and Sources

This text respects the fundamental distinction between verified facts and interpretive analyses. The methodological rule is consistent: factual information is published only if it is supported by a verifiable source, and the sources actually used in this article are listed under “Sources”—never here.

Categories of primary sources used by the publication, where applicable: official press releases from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organizations, and dispatches from recognized international news agencies.

Types of secondary sources: specialized publications, internationally recognized news media, analyses from established research institutions, and reports from sector-specific organizations.

When an article cites statistical, economic, or geopolitical data, it comes from data-producing institutions (intergovernmental organizations, central banks, national statistical institutes), and the specific institution is listed under “Sources.”

Nature of the Analysis

The analyses, interpretations, and perspectives presented in the analytical sections of this article constitute a critical and contextual synthesis based on available information, observed trends, and expert commentary cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, contextualize them within the framework of contemporary geopolitical and economic dynamics, and give them coherent meaning within the broader narrative of the transformations shaping our era. These analyses reflect expertise developed through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a situation documented as of its publication date, not a prediction: subsequent developments may alter these perspectives. No updates are promised in advance; when an article is corrected or expanded, the change is dated within the text.

COLUMN: Russian Money Lies Dormant, Ukraine Bleeds, and Europe Borrows