Belgium has formally vetoed the European Commission's proposal to back a multi-billion euro loan to Ukraine with frozen Russian sovereign assets, warning that the unprecedented scheme exposes Brussels to asymmetric legal and financial risks while muturalizing only political intent. Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot described the plan as "the worst of all options," arguing that the draft text would leave Belgium "alone facing the risks" of Russian retaliation and litigation—a direct consequence of Euroclear's domicile in Belgium and its custody of approximately €185 billion in immobilized Russian Central Bank reserves.
The rejection, delivered in October, reflects ongoing institutional tensions over liability concentration as member states prepare for the December 18–19 EU leaders' summit, where they must decide how to bridge Ukraine's estimated €130–€140 billion funding gap for 2026–2027. Belgium's stance underscores a fundamental institutional question: can the EU engineer large-scale financial support tied to frozen assets without concentrating liability on a single jurisdiction—and without undermining the euro's credibility as a reserve currency?
Anatomy of the reparations-loan proposal
The Commission's draft envisions a €140–€165 billion loan facility anchored to cash flows generated by the frozen Russian reserves. Under the proposed structure, Ukraine would be obliged to repay only if Russia itself pays court-ordered or negotiated reparations; if Moscow refuses, the underlying Russian assets remain frozen and the loan effectively converts to a grant. The Commission has kept open the option to finance the facility through standard EU market borrowing, or a hybrid model blending capital-market debt with asset-linked guarantees.
The design attempts to navigate the legal constraints around sovereign immunity and confiscation: by tying repayment to a reparations outcome, the EU avoids outright seizure of principal while still leveraging the frozen stock as implicit collateral. Yet this legal engineering places maximum operational and jurisdictional exposure on Belgium, home to Euroclear and the overwhelming majority of the immobilized reserves. Belgian leaders warn that any litigation, countermeasures, or reputational damage triggered by the scheme would hit Brussels hardest—while risk is shared only rhetorically across the Union. Prime Minister Bart De Wever has cautioned that the current framing could derail settlement negotiations rather than catalyze them, intensifying both the legal objections and the political stakes.
Members are reading: How Belgium's veto exposes a systemic euro credibility risk and why the lien-plus-indemnity compromise is the only floated option that addresses both legal proportionality and financing scale.
The December 18 decision point and Belgium's alternative
Belgium has consistently advocated a simpler, lower-risk pathway: traditional EU borrowing on capital markets, using the Union's established debt-issuance capacity. This approach would bypass the legal and reputational hazards of asset-linked schemes, rely on predictable pricing and investor appetite, and preserve the current policy of channeling only windfall income—not principal—from frozen reserves to support the existing G7 loan programs. Several capitals, including Germany and the Netherlands, have acknowledged Belgium's concerns as "justified" while urging collective responsibility and floating financial guarantees to distribute risk.
The December 18–19 summit will test whether the EU can codify a mutual indemnity that explicitly shields Belgium and Euroclear, with defined cost-sharing for damages and legal defense, or whether Belgium holds the line for pure market borrowing. The Commission is also exploring emergency bridge financing for early 2026, deployable via EU debt instruments while the legal architecture for any lien-based mechanism is finalized. Russia, meanwhile, continues to exploit these divisions, framing European hesitations as proof that the West is blocking a negotiated settlement and threatening to declare any non-consensual use of its assets "null and void."
The choice facing EU leaders is stark: either mutualize liability in law, embedding credible indemnities and legal shields that transform rhetoric into enforceable guarantees, or accept that Ukraine's 2026–2027 funding will come through conventional borrowing and incremental windfall transfers. The first path unlocks the scale and symbolic leverage of the reparations-loan concept; the second preserves institutional stability and euro reserve credibility at the cost of reduced financial ambition. Belgium's veto forces that choice into the open, and the ECB's warning ensures it cannot be answered with political compromise alone.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
