Days after European leaders secured Ukraine's budget through 2027, the Kremlin signaled conditional openness to talks—not with Brussels, but with Paris. On 21 December, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said President Vladimir Putin is ready to engage French President Emmanuel Macron "if there is mutual political will," following Macron's public call for Europe to re-establish dialogue with Moscow. The statement landed against the backdrop of the EU's 19 December decision to provide Kyiv a €90 billion loan raised through joint EU borrowing, after leaders shelved a more contentious plan to finance support using frozen Russian sovereign assets.
The dual dynamic captures Europe's balancing act: institutional finance to keep Ukraine solvent, and tentative diplomatic outreach to test whether any framework for constraining the war exists. Yet Peskov's phrase—"mutual political will"—is deliberately vague, echoing Moscow's longstanding condition that any settlement must reflect what the Kremlin calls "new territorial realities." The question is whether engaging Putin now enhances European leverage, or risks signaling division just as the bloc consolidates its financial commitment.
Europe pays, but not with Russian money
The €90 billion facility addresses an immediate crisis: without EU backing, Kyiv risked running out of money in the second quarter of 2026, jeopardizing its ability to sustain military and civilian operations. Disbursed over 2026–2027 with conditions attached, the package relies on joint EU debt issuance—a mechanism that spreads fiscal risk across member states but avoids the legal and political complexities of tapping frozen Russian assets directly.
That choice is significant. Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz had pushed hard for a "reparations loan" approach, which would tie support to proceeds or conditional liens on the roughly €210 billion in Russian sovereign assets frozen within the EU, about €185 billion of which sits at Belgium's Euroclear clearinghouse. Merz called the final deal "good news for Ukraine and bad news for Russia," yet leaders explicitly sidestepped the asset question. Belgium's objections center on liability concentration: Euroclear hosts the lion's share of frozen funds, and Brussels fears that any EU-level seizure or lien could expose Belgium to sovereign-immunity litigation and systemic financial risk.
The EU is not entirely avoiding Russian assets—existing mechanisms funnel windfall profits from immobilized funds into loan guarantees. The bloc's €18.1 billion contribution to the G7's Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loans, announced in May, is designed to be repaid from those proceeds. But using the principal, or linking new tranches directly to asset-backed schemes, remains off the table for now. Legal scaffolding, indemnities, and political consensus are missing.
Members are reading: Why Macron's outreach may fragment European leverage just as Brussels consolidates Ukraine's budget—and what Putin gains either way.
What to watch
Any Élysée–Kremlin contact will be scrutinized for coordination with Kyiv and key EU partners. If Macron moves unilaterally, it may signal French frustration with the bloc's cautious pace rather than a coherent European strategy. Conversely, if Paris presents a unified position—developed with Warsaw, the Baltics, and Kyiv—it could probe Moscow's willingness to engage seriously without conceding leverage.
On the financing side, EU finance ministries may revisit asset-use designs in 2025, particularly mechanisms that generate proceeds without direct confiscation—windfall profits, reparations loans with indemnities, or hybrid structures that address Belgium's liability concerns. The first tranches of the €90 billion will flow in 2026; their conditionality and disbursement timelines will test whether Brussels can sustain both fiscal discipline and strategic patience.
Ultimately, Europe's dual track—funding Ukraine while testing Putin's willingness to talk—reflects an uncomfortable truth: the war's trajectory remains uncertain, and neither military aid nor diplomatic outreach alone will determine the outcome. The €90 billion buys time and stability; whether Macron's overture buys insight or simply hands Moscow a propaganda win depends on execution, coordination, and the battlefield dynamics that shape both sides' incentives to negotiate.
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.
