Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has set out three conditions under which Brussels would support an EU plan to raise a large “reparations loan” for Ukraine secured against immobilised Russian state assets held in Europe.
Speaking to reporters ahead of the European Council in Brussels on Thursday, 23 October, Mr De Wever said Belgium’s principal concern was the legal and financial exposure arising from any move that touches the frozen assets, a significant portion of which are held at Euroclear in Brussels. He described the step as unprecedented and said Belgium would not proceed without firm safeguards.
Three conditions
First, Belgium wants a full sharing of legal risk across EU member states. Mr De Wever warned that Belgium could face “giant lawsuits” given Euroclear’s role, and said any decision must ensure the burden is not borne by a single jurisdiction. “If you want to do this, we must do it together,” he said.
Second, Belgium is seeking explicit guarantees that, if funds were ever required to be returned—for example following litigation or a settlement—every member state would contribute to any repayments. The Prime Minister said consequences “must not end up entirely on Belgium” because the assets are booked through a Belgian-based financial market infrastructure.
Third, he called for parallel action by other jurisdictions where Russian state assets are immobilised. Belgium, he said, is aware of “large sums” located in other countries and wants coordinated steps so that implementation is not concentrated on one venue. “If we move on this, let us move together,” he added.
Mr De Wever also asked the European Commission and partners for clear legal grounding before any decision. “I want the maximum of legal certainty,” he said earlier this month, framing the initiative as one without historical precedent even during the Second World War.
Context: the EU loan proposal
EU leaders are discussing a plan to mobilise a large multi-year loan for Ukraine—figures cited by officials range around €140–€165 billion for 2026–27—secured against frozen Russian sovereign assets. The principal of those assets would remain untouched; instead, the assets would serve as collateral and the EU would rely on the interest proceeds and future reparations from Russia to ensure repayment. The concept is designed to avoid outright confiscation, which many legal advisers view as fraught under international and EU law.
A significant share of the immobilised Russian central bank reserves in Europe—widely estimated in the €180–€210 billion range—is linked to Euroclear, the Brussels-based central securities depository. This concentration has left Belgium particularly exposed to litigation risk and potential countermeasures. Belgian officials have therefore pressed for indemnities and collective guarantees as a condition for their assent.
European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has cautioned that any mechanism must be firmly grounded in law to avoid undermining confidence in European markets. Her remarks underline the sensitivity of using sovereign assets, even indirectly, for financing purposes.
Retaliation and litigation concerns
Mr De Wever said member states must assess possible countermeasures. He cited the risk that Russia could seize the remaining property of European companies still present in the Russian market, and warned of subsequent litigation by firms whose assets might be expropriated. Belgium wants transparency about these risks and a clear legal base for any step the EU takes.
Russia has repeatedly condemned EU and G7 initiatives regarding its immobilised reserves as “theft”. EU officials argue that the loan concept, which relies on proceeds and collateralisation rather than direct seizure of principal, is designed to stay within legal boundaries while delivering predictable support to Kyiv.
State of play at the European Council
Leaders meeting in Brussels are expected to signal continued financial and military support for Ukraine through 2026–27 and to task the European Commission with detailed legal and technical work on the loan structure. Some reporting earlier in the week indicated that Belgium would not obstruct further preparatory steps, but Mr De Wever’s latest remarks make clear that final support remains contingent on the three conditions being met.
What Belgium wants to see next
In practical terms, the Belgian position implies: an EU-level indemnity regime covering Euroclear-related exposure; burden-sharing clauses for any eventual repayments; and parallel implementation in other jurisdictions hosting frozen Russian assets. Without these, Belgium is prepared to oppose the measure.
The debate is unlikely to end at this summit. Further legal analysis, market consultations, and political negotiations are expected as the Commission refines options that could satisfy risk-sharing requirements while maintaining market stability. For Belgium, the centre of gravity is legal certainty—ensuring that a novel instrument designed to support Ukraine does not create asymmetric liabilities for the host country of Europe’s main securities depository.
Belgium sets ‘red lines’ on proposed €140bn loan for Ukraine
