Senior figures from the European Commission and the Belgian government will meet on Friday, 7 November, in an effort to break a political impasse over how to use frozen Russian sovereign assets to back a proposed €140 billion “reparations loan” for Ukraine.
The session follows weeks of stalled discussions among EU capitals and heightened pressure from the Commission to settle on a financing route before Ukraine’s 2026 budget gap becomes acute.
Belgium has emerged as the principal hold-out. Brussels-based Euroclear holds the largest share of Russia’s immobilised central bank assets in the EU, and Prime Minister Bart De Wever has argued that any scheme must shield Belgium from legal and financial exposure if Moscow challenges the measure in court or if sanctions are later unwound. He has also cautioned against touching the principal of the assets, favouring the continued use of generated income only.
At a European Council meeting in October, leaders discussed the Commission’s blueprint to engineer a large, multi-year loan to Kyiv that would be repaid only once Russia pays reparations. Belgium pressed for robust, shared guarantees across member states and for clarity on how to manage risks if sanctions require periodic renewal by unanimity. With no consensus, leaders asked the Commission to develop alternative funding options, with further proposals due in December.
The urgency of the matter was underscored on Tuesday, 4 November, when deputy finance ministers again failed to make headway. Speaking in Sofia the same day, Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis warned that delays were narrowing the space for interim solutions and that a temporary “bridging” arrangement could be needed to keep Ukraine financed into early 2026 if the larger package remains blocked.
The Commission’s model seeks to avoid outright confiscation of Russian state assets while mobilising their proceeds. Under discussion is a structure in which cash balances and income generated by the immobilised reserves—held largely at Euroclear—would underpin an EU-level borrowing programme. The €140 billion facility is intended to cover a substantial share of Ukraine’s estimated funding needs through 2027 and complement G7 arrangements based on the windfall income of frozen assets.
Belgium’s position turns on three main points. First, it wants firm, collective guarantees from all member states to mutualise any liabilities arising from litigation or from an eventual requirement to return assets if sanctions lapse. Secondly, it has sought mechanisms that ensure immediate liquidity for any member state called upon to meet such liabilities. Thirdly, it favours limiting exposure by prioritising the use of interest and cash balances over the asset principal. De Wever has also pointed to systemic and financial-stability concerns if the EU were seen to breach the legal immunities attached to central bank reserves.
Opponents of delay note that the immobilised stock in the EU is sizeable and largely concentrated in Belgium, and argue that the EU’s legal design—repayment by Ukraine only after Russia pays reparations—minimises the risk that national treasuries will bear the cost. They also emphasise that the plan avoids confiscation and is consistent with continued sanctions. Nonetheless, EU institutions and some capitals acknowledge that any durable solution must account for periodic sanctions rollovers, potential litigation, and the need to preserve market confidence.
Friday’s meeting is expected to focus on a Commission memorandum outlining alternative paths to deliver support, including the use of EU-level borrowing with different guarantee configurations. The aim is to identify an acceptable risk-sharing formula that would allow the legal proposal to advance while maintaining protection against adverse court rulings. If agreement proves elusive, the Commission has signalled it will explore stop-gap financing to bridge Ukraine’s needs until a broader settlement is reached.
The broader geopolitical context remains sensitive. Moscow has repeatedly warned against any EU plan that uses its immobilised reserves, signalling it would challenge such moves and portraying them as a threat to property rights. These warnings, as well as concerns raised by central banking circles about precedent and immunity, have fed into deliberations in Brussels.
Belgian Prime Minister sets 3 conditions for backing EU ‘reparations loan’ to Ukraine
