The United States has been lobbying several European Union member states to oppose a plan to use frozen Russian central bank assets to back a major new loan for Ukraine, according to European diplomats cited by Bloomberg.
The reported démarche highlights growing differences between Washington and key European capitals over how to finance Ukraine and how to use Russia’s immobilised reserves in any eventual settlement of the war.
US officials have told a number of EU governments that the frozen Russian assets should be preserved as leverage for a future peace agreement between Kyiv and Moscow and should not be deployed to support Ukraine’s war effort. The diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Washington has argued that drawing on the funds now would reduce the West’s bargaining power in eventual talks with the Kremlin.
The lobbying comes as the European Commission has tabled a plan to raise €90 billion for Ukraine over the next two years, using frozen Russian sovereign assets as the basis for what Brussels calls a “reparations loan”. The proposal would see the EU borrow from Euroclear and other custodians holding Russian central bank reserves, with the loan to Kyiv secured against roughly €210 billion in immobilised Russian funds located primarily in Belgium and other EU states. Ukraine would only be required to repay once it received war reparations from Russia.
EU officials say the €90 billion package is designed to cover a substantial share of Ukraine’s projected economic and military needs in 2026–27 at a time when US budgetary support has been sharply reduced and Kyiv faces the risk of a financing gap early next year. The scheme is intended to avoid outright confiscation by leaving legal ownership of the assets with Russia while using them as collateral or through the proceeds they generate. Nonetheless, the idea remains disputed within the Union, with Belgium in particular warning of legal exposure and possible retaliation by Moscow.
According to Bloomberg’s account, the asset question is closely bound up with a 28-point US peace plan that Washington has been refining over recent weeks. That plan, drafted under the Trump administration, reportedly envisages using part of the frozen Russian reserves to finance post-war investments in Ukraine under US leadership and has been presented in talks with both Russian and Ukrainian representatives. While the text has already been amended once, frozen assets remain one of the main unresolved issues, alongside the status of occupied Ukrainian territory and the nature of security guarantees for Kyiv.
European leaders have reacted cautiously to the US peace push and have stressed that decisions on the Russian assets are a European competence, given that most of the funds are held within the EU financial system. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has set out two options for long-term Ukraine support – common EU borrowing and the reparations loan backed by Russian reserves – and has urged governments to agree a two-year funding framework at a summit later this month. The current German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has publicly stated that any money mobilised from Russian assets must flow to Ukraine rather than being diverted into other schemes, a formulation widely read as a response to US ideas for US-led investment vehicles.
Internally, the EU plan faces resistance beyond the reported US lobbying. Belgium, which hosts Euroclear and therefore the bulk of the frozen reserves, is demanding strong guarantees that it will not be left bearing the legal and financial risks if Russia challenges the scheme in court. Hungary has opposed the broader concept of large-scale Ukraine funding, while Slovakia has indicated it will not back measures that provide military assistance. However, the reparations-loan proposal could in principle be adopted by qualified majority, limiting the scope for a single capital to block it outright, and the Commission is exploring the use of emergency legal bases to keep the assets frozen over the longer term.
For Ukraine, the outcome of this debate is central to its immediate fiscal stability and to its negotiating position in any future talks. Kyiv has warned that without fresh external support, it could face a severe budget shortfall in early 2026, even as Russian forces continue offensive operations and critical infrastructure remains under attack. For the EU, the dispute touches on questions of strategic autonomy: whether Europe can design and finance its own Ukraine policy, and how far it is prepared to go in using Russian state assets to sustain that policy. For Washington, the frozen reserves are increasingly viewed as one of the few remaining instruments of leverage with Moscow, and the Bloomberg report suggests the US is keen to keep that card for its own diplomacy.
