After marathon negotiations stretching more than 16 hours, European Union leaders have agreed to provide Ukraine with a 90 billion Euros loan to cover looming budget shortfalls in 2026–27. The decision, hailed by President Volodymyr Zelensky as one that “truly strengthens Ukraine,” comes as the bloc failed to reach consensus on a far more contentious issue: whether to tap into the 200–210 billion Euros in frozen Russian central bank assets. The loan, backed by the EU’s common budget, is designed to ensure Kyiv can sustain both its defense and civilian needs as Russia’s war nears its fourth year. Yet the inability to unlock Russian reserves immobilized in European clearinghouses since 2022 underscores the political and legal fault lines within the bloc. Speaking after the summit, President Zelensky struck a careful balance between gratitude and frustration, saying, “This decision truly strengthens Ukraine. But let us be clear, Russia must pay for the destruction it has caused. Frozen assets are not just numbers on paper; they are the means to rebuild lives and cities shattered by aggression.”
The EU had hoped to use profits or even principal from Russia’s frozen reserves to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction. But Belgium, home to Euroclear where most of the assets are held, demanded liability-sharing guarantees. Without them, Brussels risked exposing itself to lawsuits and undermining international norms of sovereign immunity. Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo defended his stance, insisting, “We cannot simply break the rules of international law because of political urgency. If we seize sovereign assets today, what stops others from doing the same tomorrow? Stability of the global financial system must remain intact.”
The stalemate revealed sharp divisions. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz argued that failing to use Russian assets was a missed opportunity, saying, “Europe must show that aggression has consequences. If Russia destroys, Russia should pay. Otherwise, taxpayers will carry the burden indefinitely.” Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron suggested Europe should consider re-engaging with Vladimir Putin, a remark that drew mixed reactions across the continent. “Dialogue does not mean weakness,” Macron said. “It means preparing for peace, however distant it may seem.”
Analysts note that the loan and frozen assets debate are two sides of the same coin. The loan provides immediate relief, but at the cost of deeper EU debt. The frozen assets, if unlocked, would symbolically force Russia to pay for its war, yet legal and political risks remain formidable. U.S. President Donald Trump welcomed the EU’s loan decision but pressed for “a quick resolution to this war,” signaling Washington’s impatience with Europe’s internal debates. Ukrainian officials reiterated that reconstruction needs exceed 500 billion dollars, far beyond what the loan can cover, while financial experts warn that confiscating sovereign assets could destabilize trust in the euro and global reserve systems.
The EU’s compromise raises provocative questions for the international community: should international law bend to hold aggressors financially accountable, or is Europe protecting financial norms at the expense of justice for Ukraine? Would seizing Russian assets set a dangerous precedent or a necessary one? The answers will shape not only Ukraine’s future but also the credibility of Europe’s response to aggression in the years ahead.
