More than €200bn of Russian central-bank reserves sit frozen in European depositories, the bulk of them at Euroclear in Belgium. Yet the Belgian government continues to block any move to channel those funds toward Ukraine's defence and civilian budgets, leaving Kyiv to press its case again at an informal meeting of European affairs ministers in Dublin on Friday.
Kyiv's renewed lobbying in Dublin
Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Vsevolod Chentsov used the Dublin gathering to argue that a partial disbursement, coupled with broader international guarantees, could address the legal fears that have kept Belgium from agreeing to release the assets. He acknowledged that front-loading part of the EU's €90bn loan facility would help but insisted it would not be sufficient on its own.
"We are looking also to the opportunities in the EU and we suggest, in particular, the idea of the frozen assets," Chentsov told reporters. "It's a smart way to generate money and cover the debt." He added that Ukraine was discussing several options with European partners to plug gaps in both defence and civilian spending as the war enters its fifth year.
Belgium's legal and financial calculus
Belgium's resistance rests on the exposure its financial infrastructure would face if Russia were to retaliate or pursue litigation against Euroclear, the Brussels-based central securities depository that holds the lion's share of the immobilised reserves. A spokesperson for Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot was blunt: "Our position remains the same." That position has held since December, when Belgium vetoed an EU proposal to use the windfall profits from the frozen assets for Ukrainian reconstruction.
The Belgian argument is not merely procedural. Euroclear sits at the heart of the European post-trade ecosystem; any legal challenge to its title over the Russian securities could cascade through settlement systems and damage the reputation of the EU's financial plumbing. Belgian officials have privately warned that a unilateral seizure would set a precedent that could deter sovereign reserves from being held in Europe at all.
The €90bn loan as the Commission's preferred lever
The European Commission has consistently steered the conversation toward its €90bn macro-financial assistance package for Ukraine, approved earlier this year. Chief spokesperson Paula Pinho confirmed on Monday that Brussels remains focused on disbursing that loan rather than reopening the legally fraught assets debate. A Commission official said that stance still holds.
The loan is backed by the EU budget and guaranteed by member states, making it a cleaner instrument from a legal standpoint. But its disbursement is tied to reform milestones and fiscal conditions, and the tranches are spread over several years. Ukraine argues that the pace is too slow for a wartime economy facing a structural revenue shortfall.
A coalition for "new options"
Pressure to revisit the frozen assets question has been building. Last month the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden jointly called on the Commission to explore "new options" for unlocking the funds. Their letter did not specify mechanisms but signalled a willingness to test the legal boundaries that Belgium has so far treated as absolute.
Chentsov seized on that opening in Dublin, suggesting that "different figures as a first step", a smaller, pilot disbursement, might lower the political threshold for Belgium. He also floated the idea of guarantees from players beyond the EU, though he did not name them. The United States and G7 partners have previously discussed using the assets but have stopped short of endorsing outright confiscation.
Why the assets matter more than windfall profits
The current EU regime only taps the extraordinary interest income generated by the immobilised reserves, roughly €3bn to €5bn a year, which is then directed to Ukraine via the EU budget and a G7 loan. That flow is legally safer because it does not touch the principal. But Kyiv says the annual yield is a fraction of what it needs to sustain both military procurement and basic public services.
The principal itself, now estimated at over €200bn across the EU, dwarfs the €90bn loan package. Even a one-off release of 5% would yield €10bn, more than a full year's windfall profit. That arithmetic is what keeps the debate alive despite Belgium's veto.
Legal architecture and the veto problem
EU sanctions decisions require unanimity in the Council. Belgium's veto is therefore not a procedural hurdle but a substantive block. Some legal scholars argue that the Council could adopt a qualified majority measure to seize the assets under a "countermeasures" doctrine in international law, but that would expose the EU to claims of expropriation and likely trigger arbitration at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.
Euroclear itself has warned that any forced transfer of the securities would breach its contractual obligations to the Russian central bank and could result in claims against the depository running into tens of billions. The Belgian National Bank, as Euroclear's supervisor, shares that risk assessment.
What happens next
The next formal opportunity to shift the dial is the October European Council, where leaders will review the €90bn loan's first disbursement tranches. Unless Belgium signals flexibility, perhaps in exchange for EU-level indemnification of Euroclear, the frozen principal will remain immobilised. Chentsov's Dublin intervention was a reminder that Kyiv has not given up, but the legal and political geometry has not changed since December.
People mentioned
-
Vsevolod Chentsov
Organisations
European Commission · Government of Ukraine · Belgian Federal Government · Euroclear
