A group of four European Union countries has renewed calls for the bloc to find ways of using Russia’s immobilised assets to support Ukraine, arguing that fresh action is needed before domestic elections across key member states complicate efforts to secure long-term funding.
Sweden led the initiative, with the Netherlands, Spain and Poland co-signing a letter addressed to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas and Irish Foreign Minister Helen McEntee, whose country currently holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union.
The four countries said that their geographic spread was intended to reflect support from across Northern, Western, Southern and Eastern Europe. The European Union currently holds around €210 billion in frozen Russian assets, most of which are located in Belgium through Euroclear, the international securities depository that serves as the principal custodian of the funds.
The question of whether and how to use those assets to finance Ukraine has been one of the most difficult issues confronting the EU since Russia’s full-scale invasion. “Ukraine needs more financial support in both the short and long term. The EU, in dialogue with its partners, should continue to provide comprehensive, predictable and structured financial support to Ukraine in line with its need,” the letter states.
Earlier this year, the EU gave final approval to an extraordinary €90 billion support loan for Ukraine. However, Kyiv’s financial and military needs remain substantial, prompting renewed discussions about alternative sources of funding that would avoid placing further pressure on national budgets.
The four governments also see a narrowing political window for reaching an agreement. Several key EU member states, including France, Poland, Italy and Spain, are expected to enter election periods next year, potentially making politically sensitive decisions on Ukraine funding more difficult. “We believe now is the time to revert to the issue of how we can make further use of Russia’s immobilised assets for the benefit of Ukraine,” the letter says. “While we should be proud of our achievements, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels,” it adds.
The issue was intensely debated last year as European governments searched for ways to sustain Ukraine after uncertainty over continued U.S. assistance.
One proposal considered by the European Commission would have converted the €210 billion in immobilised Russian assets into a zero-interest loan to finance Ukraine’s budgetary and military requirements. Brussels argued that the plan would not amount to outright confiscation, since Russia could theoretically recover the funds if it paid war reparations to Ukraine.
Belgium, however, opposed the proposal, citing the risks associated with hosting most of the frozen assets through Euroclear. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever argued that his country could not be left carrying the legal and financial consequences of a decision taken collectively by the EU.
He demanded what he described as “full mutualisation” of the risks, including protection against possible Russian retaliation and damage claims. “There is no free money in the world. It just does not exist,” De Wever said during the earlier debate.
Euroclear also raised concerns about the proposal, describing it as legally and financially fragile and warning that it could undermine investor confidence and potentially trigger an exodus of assets. Despite support from a group of member states led by Germany, the proposal failed to secure agreement during a decisive EU summit in December.
As an alternative, the bloc’s 27 leaders agreed to establish a €90 billion loan for Ukraine, financed through common borrowing and repayable only once Russia pays reparations. Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia negotiated a complete opt-out from the arrangement.
The loan was designed to cover Ukraine’s needs in 2026 and 2027, with €45 billion allocated for each year. The first payment was made in June. However, the continuing intensity of Russia’s attacks has placed Ukraine’s financial calculations under increasing pressure.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged allies to address a €23 billion shortfall in Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence budget, saying the country needs “more money, much more” to remain competitive in its long-range strike capabilities. He has also raised the possibility of making greater use of Russia’s immobilised assets.
Zelenskyy’s request has prompted renewed concern in Brussels over whether the existing €90 billion credit line will be sufficient to cover Ukraine’s needs through the end of 2027. The EU has so far disbursed €3.2 billion in budgetary assistance and €8.35 billion in military aid under the current framework. In total, around €22 billion has been allocated for weapons purchases this year.
Nations Suggest New Options To Be Explored
In their letter, the nations proposed that the European Commission’s technical experts explore new options in close consultation with member states. They stressed that any future arrangement should spread financial and legal risks across the bloc rather than leave one country exposed to a disproportionate burden.
As Russia continues its missile and drone attacks and Ukraine seeks additional air defence systems, European capitals are increasingly reassessing whether the current funding arrangements can sustain Kyiv’s military and budgetary needs.The next long-term EU budget, which includes a dedicated funding envelope for Ukraine, is not scheduled to begin until 2028.
Earlier this month, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha also raised the issue of Russian assets during a visit to Kyiv by Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot. Prévot acknowledged that Belgium’s earlier concerns had not disappeared but indicated that Brussels was willing to consider new proposals.
He said that Belgium had no objection in principle to using the funds to support Ukraine, provided that the associated risks were adequately addressed. Belgian officials have made clear that if the debate is formally reopened, their government will again seek broad and potentially uncapped guarantees from other EU member states.
Euroclear, meanwhile, remains opposed to proposals that could expose it to additional legal risks and is already facing a legal challenge from the Russian Central Bank.
