Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever escalated his opposition to the European Commission's plan to use €140 billion in frozen Russian assets for Ukraine in a letter to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on 27 November, adding a new argument: releasing the funds would torpedo any future peace deal with Moscow.
The intervention came hours before the EU executive was expected to issue a proposal addressing Belgium's concerns. EU leaders had hoped to strike a deal at their mid-December summit, but De Wever's hardening stance makes that unlikely. The frozen assets, held primarily at Brussels-based Euroclear, represent the largest pool of Russian sovereign wealth in Western hands.
New argument or new excuse?
De Wever's letter broke new ground by framing the frozen assets as leverage in negotiations with Russia—shifting from technical liability concerns to Western strategy.
"Hastily moving forward on the proposed reparations loan scheme would have, as a collateral damage, that we as EU are effectively preventing reaching an eventual peace deal," De Wever wrote, according to a letter seen by Politico.
The argument suggests Belgium should hold Russia's money as a carrot rather than fund Ukraine's defense. De Wever predicted Moscow would demand its assets back: "In the very probable event Russia is ultimately not officially the losing party, it will be legitimately asking for its sovereign assets to be returned."
Whether this represents genuine assessment or a convenient new objection remains unclear. The Belgian leader has previously demanded transparency about frozen assets in other EU countries, legally binding risk-sharing guarantees, and a solid legal basis for the mechanism.
The unchanged bottom line
Despite the new framing, De Wever's conclusion remained unchanged. His letter ended with an ultimatum: "I will not agree unless these guarantees, as stipulated above, are delivered and signed by member states at the time of decision."
The Commission had hoped to satisfy Belgium by offering legal guarantees. But De Wever's letter suggests no framework will suffice if he believes the assets should remain frozen as diplomatic leverage—or if he continues finding new reasons to withhold support.
De Wever proposed an alternative: €45 billion in joint EU debt to cover Ukraine's 2026 needs. Most EU governments oppose this because it shifts the burden to European taxpayers.
What Belgium stands to lose
Belgium's position carries financial dimensions. The government collected €1.7 billion in taxes from Euroclear's earnings on frozen Russian assets in 2024. The proposed EU mechanism would redirect earnings directly to Ukraine, cutting Belgium out. De Wever has pledged €1 billion annually in defense aid to Ukraine, claiming tax revenue funds this—though no independent verification exists.
Stakes for Ukraine
According to economist Timothy Ash, Ukraine needs $100-150 billion annually to sustain its defense. The existing G7 loan program provides just $50 billion total—and that stream is shrinking as European interest rates fall. Without the frozen assets mechanism, EU states would need to fund Ukraine directly from national treasuries. The December summit was supposed to resolve this. De Wever's letter suggests it won't.
