Belgium digs in on frozen Russian assets as EU seeks compromise

Belgium remains firmly opposed to transferring frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, despite growing pressure from EU allies and a new proposal from Brussels aimed at breaking the impasse.

Speaking on Belgian television on 31 August 2026, Defence Minister Theo Francken declared that the idea of using the assets to support Kyiv was “not open for discussion” and that “the door was closed”. He insisted that Prime Minister Alexander De Croo would hold the line, and singled out the Baltic states – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia – for repeatedly pushing the issue. “They should be more careful about repeatedly raising the issue and backing Belgium into a corner,” Francken said, adding that he did not consider this wise. He also noted that Belgium provides significant support to those three countries, a point that appeared aimed at cooling their criticism.

The statement came days after the Financial Times reported that Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain and Poland had written to the European Commission urging it to resume work on a mechanism for using frozen Russian sovereign assets to finance Ukraine. During a visit to Kyiv on 18 August, Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot had already signalled his government’s caution, saying Belgium needed guarantees that it would not be left to bear the costs alone if Russia successfully challenged such a decision in court. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, for his part, stressed that the time had come to “actively return to discussions” on the assets.

On 10 September, the European Union floated a new idea intended to address Belgium’s legal concerns, according to a note in the EU’s internal dossier seen by Ukrainska Pravda. No details of the proposal have been disclosed publicly. The move suggests that Brussels is trying to find a formula that would shield Belgium from potential lawsuits while still unlocking the estimated €200 billion or more in Russian central bank reserves frozen in EU jurisdictions, the bulk of which is held at Euroclear in Brussels.

The standoff over the assets comes against a broader backdrop of EU efforts to sustain Ukraine’s defence. On 1 September, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urged member states to donate interceptor missiles nearing the end of their shelf life to Ukraine, noting that July and August had been the deadliest months for civilians. “The main issue is air defence,” Kallas said before an informal meeting of EU foreign ministers in Wicklow, Ireland. She acknowledged that the search for interceptors outside the EU was also continuing, but conceded it was “very hard”.

While Kallas’s appeal concerns military aid, the frozen-assets debate is about long-term financing. Ukraine’s allies have been exploring ways to use the immobilised Russian reserves – or the windfall profits generated by them – to back a multibillion-dollar loan or bond for Kyiv. Belgium’s refusal to budge threatens to stall that process.

The Baltic states have been among the loudest advocates of seizing the assets outright. Francken’s blunt rejection suggests that Belgium is not yet willing to accept any compromise that leaves it exposed to legal liability. Whether the EU’s latest proposal can bridge that gap remains to be seen.

Sources:

• Ukrainska Pravda: Belgium rejects idea of transferring frozen Russian assets to Ukraine
• Ukrainska Pravda: EU foreign policy chief urges countries to give Ukraine interceptor missiles nearing expiry
• Ukrainska Pravda: EU floats idea for using Russia's frozen assets that would ease Belgium's concerns