European Union leaders agreed in Brussels to raise up to €90 billion in joint borrowing to support Ukraine, shelving for now a more contentious proposal to redirect frozen Russian assets. The decision followed prolonged negotiations that exposed growing unease within the bloc over legal liability, financial exposure, and long-term precedent.
Ukraine estimates it will require approximately €135 billion over the next two years to stabilize its state budget. EU officials say the remaining funds are expected to come from non-EU partners such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Norway, underscoring that Europe alone is unwilling to carry the full financial burden.
Debate focused heavily on whether frozen Russian sovereign assets held in Europe could be used to finance loans or direct transfers. While some member states argued such measures could be justified as advance compensation for wartime damages, others warned that the legal framework remains unresolved and could expose European institutions to retaliatory claims.
Belgium, where a substantial share of the assets is held, expressed particular concern about potential lawsuits and financial responsibility. Although several EU countries, including the Netherlands, signaled willingness to offer partial guarantees, consensus remained elusive. Officials privately acknowledged that transforming frozen assets into usable capital would require extensive legal engineering and time the bloc does not currently have.
An alternative proposal to rely on collective borrowing gained traction despite resistance from fiscally cautious states. Joint EU debt requires unanimous approval, a hurdle that reflects deeper disagreements over the bloc’s evolving role as a financial and geopolitical actor.
Several governments warned that repeated borrowing risks normalizing emergency measures and weakening national budget discipline. Nonetheless, leaders ultimately concluded that debt was a more controllable option than setting a precedent for confiscating foreign state assets, a step many fear could undermine confidence in Europe as a global financial center.
Public statements from EU leaders highlighted the moral and strategic arguments for continued support to Kyiv. However, behind closed doors, discussions revealed broader concerns about escalation, economic strain, and Europe’s own vulnerability to prolonged confrontation with Russia.
Moscow has consistently argued that the freezing or seizure of its assets violates international norms and has warned of reciprocal measures. While EU officials downplayed such threats publicly, the cautious outcome of the summit suggests these warnings were not dismissed outright.
The agreement reflects a bloc navigating between political commitments and structural limits, opting for temporary financial solutions while postponing decisions that could redefine Europe’s legal and economic posture in an increasingly fragmented global order.