A €210bn war chest is sitting frozen in Europe, efforts to put it to work for Ukraine are back. But the legal and political roadblocks that killed them last time are still there.
Sweden, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain want to revive the debate over using some €210 billion in frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. In a letter to EU officials, they are urging the European Commission to explore new legal and technical options. Brussels, however, says the issue never left the table. It simply has not moved much since last December.
The four foreign ministers sent their letter on Thursday to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas and Irish Foreign Minister Helen McEntee. They also addressed it to Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis and Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos.
The signatories want the EU to revisit the issue as concerns grow over Ukraine’s future funding needs. They argue that the €90 billion loan agreed for 2026–2027 will not suffice.
You might be interested
“The Ukraine Support Loan is making a substantial difference, but we are all aware it will not be enough,” the ministers write. “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.”
Commission: The issue never went away
The European Commission, however, rejects the idea of “returning” to the matter. “This issue has never been taken off the agenda,” Commission spokesperson Balázs Ujvári said on Thursday. He pointed to the European Council’s conclusions from December 2025. EU leaders then called on the Council and the European Parliament to continue examining the legal and technical options for a so-called reparation loan backed by frozen Russian assets held in the EU.
According to Mr Ujvári, the Commission stands ready to provide whatever assistance is needed. At the time of the briefing, however, it had not yet received the four countries’ letter. Once it does, it “will then study it carefully and take it from there”.
The spokesperson acknowledged though that little progress had been made since the December decision. “There was not enough support to move on with this option and to my knowledge, that’s where we left it,” he said. If the issue is now reopened, he added, the Commission will have to look at it again.
The difference between the two sides is therefore largely one of interpretation. The four countries want to get the debate moving again. The Commission says no restart is needed because the issue was never formally shelved.
Four countries want a new solution
The letter does more than call for further support for Ukraine. The ministers are proposing a concrete next step. “We propose that the Commission’s technical experts are invited to explore, in close consultation with member states, new options on how to use the immobilised assets for the benefit of Ukraine, which ensure that the risk rests with all EU member states and where no member state holds a disproportionate burden,” they write.
Sharing the risk among all member states lies at the heart of their proposal. It addresses the main problem that blocked the use of Russian assets last year.
The signatories also stress that the legal and financial risks cannot be ignored. “Managing financial and economic risks, as well as compliance with international law, will constitute important components of this technical analysis and discussion,” they say.
The letter argues that using the frozen assets would ensure that European taxpayers do not shoulder most of the cost of rebuilding Ukraine. Russia would contribute too. “By using the immobilised assets, the EU can ensure that Russia pays for the destruction it has caused in Ukraine without delay, while at the same time reducing the burden on our own taxpayers.”
Why the plan stalled last year
The EU froze Russian state assets shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. Around €210 billion of them are held in the EU, with the bulk sitting at Belgian central securities depository Euroclear.
The assets themselves remain untouched. The EU is already using the windfall profits they generate, which have so far amounted to around €8 billion. That money helps repay a €45 billion loan for Ukraine agreed by the G7 and the EU in 2024.
A much more ambitious plan to use the assets themselves ran into Belgian opposition last year. As most of the money sits at Euroclear, the Belgian government fears it could face disproportionate risks if Russia launches successful legal claims.
Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot reiterated as recently as last week that Belgium needs guarantees. It does not want to be left alone with the bill if Russia wins a legal case. The Financial Times (FT) quoted a person familiar with the talks as saying that “nothing has changed since the debate and disaster last time”.
“We don’t have a magic white rabbit”
It remains unclear whether the EU can actually find a workable mechanism. An FT source said nobody had yet come up with a new proposal that would remove the same political obstacles that derailed the plan last year. “We don’t have a magic white rabbit to pull out of the hat here,” the source said.
There is still room, however, to adjust the existing legal proposals, according to the source. If the political circumstances also change, they could win the support they need.
That is where Thursday’s initiative will face its real test: whether it can restart work on a workable mechanism or simply trigger another round of the same debate.
Russia threatens legal action
The Kremlin has also entered the debate. Its spokesman Dmitry Peskov called any seizure of Russian assets illegal and warned of legal consequences. “Russia will use the entire arsenal of legal tools for protecting its interests and for legal action against those making and implementing such decisions,” Peskov said.
The threat of legal action is one of the main reasons the EU has yet to find a mechanism for using the Russian assets themselves.
The four countries’ new proposal therefore explicitly calls for financial and economic risks, as well as compliance with international law, to form part of the next technical analysis.
Ukraine needs more money
The ministers are chiefly pointing to the rising cost of the war. “As each day passes, the cost of the war is rising as Russia’s relentless attacks continue unabated,” they write. Ukraine needs predictable, long-term financial support. They see the frozen Russian assets as one possible way to help provide it.
The debate also comes as the EU works on its next seven-year budget. Funding for Ukraine could therefore become part of a broader argument over where Europe should find the money for future support.
Another chance in Ireland
The four ministers want to discuss the issue at an informal meeting of EU foreign ministers in Ireland at the beginning of September. “The upcoming Gymnich meeting provides a good opportunity to raise the matter,” they write.
That meeting could show whether Thursday’s letter marks the start of renewed work on a mechanism to use Russian assets, or simply another reminder of a plan that has already run into legal and political obstacles.
