featured News

Belgium has raised strong objections to the European Union’s plan to use frozen Russian assets to provide a “reparations loan” to Ukraine. Prime Minister Bart De Wever and Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot argue that tapping €140bn of Russian state assets held in Belgium could expose the country to massive legal risks and potential bankruptcy if Russia takes action. They have called for an alternative approach, suggesting the EU borrow the necessary funds from financial markets instead.

Most EU countries, including Germany, support the proposal, viewing it as an urgent way to fund Ukraine’s defense amid ongoing Russian attacks. Chancellor Friedrich Merz and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas argue that a reparations loan would strengthen Europe’s position against Moscow and could incentivize Russia to negotiate peace. However, legal experts and Belgium’s central securities depository, Euroclear, caution that lending these frozen assets carries significant financial and legal dangers.

The European Commission is preparing a legal framework to address the plan, but disagreements among member states have delayed progress. Belgium insists on legally binding guarantees to share risk with other EU countries, while Russia has threatened decades of litigation if the assets are used for Ukraine. With the EU summit approaching, a final decision on the contentious proposal remains uncertain.

Pic courtesy: google/ images are subject to copyright

News Trending

The G7 finance ministers are set to discuss whether Ukraine can receive an additional €30 billion loan from seized Russian assets totaling €270 billion. This proposal has sparked division within the G7, particularly between the US and Germany. While some advocate for full asset seizure, others, including Christine Lagarde, ECB president, raise legal and economic concerns.

The US and UK propose mobilizing the frozen assets to provide a substantial loan to Ukraine, with interest paid from the profits of the seized Russian assets. They argue this approach avoids the need for asset confiscation, which could disrupt the international legal order and financial stability.

Belgium, holding the largest share of Russia’s frozen assets within the G7, has already generated significant investment income from these assets. It has agreed to allocate a portion of this profit to a joint G7 fund for Ukraine.

Critics argue that using the assets as collateral for a loan effectively amounts to confiscation. However, some legal scholars suggest that under the doctrine of state countermeasures, seizure may be justified.

Overall, there is contention over whether to provide Ukraine with a substantial loan using the seized assets, with concerns about legal implications and potential repercussions for financial stability and international relations.

Picture Courtesy: Google/images are subject to copyright