An unprecedented step: what the Commission proposes

The proposal launched by Brussels to finance Ukraine combines two instruments: the use – or rather, the mobilisation – of the approximately €210 billion of Russian sovereign assets tied up in the EU and the possibility of using collectively guaranteed loans to immediately raise around €90 billion to support Ukraine over the next two years. To do so, the Commission intends to activateemergency powers that would bypass the normal unanimity decision-making on sanctions, thus reducing the veto power of dissident countries.

Why it is so controversial: the legal and political framework

On a legal level, the idea of transforming frozen assets into directly mobilisable resources for Kyiv opens up delicate questions: we move from freezing measures (which prevent use but preserve ownership) to instruments that could effectively change the legal status of those assets. This is the knot that fuels the fears of countries like Belgium, where a large part of the assets are held in the central depositary Euroclear: who would be liable if the measure were to be challenged in court? And what effect would any litigation have on financial markets and capital flows?

Politically, the measure aims to overcome national resistance that has so far prevented more radical decisions. The use of emergency powers to bypass unanimity is particularly sensitive: on the one hand, it accelerates the EU’s ability to act; on the other, it risks undermining the principle of shared sovereignty among member states, especially if some perceive that they are suffering disproportionate burdens and risks.

The arguments in favour: speed and solidarity with Ukraine

The supporters of the proposal make concrete arguments. First: Ukraine needs predictable and substantial resources to support defence, public services and immediate reconstruction – a sum collected at the European level offers more negotiating power and better borrowing conditions than the fragmented action of individual states. Second: turning what has already been frozen into a resource can be seen as a form of reparation for the damage done by Russian aggression, linking responsibility and consequences. Third: using common guarantees for a common loan can spread the risk and reduce the burden on individual national budgets.

The real risks: legal, financial and diplomatic

Legal risks: transforming freezing into mobilisation can be challenged before international and national courts. An unfavourable ruling could not only block transfers, but also impact the EU’s credibility as the guardian of legal and financial stability.

Financial risks: if markets perceive that the ownership of assets held in the EU is unsafe, they may increase transaction costs or move assets to jurisdictions deemed more reliable. Belgium, which hosts Euroclear, fears precisely this contagion effect andexposure to legal and market liabilities.

Diplomatic and cohesion risks: bypassing national vetoes may resolve short-term impasses but erode long-term institutional trust. Countries with deep reservations may feel marginalised and resort to alternative alliances, with a political cost for the European project.

Balance of the dilemma: efficiency vs. legitimacy

The alternative is not binary. One can simultaneously recognise the urgency of resources forUkraine and the right of Member States not to be exposed to risk without adequate guarantees. The challenge for the Commission will be to ground a mechanism that concentrates three elements:

• a sound legal basis limiting foreseeable litigation;

• credible risk-sharing mechanisms for asset-hosting countries;

• Total transparency on how the funds will be used and possibly distributed.

Without these ingredients, the proposal risks remaining more a political idea than a practically feasible project.

What role Euroclear plays and why Belgium is at the forefront

The centrality of Euroclear is practical, not theoretical: most of the fixed assets are kept there. This explains why Belgium has moved strongly, concerned not only about the principle but about the concrete possibility of being called to account economically and legally. Any European solution must provide operational answers for central depositories and guarantees for host countries, perhaps through a compensation or co-guarantee scheme limiting direct exposure.

A strategic crossroads for the EU

The Commission’s proposal represents a turning point: it offers a path to transform solidarity into concrete financial capacity, but it opens legal and political wounds that must be handled with care. For those who, like us, look at Europe with a moderate, liberal and pro-European orientation, the priority is to find a balance that combines effectiveness and legitimacy. Using legitimately tied-up resources to support an aggrieved democracy is a noble objective; but its realisation must respect rules, share risks and preserve the integrity of the single market. Only in this way can European action be effective today without compromising cohesion and credibility tomorrow.