According to sources cited by Bloomberg News in the United States, the European Union is considering a plan to provide assistance to Euroclear, the Belgian-based European clearing bank. Previously, a Moscow court ruled that the institution must bear liability for losses related to the freezing of Russian assets.

This development reflects how, amid escalating financial confrontations between Russia and Europe, the EU is attempting to "cover the weakest link" within its own system, in response to Russia’s strong legal counterattack.

Origin of the Incident: Russia’s “Precise Retaliation”

At the end of May 2026, the Moscow Arbitration Court ruled that Euroclear, headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, must compensate the Russian Central Bank for over 1.7 trillion rubles (approximately 20 billion euros), and granted an application for "immediate enforcement."

Following the outbreak of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Western countries froze around $300 billion in Russian overseas assets, with about 90%—over 180 billion euros—being held by Euroclear.

Russia’s Intentions: Russia does not genuinely expect to immediately receive money from Europe, but rather aims at strategic "reciprocal retaliation." The move is intended to impose significant legal uncertainty and reputational risks on the Western financial system, demonstrating that weaponizing financial infrastructure comes at a cost.

The core reason why the EU is contemplating aid for Euroclear lies in Belgium’s overwhelming burden.

When the EU initially decided to freeze and later planned to utilize these Russian assets, Belgium strongly opposed the move. Belgium feared that as the custodian of these assets, if Russia initiated legal proceedings or retaliatory measures, all liability and legal risks would fall solely on Belgium—not shared across the entire EU.

Now, the Moscow court’s judgment has turned Belgium’s fears into reality. If Russia presents this ruling to "friendly" nations such as the UAE or Kazakhstan and seeks enforcement, any assets belonging to Euroclear found there could be frozen. This would severely damage the bank’s commercial reputation and operational stability.

Faced with a crisis among its allies, the EU feels compelled to step forward with a support package, driven by two deep-seated considerations:

Maintaining the Credibility of the Euro and Financial System: Euroclear is a critical node in the global financial clearing chain. Allowing it to face massive claims—or even collapse—due to political reasons would severely undermine international confidence in the eurozone as a safe haven for assets, potentially threatening the euro’s status as an international reserve currency.

Previously, the EU failed to reach consensus on directly seizing Russian assets to assist Ukraine (precisely because countries like Belgium feared assuming liability). As a result, it bypassed the controversy and opted instead for joint EU borrowing ("Plan B") to provide Ukraine with a 90-billion-euro loan. However, should Euroclear collapse, not only would the previously frozen assets create a massive mess, but any future financial operations involving Russian assets would become nearly impossible.

The EU's consideration of aiding Euroclear essentially amounts to cleaning up the mess caused by its earlier decision to freeze Russian assets. This reveals the deep divisions within the EU regarding sanctions against Russia: while members eagerly unite when showing firm stances, they quickly shift to blaming one another when confronted with real financial and legal repercussions. To preserve overall financial stability and the broader goal of supporting Ukraine, the EU has no choice but to intervene, preventing further escalation.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1866747762152460/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.