Belgium Stands Firm Against EU: Don’t Touch Russia’s Frozen Assets

In early September 2026, another row erupted within the European Union. Sweden, Poland, Spain, and the Netherlands proposed seizing the assets of the Russian central bank that have been frozen by the EU, using the funds to cover Ukraine’s military budget shortfall. Ukraine claims it still faces a deficit of €30 billion in its defense budget next year and urgently needs financial support.

The proposal was swiftly rejected by Belgium. Belgian Defense Minister Frankenne publicly stated: “This is not up for discussion—there is no way forward.” Why is Belgium taking such a hardline stance? Because out of the approximately $300 billion in Russian assets frozen by the EU, $240 billion are held at Euroclear Bank in Brussels—meaning all the risk falls directly on Belgium.

Currently, the EU only transfers the interest and profits generated by these frozen assets to Ukraine, leaving the principal untouched. Earlier this year, the EU also raised €90 billion in joint loans to support Ukraine. However, several Central and Eastern European and Nordic countries believe this is insufficient and want to “seize everything” outright.

Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said: “You can’t just take someone else’s money. We haven’t fought Russia, nor has Europe been at war. Even during World War II, seized funds were never directly confiscated.” He even warned that such an action would amount to declaring war on Russia. Euroclear Bank has also issued a warning: if the EU attempts to act unilaterally, they will take legal action against it.

Other EU officials fear that confiscating sovereign assets would undermine international law and scare off global investors. Russia has already denounced the move as “theft” and threatened retaliation—such as seizing Western assets located within Russia.

Facing pressure from the four nations, Belgium warned Baltic states not to push themselves into a corner. Prime Minister De Croo is prepared to stand firm, and for now, the rift within the EU appears unlikely to be healed anytime soon.

This internal conflict reveals three major embarrassments facing Europe:

First, the rift between law and morality. Europe constantly proclaims its commitment to a “rules-based order,” yet when it comes to actually confiscating another nation’s assets, even its own members feel uneasy. Belgium citing that “even during WWII, this was never done” highlights how legally indefensible such an action would be. If forced through, Europe’s proclaimed “rule of law” would become a mockery.

Second, the clash between interests and unity. The four countries pushing for confiscation aren’t bearing the main financial risks; Belgium, however, shoulders both the operational responsibility for Euroclear and the potential backlash. Naturally, Belgium refuses to be the scapegoat. This mindset—“shift risks outward, share benefits equally”—exposes the hypocrisy behind EU unity. De Croo’s warning, “Don’t push us,” captures the frustration and helplessness of smaller nations within a large alliance.

Third, the misalignment between reality and ideals. It is true that Ukraine is short on funds—but funding it through “theft” is like drinking poison to quench thirst. Once this precedent is set, how will Global South countries view Europe? Who will dare deposit money in Europe in the future? Russia’s retaliatory threats are real and tangible. Rather than playing with fire over asset seizures, the EU should focus on genuine efforts toward peace negotiations or increase internal fiscal burden-sharing—though that too is difficult. At its core, this dispute reflects Europe’s desire to be a moral beacon while avoiding paying the price itself—leading only to self-inflicted wounds and exposure of its true colors.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1875264649914368/

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