EU reopens debate on using frozen Russian assets to finance Ukraine

The European Union has reopened debate over the possible seizure of frozen Russian assets, with the Netherlands pushing to revive discussions on using the funds to support Ukraine, according to a Politico report citing European diplomats and officials.

The report said Dutch Finance Minister Eelco Heinen raised the issue during a closed session of the European Union’s Economic and Financial Affairs Council in Brussels.

According to Politico, Heinen called for renewed discussions on the use of €210 billion in frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and received backing from several counterparts.

The Dutch government declined to comment on remarks made during the private session.

Government officials noted that the European Union decided in December last year to keep Russian assets frozen until Ukraine receives war reparations.

The same statement said the European Union had also preserved the option of using the assets as collateral for loans provided to Kyiv. “Our position remains aligned with this agreement,” the Dutch government said.

According to Politico, the Dutch government contacted several European capitals before the initiative became public in order to assess the level of support within the European Union.

The report said the Netherlands received backing from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland. Some European countries, however, reportedly avoided expressing their positions publicly because of the political sensitivity of the issue.

“We also support [Heinen’s calls], but we did not say so publicly. This issue will return to the agenda toward the end of the year,” an unnamed European diplomat told Politico.

Belgium remains cautious

Politico wrote that renewed efforts to use Russian assets could trigger “tense legal, commercial and political debates” within the European Union once again.

The report recalled that Belgium opposed such a mechanism in late 2025. Belgium’s position was linked to the presence in the country of Euroclear, the depository institution that manages roughly €185 billion in Russian assets.

Brussels is concerned about potential retaliation from Moscow as well as legal risks, the report said.

According to Politico, France, Italy, Bulgaria and Malta have also previously expressed reservations about using Russian assets to finance Ukraine.

The European Central Bank has likewise warned that such measures could undermine international investor confidence in the eurozone’s legal framework, the report added.

EU’s €90 billion package falls short of covering budget gap

European Union leaders previously approved a €90 billion aid package for Ukraine instead of directly using frozen Russian assets. The report noted that the package is backed by the EU budget.

However, Politico wrote that the funding would cover only about two-thirds of Ukraine’s expected budget shortfall for 2026.

European diplomats cited by the newspaper said Ukraine would require additional financing next year if the war continues.

The report also said the European Commission is continuing talks with Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan over new financing sources. At the same time, uncertainty remains over Washington’s position.

Russia, meanwhile, considers the freezing of Russian assets illegal.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry previously said the European Union had effectively distributed the assets between Kyiv and its own military-industrial sector.

Late last year, the Russian central bank filed a lawsuit against Euroclear in the Moscow Arbitration Court seeking 18 trillion rubles.

The Russian central bank said it had suffered losses because of Euroclear’s “illegal actions” and European Union plans to use the frozen assets.

Although Brussels later stepped back from the mechanism, Russian Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina said the bank does not currently plan to withdraw the lawsuit.

The European Union and G7 countries are already using proceeds generated from frozen Russian assets to finance Kyiv. The Kremlin has also described that practice as illegal.