Europe
Merz and von der Leyen pressure Belgium over seizure of frozen Russian assets
German opposition leader Friedrich Merz and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are increasing their pressure on Belgium to grant access to the foreign assets of the Russian Central Bank held in the country.
At least 90 billion euros are intended to help financially stabilize Ukraine by 2027. Following talks between Merz, von der Leyen, and Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever in Brussels on Friday evening, the EU is now targeting Euroclear, a financial services provider that holds 185 billion euros worth of Russian assets.
The Commission states it can address the company’s concerns. However, Euroclear CEO Valérie Urbain reiterates that accessing Russian state funds violates state immunity and, therefore, international law.
Euroclear has already begun receiving inquiries from other central banks about whether their investments are still secure. The company is considered “systemically important,” and it is argued that if too many investors withdraw their assets, a financial crisis could emerge.
US economist Jeffrey Sachs also warns that the step advocated by Merz and von der Leyen could trigger a deep crisis in Europe, with consequences that could divide the EU.
The Merz-von der Leyen plan: Russian assets to go to Brussels, not Kyiv
Ursula von der Leyen’s proposal primarily involves gaining access to a significant portion of the Russian Central Bank’s foreign assets held by the Belgian financial services provider Euroclear, which have been frozen due to EU sanctions.
This includes 90 billion euros, about half of Russia’s total assets of 185 billion euros. This amount would be transferred to the EU in two installments of 45 billion euros each in 2026/27 and then forwarded by the EU to Kyiv as a loan.
Euroclear would be legally obligated to hand over these funds. It is said that Russia could only reclaim these funds if it agrees to pay reparations. If Russia pays reparations, Ukraine must use this money to repay its debt to the EU or, through the EU, to Euroclear.
This contradicts the primary purpose of reparations, which is reconstruction, yet the EU insists on this course of action.
The EU claims that after the 90 billion euros cycle from Brussels to Kyiv and back to Brussels, Russia’s foreign assets will return to where they belong and be available for use by the Russian Central Bank again.
The “international law” enigma
This questionable plan, which German opposition leader Friedrich Merz agrees with in principle and claims is “fully compliant with international law,” has many contradictions and weak points.
According to German Foreign Policy, the first weak link is the assertion that Russia would only be obliged to pay reparations if it is defeated in the war. However, in the current state of the conflict, a Russian defeat seems unlikely.
If no reparations are paid, no funds will flow back from Kyiv to Euroclear, and the Russian Central Bank will be permanently deprived of its assets.
However, this situation seems likely to be the case from the day the billions are transferred to Kyiv.
As Euroclear CEO Valérie Urbain recalled on Monday, the assets of the Russian Central Bank “belong to the Russian state” and are “legally protected as they are subject to the principle of state immunity in international law.”
Urbain acknowledges that the money can be “immobilized,” but she points out that “anything beyond that” would call international law into question.
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever notes that even during World War II, frozen state assets were not used “for another purpose” during an ongoing war.
Belgium’s resistance could be broken
So far, attempts to implement the von der Leyen plan, inspired by Merz, have failed due to the clear and persistent resistance of Prime Minister De Wever.
De Wever states that any Russian lawsuits in national or international courts regarding the theft of central bank assets would be directed at Euroclear or Belgium.
In the event of a conviction, Belgium would be forced to repay the assets.
Merz and von der Leyen have repeatedly claimed that EU member states would support Belgium and, if necessary, participate in the repayment.
However, inside sources indicate that De Wever will be given no guarantees on this matter. For example, Merz cannot legally commit to paying Germany’s share of the total amount—which runs into tens of billions of euros—without the approval of the Bundestag.
The situation is similar in almost all EU countries. The necessary parliamentary approval cannot be obtained in such a short time.
But De Wever, who “knows the EU’s tricks and intrigues very well,” wants a guarantee that he will not be left in a difficult position in the event of repayment. It is unclear how this contradiction will be resolved.
Financial stability at risk
Beyond the internal contradictions within the EU, Euroclear CEO Urbain also points to vulnerabilities outside the bloc.
Urbain notes that Russia could defend itself against the theft of its assets by “seizing” Euroclear’s assets in Russia. The amount in question is approximately 18 billion euros.
Russia also has the option to seize the assets of other financial institutions and companies in Belgium and the EU to compensate for its losses, provided it has practical access to them.
Urbain also states that the Merz-von der Leyen plan poses “significant risks to financial stability.” Investors might get the impression that their money is no longer safe in Europe and could withdraw it.
Euroclear also announced that it has already received concrete questions from several central banks “about the security of their deposits.” Urbain emphasized that Euroclear holds securities worth 42 trillion euros and is not a “small institution,” highlighting that the company is “systemically important.”
Sachs: EU could split if Russian assets are seized
Late last week, renowned US economist Jeffrey Sachs pointed to potentially serious political consequences.
In an interview with the newspaper Berliner Zeitung, Sachs said the Merz-von der Leyen plan not only violates international law but would also entail “very high costs” for the EU, “deeply divide Europe, and poison relations within the EU.”
Sachs indicated that if the resistance of a few countries like Belgium is simply ignored by Germany, the EU could be “plunged into turmoil,” arguing that Russia’s retaliatory measures could lead to a deep crisis in Europe.
Sachs said the political backlash against Merz, Macron, and von der Leyen in Europe would be severe, especially if the EU’s actions are seen as “a show of force by Germany led by Merz and Leyen.”
Sachs reported that outside of Europe, European heads of state and government are being “met with astonishment and concern,” arguing that Europe’s leadership is “perceived as very weak and foolish.”
Above all, Sachs suggested that Merz’s popularity will continue to decline, stating, “It will destabilize German politics.”
Europe
China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans
The European Union’s plans to expand its defence capabilities are being hindered by China’s export controls and sales restrictions on critical raw materials.
In response, EU leaders are urging member states to accelerate efforts to diversify supply chains.
According to Nikkei Asia, the European Commission announced last week that it would propose new legislation requiring companies across the bloc to broaden their supplier base in an effort to address economic imbalances, although it did not explicitly name China.
The war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over Washington’s security guarantees have pushed European governments to increase military spending and defence production.
At the same time, according to a report published in May by Joris Teer, a policy analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), China accounts for at least 70% of global mining or refining activity in 17 of the 34 materials classified as critical by the EU. Eight of those 34 materials are currently subject to Chinese export controls.
“China is undermining Europe’s rearmament efforts,” Teer wrote. “Simply by activating this tool, China has already increased its leverage and demonstrated both the capability and willingness to restrict supply whenever it chooses.”
The Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe also warned that geopolitical developments and intensifying global competition for critical raw materials are further underscoring the need to strengthen European supply chains.
The organisation represents more than 4,000 companies, including Britain’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall.
European defence manufacturers are pursuing a range of strategies, including vertical integration, recycling, diversification and stockpiling.
Rheinmetall told Nikkei Asia that it has “no dependencies” and is “well prepared” regarding critical minerals.
A company spokesperson said: “Rheinmetall has stockpiled key raw materials sufficient for several years. We have also implemented IT systems that allow us to centrally monitor and precisely manage raw material consumption across the entire group.”
Analysts, however, caution that stockpiling alone will not be sufficient. Maria Shagina, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “Stockpiling serves as an important buffer against sudden disruptions, but on its own it is unlikely to mitigate structural damage over the long term.”
Shagina added that replacing the volume and diversity of critical minerals controlled by Beijing with alternative sources would take years.
In 2024, the EU enacted the European Critical Raw Materials Act, aimed at rebuilding domestic supply chains for such minerals.
The legislation sets 2030 targets for domestic extraction, processing and recycling while limiting dependence on any single third-country supplier to 65%.
A €3 billion ($3.5 billion) fund was established last year to accelerate strategic projects.
Nevertheless, the European Court of Auditors has noted that the 2030 targets are not legally binding and that the EU remains far from achieving them.
Industry groups argue that policy inconsistencies could further slow progress.
The Cobalt Institute, which represents a sector vital to jet engines, advanced batteries and defence alloys, warned that proposed EU chemicals regulations risk undermining the industry.
“Europe has one foot in and one foot out,” said Michael Blakeney, head of government and public affairs at the London-based institute. “It says the right things, but its actions are inconsistent.”
Europe’s efforts are unfolding alongside a more aggressive US strategy to secure critical mineral supply chains.
Shagina said:
“The US is investing more capital to secure and expand capacity, taking greater financial risks and, in some cases, acquiring equity stakes. Europe, by contrast, is generally more cautious, which places it at a relative disadvantage in the competition for critical minerals.”
In April, the EU signed an agreement with the United States to coordinate supplies of critical minerals. Although some member states initially resisted over concerns that the deal could weaken the bloc’s strategic autonomy, they authorised the Commission in early June to join the US-led “Pax Silica” initiative, which coordinates investment and export-control policies.
Teer urged Europe to use ongoing US-EU-Japan negotiations as the nucleus of a broader coalition aimed at making critical mineral production outside China financially viable through state support, minimum-price mechanisms and supply rules.
“Particularly important are countries that either produce raw materials or possess significant mineral deposits, such as Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, as well as countries like India with large pools of skilled labour,” he said.
Teer also argued that the EU should activate its Anti-Coercion Instrument, which allows the bloc to impose tariffs and restrictions in response to economic pressure on countries outside the union, in order to deter China from introducing further restrictions.
A European Commission spokesperson said the bloc had “long been aware of the risks associated with the EU’s dependence on critical raw materials.”
“The objective is clear: to anticipate disruptions early and reduce the EU’s vulnerabilities while strengthening our industrial and defence capacities,” the spokesperson said.
Europe
Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain
European countries are increasingly tightening their citizenship rules. Most recently, the Norwegian government has drafted legislation that would raise the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from three years to seven.
The proposed amendments to the citizenship law were presented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion.
Under the draft legislation, stateless individuals born in Norway, as well as those who arrived in the country as children, would be required to reside in Norway for at least five years before becoming eligible for citizenship.
The government also plans to increase residency requirements for foreign nationals who are married to or cohabiting with Norwegian citizens.
Language requirements are set to become more demanding as well. The proposal would raise the required level of spoken Norwegian proficiency from A2 to B1. The new rules would apply to applicants aged between 18 and 67.
Commenting on the changes, Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion Kjersti Stenseng said: “Obtaining and holding Norwegian citizenship should be a privilege.”
The government argues that simplifying administrative procedures while simultaneously tightening eligibility criteria will help reduce the country’s large backlog of pending applications and shorten processing times.
Norway is the latest European country to announce revisions to its citizenship rules.
In Finland, the minimum residency requirement for citizenship was increased from five years to eight years on October 1, 2024.
The country also plans to introduce a mandatory citizenship test for applicants aged between 18 and 64 from the beginning of 2027.
Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said: “The introduction of a citizenship test is the final component of a comprehensive reform aimed at making citizenship requirements more stringent.”
Sweden has also approved a similar reform. Beginning in June 2026, the standard residency requirement for citizenship will increase from five years to eight years. Authorities are also introducing a financial self-sufficiency requirement for applicants and expanding the scope of security screenings.
Explaining the rationale behind the changes, Migration Minister Johan Forssell said: “It was possible to become a citizen after living in the country for five years without knowing a single word of Swedish, learning anything about Swedish society, or even having one’s own source of income.”
The most far-reaching changes have been implemented in Portugal. Portuguese President Antonio Jose Seguro has signed legislation raising the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from five years to 10 years.
For citizens of the European Union and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, the requirement has been set at seven years.
The residency period will now be calculated from the date a residence permit is granted rather than from the date a citizenship application is submitted. The new rules will also affect the children of immigrants.
Previously, children could obtain citizenship one year after birth if their parents held residence permits. Under the new rules, at least one parent must have legally resided in the country for a minimum of five years.
The law also introduces a mandatory examination covering Portuguese history, culture, values and social structures.
Migration policies are tightening across the European Union as well. On June 17, the European Parliament approved legislation allowing irregular migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected but who cannot be returned to their countries of origin to be deported to third countries.
The new EU rules permit the establishment of migrant detention centres outside the bloc’s borders. African countries are reportedly among the options being discussed for such facilities.
Europe
SpaceX warns EU satellite spectrum plan could disrupt connectivity in Ukraine
SpaceX has sharply criticised a European Union plan to restrict access to satellite spectrum, arguing that the proposal risks degrading connectivity in Ukraine and disrupting emergency communications services.
In a document shared with European officials and reviewed by the Financial Times, SpaceX warned:
“This proposal significantly increases the likelihood that Europeans will be deprived of direct-to-device satellite services, or that new European operations will create global interference issues, including for emergency services such as those operating in Ukraine.”
In a proposal unveiled in May, the EU recommended reserving part of the spectrum band used for direct satellite-to-smartphone connectivity for European operators, thereby limiting the frequencies available to US and Chinese providers.
The 2 GHz frequency band in question is currently used by two US companies, Viasat and EchoStar.
SpaceX argued that the EU plan prioritises “an operator’s country of establishment over economic, technical and regulatory realities.”
When the proposal was announced, EU technology chief Henna Virkkunen defended the move, saying the bloc wanted to “increase European capacity in this sector.” She added that other parts of the frequency band would remain open to international operators, arguing that prioritising European providers was justified.
Other participants involved in discussions over the proposal said some EU officials were specifically seeking to limit Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network.
Europe’s initiative follows a warning from Washington. In March, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cautioned that it could take retaliatory measures if the EU chose to favour European satellite operators over alternatives such as Starlink.
At the time, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told the Financial Times: “Some of the discussions in Europe regarding satellite sovereignty concern us. If Europe decides to move down that path, then, as you know, we will have to consider reciprocal measures.”
The European Commission’s proposal has not yet entered formal negotiations with EU member states or the European Parliament.
A source close to SpaceX said the company remained hopeful of influencing the outcome of the process, given concerns raised by both businesses and several European governments.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America7 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy1 week agoIran discloses 14-point draft US peace accord detailing sanctions relief, regional security measures
