What are Kyiv’s red lines on frozen Russian assets?
European countries have halted discussions on confiscating immobilised Russian assets, according to DW and official sources.
This does not mean, however, that the issue has been removed from the EU’s agenda, nor does it guarantee that the assets will remain frozen until Russia compensates for the damages it has caused.
Read more about the challenges the EU faces regarding these assets in the article by Olena Halushka, a board member of the Anti-Corruption Action Center – The $300 billion question: how Ukraine and the EU should handle frozen Russian assets.
Europe holds the largest portion of the $300 billion in immobilised Russian assets – over €200 billion, with €183 billion in Belgium’s Euroclear securities depository.
The future of these assets is at a crossroads. European partners can take decisive action, using these funds to support Ukraine and bolster their own defence, or they can hesitate, losing a crucial tool to pressure Russia while inadvertently financing its war machine.
According to media reports, during February negotiations with US officials in Riyadh, Russian representatives already raised the issue of reclaiming around $6 billion in Russian Central Bank assets.
Additionally, in the US, there are discussions about splitting the $300 billion between Ukraine and Russia. Moscow has even suggested using these funds for the "reconstruction" of occupied territories.
If US President Donald Trump decides to use Russian Central Bank assets as a bargaining tool, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico could lift EU sanctions as early as July.
Recognising this threat, European diplomats are actively seeking ways to prevent it.
However, if Ukraine, under pressure, agrees to easing sanctions and returning part or all of the frozen assets to Russia, these funds, and any chance for fair compensation, will be permanently lost.
Returning frozen assets to Russia would be catastrophic both in the short and long term, not just for Ukraine but for the entire international community.
Every dollar or euro returned would fuel Russia’s production of missiles and artillery shells, enabling further aggression.
Moreover, G7 nations would be unable to recover the financial aid they have provided to Ukraine, which they had planned to reimburse using proceeds from frozen Russian assets.
In Europe, the focus should be on influencing France, Germany and Belgium.
Belgium remains the biggest obstacle. Recently, its Prime Minister escalated concerns by claiming that confiscating Russian assets could be seen as an "act of war."
This claim is false. Extensive research has debunked fears surrounding asset confiscation.
Confiscated Russian Central Bank assets could be allocated to compensate Ukraine for damages, which have already exceeded $500 billion since the full-scale invasion began. At present, this remains one of the only viable options for Ukraine to receive compensation and achieve justice.
Additionally, there is potential to increase revenues from frozen Russian assets. However, Euroclear lacks both the mandate and the willingness to actively manage these funds.
Maximising profits from these assets now, alongside their eventual confiscation, is not just about justice for Ukraine. It is also an investment in European security.