The European Commission is considering the use of Russia’s frozen assets worth almost € 200 billion to rebuild Ukraine after the end of the war.

Brussels are investigating the intention of the bloc countries to place frozen Russian assets in more risky investments, which could make more profits for the benefit of Ukraine, while exacerbating pressure on Russia, which refuses to end the war.

The advocates of this movement also see the plan as a step towards the possible seizure of Russian assets and their performance in Ukraine as a punishment for Russia’s refusal to pay compensation after the war.

“We are proceeding with the work of frozen Russian assets to contribute to the defense and rebuilding of Ukraine,” European Commission President Ursula von der Laien said on Thursday, in the clearest position so far.

This option will not allow for the immediate seizure of Russian assets, which opposes the majority of EU countries due to possible economic and legal problems.

Talks from the bloc countries on the issue will culminate on Saturday, when the 27 EU Foreign Ministers will discuss this for the first time during an informal meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark.

At this meeting, the Block Foreign Ministers will be called upon to consider “further options for the use of revenue from Russia’s frozen state assets”, according to the Politico preparatory memorandum.

With Ukraine facing an estimated 8 billion euro deficit in the 2026 budget, EU countries are looking for new solutions to continue funding the country.

This is because, at a time when Europe itself faces financial difficulties, it is at the same time accepting increasing pressures to take action in view of the US withdrawal from Ukraine and US President Donald Trump’s failed efforts to reach a peacekeeping agreement with them.

‘It sounds that it is harder to raise money [από τα εθνικούς πόρους ή τον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ]”Kerli Veski, Deputy Minister of Legal and Consular Affairs at the Estonian Foreign Ministry, said. “[Αλλά] We have these assets and the logical question is how we can and why we don’t use them. “

The camp in favor of seizures

Baltic countries bordering Russia and several other countries have long been pushing the EU to fully seize frozen Russian assets.

Within the Commission, Latvian Economy Commissioner Valdis Dobrovskis and Estonian head of Foreign Policy Bloc Kaya Callas are in favor of this idea.

However, in this choice there are still Western European countries, such as Germany, Italy and Belgium. Belgium is particularly exposed to legal and economic risks because it hosts Euroclear, the financial institution that holds most of the Russian assets.

In a compromise move, the countries of the Seven (G7) group agreed in 2024 to channel profits totaling 45 billion euros that will result from the investment of Russian assets in Ukraine, leaving the underlying assets intact.

However, the EU’s share of the EU loan of € 18 billion will be paid completely by the end of the year – which has increased the calls to secure additional revenue in a short period of time.

As a solution, the European Commission’s lawyers are considering the transfer of assets to a “special purpose vehicle” supported by some EU countries and possibly some foreign countries.

Officials likened the new Fund under discussion to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), the fund created for rescue and funded only by eurozone members and set up outside the EU conditions.

The potential Ukraine fund will also be open to G7 countries, including the United Kingdom and Canada, who are in favor of seizure of assets, an EU official said, although the details have not yet been settled.

In the meantime, this new mechanism would ensure the EU more control to ultimately deliver Russian assets in Ukraine when the time comes.

According to the rules in force, the denial of even one country can virtually cancel this, by essentially returning Russian assets back to Moscow by vetoing the renewal of sanctions, which is voted every six months. The pro -Russian and pro -Russian government of Hungary is considered the most likely to do so.

However, the transfer of funds to a new body without possibly needing the unanimity of the member states will prevent the threat of Hungary.

Reflection on risky investments

The transfer of frozen Russian assets to a new fund would also allow them to be placed in more risky investments, which can generate higher returns and thus increased revenue for Ukraine.

This would recommend a change from the current regulation, which obliges Euroclear to invest the assets to the Belgian Central Bank, which offers the lowest safe performance available.

Skeptics, including Euroclear Managing Director Valerie Urban, are concerned, however, that EU taxpayers should bear the burden of any damage resulting from the most risky investments.

To share the legal and financial burden, Belgium seeks to take responsibility for other EU countries, based on the proposed plan of the Commission.

“Belgium is not alone in it. We need to support and participate in mitigating this danger, “Vesky said.

‘It is not a question of let Belgium face it [ενώ] We are watching the sidelines. “

The Belgian government has recently expressed its satisfaction with the European Commission’s plan, according to an EU official and a higher diplomat, and countries far beyond Russia, such as Spain, also support the idea.