The United States has lobbied several European Union countries to oppose plans to use frozen Russian central bank assets to back a massive loan to Ukraine, according to European diplomats familiar with the matter. US officials argued that the assets should be preserved to help secure a peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow rather than prolong the conflict, the diplomats told Bloomberg on the condition of anonymity.
The European Commission proposed earlier this week to use immobilized Russian assets, estimated at around €210 billion on EU soil, to support a €90 billion ($105 billion) loan covering Ukraine’s economic and military needs for the next two years. The proposal has faced resistance both internationally and domestically, particularly from Belgium, which holds a significant portion of the frozen funds, and other EU states such as Hungary and Slovakia.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has emerged as a strong advocate for using the assets to aid Ukraine, emphasizing that the funds should remain under European control and not be diverted to the US. Merz is scheduled to meet Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels to address Belgian concerns about potential financial liability and Russian retaliation. “This money must flow to Ukraine — it must help Ukraine,” Merz said during a news conference in Berlin, underscoring the EU’s position.
The discussions occur at a critical time as Ukraine faces potential financial shortfalls early next year amid reduced US aid under the Trump administration. Washington has also considered using the frozen Russian assets to finance postwar investments linked to its 28-point peace plan with Moscow, which continues to be negotiated. While EU rules would allow Kyiv to repay the loan only if Russia compensates for war damages, disagreements among member states, combined with domestic opposition, continue to stall approval ahead of an EU leaders’ summit later this month. Bloomberg reporting indicates that Germany and other proponents remain opposed to issuing joint debt as a fallback, citing the need for unanimity and limited feasibility.
