Not just frozen Russian assets – leaders are asking for “support options” for Ukraine

Brussels -In the end, almost nothing was achieved regarding Russian assets. Concerning the financial aid the EU is supposed to provide to Ukraine, the EU summit of heads of state and government gave the European Commission a mandate that is limited in scope, definition, and initial ambitions. The heads of state invite the EU executive to “present, as soon as possible, options for financial support based on an assessment of Ukraine’s financing needs.” So reads the statement at the end of the proceedings, which makes no reference to “cash flows generated by frozen financial assets,” i.e., the income generated by assets frozen on European soil. 

There is a more general reference to this aspect, the real crux of a legally and technically complicated issue, and this reference is limited to the principle that “subject to EU law, Russia’s assets should remain immobilised until Russia ceases its war of aggression against Ukraine and compensates it for the damage caused by its war.” The basic idea of making Moscow pay for reparations damages does not disappear, but the use of the profits generated by the frozen assets does for now. 

In the end, there is a political commitment that result from the need to reaffirm a pledge to support Volodymyr Zelensky’s Ukraine and to send a message to Vladimir Putin’s Russia. A commitment that, however, is a puzzle because these options that are being asked of the von der Leyen team are not there and will have to be found, moreover quickly, as the leaders expect to be able to discuss them as early as the next European Council summit in December (18 and 19).

 https://www.eunews.it/en/2025/10/23/costa-welcomes-zelensky-to-the-european-council-future-eu-member-praises-new-sanctions/

The President of the European Council, Antonio Costa, tries to pass off the result as a great success, even if in the end it is not: “Ukraine will have the financial resources it needs to defend itself against Russia’s aggression in the foreseeable future,” he said at the end of the proceedings. Europe will probably eventually find a balance and a solution, but at the moment, that is not the case. 

Time is needed to work, and this was already apparent before the leaders’ summit. To their partner Zelensky, who was asking for progress on the matter, the Europeans could not fail to give something. But Belgium is stalling. After all, the bulk of the Russian assets that could potentially be accessed is with Euroclear, which holds €180 billion—a sum that leads Prime Minister Bart De Wever to demand legally unchallengeable guarantees, with full risk-sharing assurances; in other words, a commitment that all other EU countries provide support and a financial safety net for Belgium. In the absence of these aspects, leaders decided to hold back. In the end, the conclusions leave the EU with a tentative political agreement that still needs to be finalized. 

For Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, who will now have to get to work, the discussion on the repair loan to be financed with frozen Russian assets was “a fruitful discussion.” She does not go out on a limb, does not offer a preview, but is keen to clarify that whatever is decided, “we will always respect European and international law.” A clarification that is not only formal but also concerns a key aspect of the European strategy that still needs to be fine-tuned.​