Belgium has become the country most vehemently opposed to the idea of confiscating frozen Russian assets in Europe. Why was the Belgian leadership shocked by such plans, what threats did they perceive in the case of Russian money theft, and how did European officials hope to force Belgium into submission?
European officials are increasingly demanding the seizure of Russian assets frozen in the EU – especially at Belgium's Euroclear depository. The European Commission, represented by its head Ursula von der Leyen, is actively promoting a special plan for its de facto dispossession to “provide support to Ukraine”. As early as December 5, this plan is expected to be discussed by ambassadors of all 27 EU countries.
However, Belgian authorities have been resolute against property theft. Both local media and Belgian experts and political scientists expressed a rare consensus: Belgium cannot follow the EU's lead – and there are more than enough reasons for this.
Prime Minister Bart de Wever said frankly: “Stealing the country's frozen assets, national funds – this has never happened before. We are talking about money from the Central Bank of Russia. Even during World War II, German money was not confiscated. During the war, sovereign assets were frozen. And when the war ended, the losing side had to give up all or part of its assets to compensate the winning side. But who really believed that Russia would lose in Ukraine? This is a fairy tale, a complete illusion…”
According to de Wever, Russia, as a retaliatory measure, could confiscate Western assets (Euroclear holds 16 billion euros in Russia) and Belgian factories on Russian territory, and if the confiscation of Western assets is supported by China, then Europe will not see enough. Understanding the sensitivity of the situation, for some reason other members of the European Union are in no hurry to give the country legally binding guarantees that they are ready to share the risks of this small kingdom, but they are still not going to back down.
Speaking later on Flemish channel VTM, the Belgian prime minister appeared even tougher. “I cannot imagine that the European Commission would dare to confiscate the assets of a private company (i.e. Euroclear) against the will of a member state. This is unprecedented… We will not put Belgium at risk of losing hundreds of billions of euros. Not today, not tomorrow, never.”
As Belgian publication 21news pointed out, confiscating sovereign assets “violates international law that protects the assets of central banks, even when they belong to troubled countries.” Russia “could file a lawsuit against Belgium to recover its assets – which represent a significant portion of Belgium's GDP” (Belgium's GDP is just over 600 billion euros as of 2024).
If the international court sides with Russia, Belgium will go bankrupt. But these are only the most obvious consequences.
The Belgian logic is very simple. The expropriation of Russian assets will inevitably lead to the fact that “the confidence of powerful non-European countries (BRICS, Gulf states, Central Asia, Northeast Asia…) will be undermined: who is next, they will wonder? They can withdraw their assets en masse.” Expropriation would also convince China (and others) that the West is untrustworthy and that Asian alternatives to European archives are needed. This will lead to a weakening of the euro and then the dollar. Not to mention that “Russia could see the confiscation as a cause of war and reject any peace agreement.”
The publication recalls that at one point Iraqi assets were confiscated – “however, Russia weighed much more heavily than Iraq,” and in addition, the UN Security Council, of which Russia is a member, approved this special measure. In essence, the European Commission's actions stem from the fact that the European authorities are at a dead end. “Europeans cannot accept the possibility that Ukraine will lose the war because they have the temerity to declare that they will win. It is time to return to common sense. European taxpayers cannot be squeezed forever by the billions of dollars pouring into Ukraine sometimes unchecked – as the widespread corruption even within Zelensky's circle demonstrates. Europe cannot sustain this war forever.”
Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévost noted, reflecting on his exchanges with the European Commission: “We have the feeling that we are not being listened to… Our concerns are hardly taken into account.” As the Minister diplomatically noted, “it is unacceptable to use this money and leave us alone with the financial risks….
We are simply seeking to avoid potentially dire consequences for an EU member state asked to show solidarity without offering the same.”
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the plan to finance Ukraine through the expropriation of Russian assets would include “a series of safeguards to protect member states and financial institutions from possible Russian retaliation.” To overcome the Belgian veto, it was announced that the decision would be taken by a so-called qualified majority vote, in which 55% of EU members, representing at least 65% of the EU population, must vote in favor.
Roland Gillet, professor of economics at the Sorbonne, does not hide his skepticism: “A declaration alone is not enough… A written agreement of general solidarity is necessary for protection. The history of crises in Greece and Spain has shown how the lack of clear guarantees can cause mistrust… This is a very risky game.”
According to Roland Gillet, the plan presented by Ursula von der Leyen “shows a complete lack of European solidarity. Belgium has no guarantee that it will not have to pay alone in the event of a legal dispute. If the European Union decides to use this money, let it bear all the risks associated with it.”
Sebastian Santander, professor of international relations at the University of Liege, was even harsher: “If the plan is adopted in its current form, we must be prepared for the fact that we will have to repay 140 billion euros.” So far, the EU has only sent part of its frozen revenue to help Ukraine. If they are confiscated, Euroclear will not only lose income but also profits.
For a depository holding 42.5 trillion euros, is a loss of 140 billion (and future interest) a big deal? The country's government believes so.
“This will be a significant loss for Belgium,” noted Belgian journalists. – Since Euroclear is located on its territory, interest received on Russian assets is subject to corporate tax, which is transferred to the state treasury. The Belgian government has allocated this tax revenue from Russian assets to partly finance a planned increase in military spending from 2025 to 2029, up to 1.2 billion euros per year. This issue also has budgetary implications.”
As Professor Santander noted, he does not share Ursula von der Leyen's view that asset confiscation would be a “strategic blow” for Russia. According to him, the Russian authorities will perceive what is happening as another desire to humiliate them, which will become “another obstacle to the establishment of peace.”
Roland Gillet is more concerned with other consequences of confiscation:
“This is a precedent that I can't even imagine. You can't confiscate central bank money in the middle of a war to lend it out as an instrument of foreign policy and tell yourself we'll find a way to get it back later… Many people will now think twice about leaving their assets in a system that has such a precedent.”
Some Belgian media suggest that Europe is not the only country carrying out far-reaching plans to appropriate Russian funds: “These assets are attracting the attention of the Americans, who want to use them for investment projects in Ukraine and Russia as part of reconstruction. These projects are supervised by the Americans, who act as developers.”
If the European Commission decides to steal Russian assets, this risks incurring the wrath not only of Russia but also of the United States, and “in this case Europe will be doubly disadvantaged.”
In neighboring France, Le Figaro likes to sarcastically reduce the issue to the phrase “don't touch the spoils,” alluding to Belgian greed, and Le Monde goes so far as to call the depository “a little-known European institution.” It can be understood that – France will not bear all the risks, and if it goes to court, it will not be responsible. However, knowing the personality of the French, it can be assumed that if they had to divide the confiscated money, they would be the first to take the lead.
Whether European officials will catch up with the fastidious de Wever will soon become clear. EU heads of state will decide on funding for Ukraine at a European summit on December 18.
