The US is putting pressure on the EU: will Trump disrupt the reparations loan to Ukraine with €210 billion of frozen Russian assets?

Political game of frozen money: who is pushing, why it matters and what Brussels' decision could lead to

A few days before the EU leaders' summit, reports emerged that the US administration was negotiating with "friendly" European capitals to dissuade them from supporting the European Commission's proposal to use frozen Russian sovereign assets to provide a so-called "reparations loan" to Ukraine, estimated at €185-210 billion, and the dispute threatens to derail the EU-level agreement.¹.²

What exactly does Brussels offer?

The European Commission has proposed two main ways to support Ukraine: attracting loans under the guarantees of the pan-European budget and issuing a “reparation loan” from funds currently blocked as part of Russia’s frozen reserves. The total amount of such assets in the world is estimated at approximately €260 billion, of which about €180–200 billion are concentrated in the Euroclear system and in EU banks, and it is these funds that were proposed to be put into circulation for the benefit of Kyiv.¹.³

What is the significance of US intervention?

According to Politico, the US administration has begun intensive contacts with individual European governments, bypassing official European forums, and this has led to at least a temporary unification of several countries into a group of "disagreers" with the proposal - among them are Italy, Bulgaria, Malta, and the Czech Republic; in total, according to various sources, from 6 to 7 states have expressed objections.².³

Positions of key players

Belgium has publicly expressed doubts about the guarantees and conditions, and it was the Belgian depository Euroclear, where a significant part of the assets are concentrated, that raised legal and ethical questions about such an initiative.¹Euroclear representatives warned of possible legal actions in the event of forced use of funds, since these assets, according to their logic, belong to the state — and, indirectly, to Russian citizens.¹.

On the American side, according to a journalistic investigation, Washington's arguments relate to both risks to global financial markets and its own strategic interests (in particular, concerns about precedents for the seizure of sovereign assets and the impact on confidence in international depository instruments). Official US representatives, according to their own reports, reject accusations of pressure and deny coordinated interference in the EU decision-making process.⁷.

Legal and ethical challenges

The EC initiative is not just about redistributing money; it touches on fundamental issues of international law, property and precedent. In the case of forced use of frozen assets, several key legal risks arise: possible legal actions by depositaries or asset holders themselves, as well as questions about the compatibility of such steps with the domestic law of the Member States and EU rules.¹In addition, Moscow is already positioning such initiatives as “open robbery” and threatening appropriate steps in international institutions.¹.

Economic consequences for Ukraine and the EU

For Ukraine, obtaining a large loan from such funds could become a large-scale source of financing for reconstruction and current needs of the state, which would increase the stability of the budget in wartime and the post-war period. At the same time, opening such a channel, even under the conditions of future repayment of funds, creates risks for the markets: a change in the status of central bank assets could undermine the confidence of international investors and increase the implications for the use of depository mechanisms in the EU³.¹

Political consequences in the EU

The lack of consensus threatens not only the failure of a specific initiative: it is a signal of weakening EU unity at critical moments, which could undermine Brussels' authority and weaken its position of solidarity with Ukraine. The German Chancellor noted the uncertainty of the summit outcome and assessed the chances of agreeing on a decision as about 50/50².

International reactions and alternatives

In addition to the reactions of the EU and the US, other proposals for using frozen assets have appeared in the media: from the creation of trust funds managed by international institutions to partial investments in the restoration of critical infrastructure in Ukraine. Some experts advise avoiding direct confiscation and studying mechanisms that combine legal transparency with guarantees of return of funds - in order to minimize risks for the international financial system³.

Which scenarios are the most realistic?

• The summit adopts a compromise package that combines EU guarantees and conditional mechanisms for using proceeds from frozen assets to finance Ukraine, but without direct “confiscation” of core reserves — this would provide partial access to asset proceeds, with less legal fragility¹.
• Due to US pressure and resistance from a number of countries, the decision is postponed or blocked - in which case the EC will continue to seek agreed mechanisms to support Ukraine through other instruments, in particular pan-European debt guarantees.².³
• The EU dares to take a radical step and approves the use of assets in the proposed formula - then legal lawsuits, major diplomatic clashes and reactions from Russia, as well as a potential wave of regulatory changes in the global banking infrastructure are possible.¹.

What does this mean for Ukraine?

In the near term, the EU decision on the financing mechanism will affect Kyiv’s calculations regarding recovery plans and budget planning for 2026–2027. Obtaining a large loan from frozen assets could reduce dependence on individual donor decisions and become a long-term source of infrastructure reconstruction; at the same time, the risks of political volatility and possible legal obstacles remain high³.¹

The place of the Ukrainian position in this discussion

The Ukrainian side naturally advocates for the maximum and rapid use of available resources for recovery and defense; its request for funding coincides with the interests of some EU countries, but contradicts the legal and political objections of other states and the fears of strategic partners.³.

Ethical aspect and public opinion

The issue of the withdrawal of sovereign reserves raises ethical questions: can and should punishment of the Russian state be transformed into direct financing of the victimized country through mechanisms that may prove controversial in the international arena? Some civil and expert circles insist on transparent, legally sound mechanisms that do not undermine the long-standing principles of international finance¹.

Practical steps to consider

• Monitoring the decisions of the EU summit on December 18-19 and the text of the final agenda - this is where the vote on further steps is expected¹.
• Analyzing the legal positions of Euroclear and other depository institutions that may initiate legal proceedings is key to understanding the feasibility of the mechanism.¹.
• Assessing alternative ways to finance recovery in Ukraine (guaranteed loans, multilateral trusts, sale of asset proceeds instead of fixed capital) — these options can reduce risks and accelerate the flow of funds³.

Conclusion for the reader

The dispute over the use of frozen Russian assets is not just about the amount in the accounts. It is a test of the ability of international institutions to balance justice, economic stability and political alliances. The US intervention in this process, if we are to believe the sources, complicates the already delicate negotiations and draws several possible scenarios: from compromise to postponement or even confrontation in the courts and diplomatic institutions of the EU².¹

What is important for the reader to remember?

• The issue of €185–210 billion of frozen Russian assets is a subject of negotiations and legal debate, not a settled case¹.³
• The US communicates intensively with individual European governments; this influences the course of intra-European decisions².
• The consequences of any final decision will have long-term consequences for international property rights and trust in financial infrastructures — and for Ukraine’s recovery as well.¹.

Sources

1. RIA Novosti: The media — the US is putting pressure on Europe to abandon the plan to use the assets of the Russian Federation
2. Kommersant: Politico: The USA is forcing the EU to abandon the plan to use the frozen funds of the Russian Federation
3. RBC: Politico reported on US demands to block Russia's use of EU assets
4. Belarus/Euroclear statements and publicized concerns (cited within reporting above)
5. Official statements of the European Commission regarding financing options for Ukraine (mentioned in the media)