U.S. President Donald Trump (R) with President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen during the 80th session of the UN’s General Assembly on September 23, 2025 in New York City.
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images North America via AFP
Brussels only wants to hand Kyiv cash to be used on the battlefield rather than in the negotiation room.
The European Union is still arguing within itself about using frozen Russian assets to help fund Ukraine and appears far more determined to punish Moscow than to work towards peace.
As is often the case, Brussels looks to have been egged on by the fact a member state said “no” to its proposal. In this case, Belgium has been the most vocal about its opposition to confiscating Russian sovereign assets, saying this could “deal a severe blow to the credibility of the euro, and thus have very problematic domino effects.”
It is also bothered by the likelihood that Moscow will sue the European countries involved in using its assets, and has offered to back down if other states provide “legally binding, unconditional, irrevocable, on-demand, joint and several guarantees” to cover any potential arbitration costs.
But, of course, European governments believe this demand to be excessive—with one EU diplomat askingPolitico: “If [the guarantees] are infinite and without limits, then what are we getting ourselves into?”—meaning the situation has effectively moved nowhere since the bickering began some months ago.
Donald Trump has another—seemingly more workable—plan. That is to invest frozen Russian assets in U.S.-led efforts to rebuild Ukraine, as well as in a U.S.-Russia ‘investment vehicle’ focused on joint projects.
This, and other measures, will be discussed between U.S. and Russian officials in Moscow today, on December 2nd. The intention is that it would reduce tensions and improve the prospect of a lasting peace.
Brussels’ insistence that frozen assets be used simply to help fund Ukraine on the battlefield, rather than in the negotiation room, is frustrating this hope. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said last week that officials are “ready to present a legal text” for gathering these funds—even if, it appears, member states do not grant Belgium any concession.
Jacob Reynolds, head of policy at MCC Brussels, jibed that “Belgium is accused of intransigence for simply asking for a guarantee that the EU’s plans for Ukraine don’t bankrupt the whole country.”
What is most likely is that Trump will have helped to bring the war to an end before Europe has come to any conclusion in this row.
Michael Curzon is a news writer for europeanconservative.com based in England’s Midlands. He is also Editor of Bournbrook Magazine, which he founded in 2019, and previously wrote for London’s Express Online. His Twitter handle is @MichaelCurzon_.
