**BRUSSELS** – European Union leaders have ultimately forged a consensus, agreeing to furnish Ukraine with a substantial €90 billion loan package, a crucial financial infusion designed to buttress the war-torn nation's military and budgetary requirements. This late-night accord, hammered out after protracted negotiations, represents a significant commitment to Ukraine's enduring resilience. However, the breakthrough was achieved by deferring a more contentious proposal to directly leverage frozen Russian assets, a move that has evidently satisfied some member states while leaving others to ponder the long-term ramifications.
The €90 billion facility, earmarked for disbursement in 2026 and 2027, will be financed through joint borrowing on capital markets, a mechanism designed to spread the financial burden across the bloc. This financial lifeline is projected to cover approximately two-thirds of Ukraine's anticipated needs for the upcoming two years, a critical period as the country continues to contend with the devastating impact of the ongoing conflict. The loan's repayment is contingent on Russia eventually providing reparations for the extensive damages inflicted upon Ukraine, a stipulation that underscores the international community's stance on accountability. Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Svyrydenko hailed the decision as "a decisive step for economic resilience," while European Council chief António Costa declared, "We committed, we delivered," signalling a unified front from the EU.
The decision to sidestep the more provocative avenue of utilising frozen Russian assets marks a significant compromise, particularly for nations like Belgium, which holds a substantial portion of these immobilised funds through the clearing house Euroclear. While the interest accrued from these frozen assets is already being channelled to Ukraine, a more direct appropriation of the principal had become a point of considerable contention. Concerns over potential legal repercussions and retaliatory measures from Moscow, as well as the intricate legal frameworks surrounding sovereign assets, appear to have weighed heavily on the deliberations. Russia, in response to any perceived moves against its assets, has already initiated legal proceedings against Euroclear, framing such actions as tantamount to attempted robbery and viewing the EU's hesitance as a significant setback for its own agenda.
The protracted negotiations, reportedly stretching for nearly six or even seventeen hours according to different reports, underscore the delicate balancing act EU leaders faced. The initial proposal to tap into frozen Russian assets, favoured by some member states eager to maximise support for Ukraine, ultimately gave way to a more pragmatic, albeit less ambitious, loan arrangement. This outcome effectively postpones the highly complex and legally fraught discussions surrounding the seizure or utilisation of Russian sovereign wealth. For Belgium, the resolution offers a reprieve from the immediate legal and financial complexities that would have arisen from directly handling the frozen assets.
While the €90 billion loan provides a much-needed injection of stability for Ukraine, the unresolved question of Russian assets looms large. The EU has managed to avert internal division and maintain a united front on paper, but the underlying complexities of international finance, geopolitical leverage, and the protracted nature of the conflict suggest that this issue will undoubtedly resurface. The path forward for Ukraine's reconstruction and defence remains heavily reliant on sustained international support, and the eventual resolution of the Russian asset debate could hold significant implications for both Kyiv and Moscow.