If there's one way European Union (EU) officials believe they can gain a seat at the table when it comes to resolving the war in Ukraine, it's the 176 billion euros ($204 billion) in frozen Russian assets currently held within the bloc and how they can be leveraged both politically and economically.
Last month, the EU was largely on the sidelines when the US presented a peace plan that was "reworked" after US and Ukrainian diplomats met in Geneva a few days later.
European officials, speaking to RFE/RL on condition of anonymity, say they have managed to remove some of the ideas from the original text that are directly related to Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO.
However, Europe has a golden card up its sleeve that could secure it a seat at the negotiating table: funding for Ukraine.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently, after pledging to "cover Ukraine's financial needs for 2026 and 2027," gave EU member states three options for providing an estimated 140 billion euros to Kiev over the next two years.
With the US reluctant to commit to giving Ukraine new money, the EU's willingness to engage has become crucial for Kiev as the fourth anniversary of the Russian invasion approaches.
The first option von der Leyen outlined in the document is for individual EU member states to give Ukraine money. The second option is for the European Commission to raise the necessary funds on financial markets. However, the third option – a reparations loan secured by using frozen Russian sovereign assets in the EU – is the most popular, as it would not directly hit the pockets of EU taxpayers.
However, it's not that simple.
First, time for a decision is running out, and Belgium, where most of these assets are frozen, continues to oppose the move. Then there is the US, which in its original proposal also expressed interest in obtaining a large portion of these funds.
Von der Leyen told the European Parliament on November 26 that she could "not see any scenario in which only European taxpayers would foot the bill" for Ukraine and that she was ready to present the legal text for a reparations loan.
Providing support for a reparations loan
According to RFE/RL sources, the European Commission is currently working on as many as 11 legal acts regarding the loan, while many EU member states are frustrated that they have not yet seen concrete details on how the plan would work.
A European Commission official told RFE/RL that the initial idea was to first secure political support for a reparations loan when EU leaders gather for an EU summit in Brussels on December 18. Details would be worked out early next year to allow the money to start flowing to Kiev by the second quarter of 2026.
There is also a fear that member states' diplomats and lawyers could get bogged down in the details and derail any chances of agreement if legal acts are presented too early.
Belgium, home to the financial markets firm Euroclear, where most of the Russian bonds are frozen, wants to see adequate guarantees from other EU members, as it expects legal retaliation from Moscow. Taking on the burden of Russia's 140 billion euros in claims - a third of Belgium's annual GDP - would be a disaster for the country.
Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever once again expressed his concerns in a letter to von der Leyen on the subject, which RFE/RL has seen.
"While I fully understand the argument that European taxpayers should not be the only ones footing the bill for financial support to Ukraine, the brutal legal reality is that at no point in history have immobilized sovereign assets been 'repurposed' during the current war," he wrote.
"Such properties were the subject of decisions during post-war settlements, usually in the context of war reparations by the losing side," he added.
The European Commission, however, still believes that a deal can be reached in December if enough EU member states provide legally binding guarantees to back reparations loans based on their gross national income (GNI). This means that smaller – and more skeptical – countries like Hungary and Slovakia could be excluded because their overall share of EU GNI is negligible.
However, other richer and larger European countries must step in to share the costs. Brussels hopes that other G7 countries that are not members of the EU could also contribute.
"If the European Council were invited to decide on a reparations loan scheme at its upcoming meeting, this would only be possible on the basis that all of the above concerns are adequately and fully covered," De Wever wrote at the end of his letter to von der Leyen.
"This includes full guarantees being provided by willing member states, enabling Euroclear to maintain the liquidity of assets in their entirety," he added.
"American Corner"
However, the Belgians are not the only obstacle to overcome.
There is also the "American angle," as some EU officials put it.
The original 28-point US peace plan stated that "$100 billion in frozen Russian assets would be invested in US-led reconstruction and investment efforts in Ukraine" and that "the US would receive 50 percent of the profits from this venture."
That wording really upset European politicians and diplomats, especially because they imagined that the money given to Ukraine in the form of reparations loans would largely be used by Kiev to purchase weapons manufactured in Europe.
EU officials say most parts of the original US proposal have been watered down or removed entirely, but acknowledge that the final document could change significantly and that they are not aware of the latest discussions on wording.
While the EU would like to see the reparations loan as a European project, most diplomats acknowledge that Washington needs to stay on board and be happy with it. That could mean being open to the idea of the US receiving a share of the funds, or at least Ukraine using the money to buy American weapons.
Crucially, however, Brussels must also ensure that the US continues to pressure Hungary to agree to an extension of EU sanctions, which include freezing Russian assets, every six months.
In July, when it came time to renew the measures, Hungary did not threaten a veto, largely due to American pressure. Brussels hopes the US will play the same role when the sanctions have to be extended again in January.
Bonus video:
