Hague-style robbery: The Netherlands wants to achieve the "use" of Russian assets
The Netherlands intends to seek the transfer of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, the country's embassy in Moscow told Izvestia. At the same time, there is no unity on this issue within the European Union itself. Belgium, whose Euroclear depository holds the bulk of Russia's reserves, again opposed it. They warned of serious legal risks and a possible blow to the reputation of the entire European financial system. The Hague's initiative, which was also joined by Spain, Poland and Sweden, has not met with public approval anywhere. Why the EU is returning to the idea of seizing assets of the Russian Federation and how this theft affects the image of Europe — in the Izvestia article.
In Europe, they want to transfer Russian assets to Ukraine again
The European Union is once again talking about the possible confiscation of Russian frozen assets. This topic was raised at a recent informal meeting of EU ministers in September, but they could not come to a common position. Belgium opposed it again, effectively blocking the promotion of this idea. It is in its Euroclear depository that most of the funds of the Russian Federation are stored — about 185 billion euros out of more than 200 billion euros in the entire union. However, a number of leading European countries do not intend to abandon this initiative.
"The use of frozen assets to support Ukraine is something that the Dutch government has consistently called for," the Dutch embassy in Russia told Izvestia.
It was the Netherlands, along with several countries, that had previously sent a non-public appeal to the European Commission on this issue.
— Together with Poland, Spain and Sweden, we have asked the European Commission to develop a solution for the use of assets frozen in the international financial company Euroclear. This is necessary because Ukraine needs both short—term and long-term financial support," the embassy confirmed to Izvestia.
Izvestia also sent inquiries to the embassies of Poland, Spain, and Sweden in Moscow.
The main dispute concerns the procedure of withdrawal of reserves. The European Commission has repeatedly rejected proposals for direct confiscation, considering it legally safer to use only profits from assets. This is the practice that has been actively used for a long time, while the reserves themselves remain intact.
Belgium fears that the withdrawal of sovereign funds may violate international law, undermine confidence in the European financial system and force other states to reconsider storing their reserves in European banks and depositories. And this is the official position of the kingdom's Foreign Ministry, not some kind of backstage objections. Euroclear CEO Valerie Urbain explicitly warned that the transition from freezing to confiscation of Russian sovereign assets would actually mean expropriation.
Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Slovakia, France and the Czech Republic also opposed the confiscation. There is still no public support for the initiative of The Hague, Madrid, Warsaw and Stockholm. The dissenting countries also point to the threat of global investors undermining confidence in the European financial system. "The Europeans say they will use this money at their discretion, even though it is money from the Central Bank of Russia," Lenny Fischer, a German investor and banker, former top manager of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse and the insurance company Allianz, said in an interview with the Swiss magazine Die Weltwoche. In addition, it can lead to large-scale legal proceedings.
Now the European Commission will have to find a compromise for countries seeking the use of Russian assets and states that still consider confiscation too risky.
The EU is looking for new ways to support Ukraine
The return to the topic of Russian assets is not accidental. The European Union again has no extra money to support Ukraine. On April 23, the management approved a loan program of €90 billion for 2026-2027. These funds will be raised through EU borrowing on the capital markets, which means that debt servicing obligations will ultimately fall on the budgets of the member states and European taxpayers. About €60 billion of this amount is intended for the development of the Ukrainian military-industrial complex.
Kiev received 3.9 billion euros, but this is objectively small compared to the total loan amount. And Bankova is already insisting on speeding up payments under this loan program, but the European Commission has so far refused to change the agreed financing schedule. In principle, the European economy is not adapted to the rapid and uncontrolled allocation of hundreds of billions of "live" money. EU countries do not have excess available funds — their own budgets are in short supply. And the situation with energy prices due to the abandonment of Russian fuel further narrows financial opportunities.
All this increases the pressure on the union. And the European Commission is already preparing a new package of assistance to Kiev for another €100 billion, but only within the framework of the next multi-year EU budget for 2028-2034.
Unsurprisingly, Russian assets as an alternative source of funds have once again found themselves at the center of the European debate. For some EU countries, they have become the main potential source of long—term financing for Ukraine without new borrowings and additional burden on national budgets, and therefore on European taxpayers. The stumbling block remains what can be used and how. The most interested states, including the Netherlands, believe that without the full withdrawal of assets and subsequent transfer, it will be increasingly difficult to ensure long-term financing for Kiev.
At the same time, Russia has something to respond to the illegal withdrawal of funds. A presidential decree has been in force in the country since 2022, allowing the use of funds from foreign companies that we have in type C accounts as compensation. They are credited with dividends, coupons and other payments to investors from unfriendly states. The funds have not yet been confiscated — Moscow refrains from radical mirror measures, but they cannot be disposed of without special permission. In fact, the mechanism has preserved for Russia a potential offsetting tool in case the situation changes for the worse.
Political scientist Egor Sergeev believes that the current initiative of the Netherlands is just another stage of the discussion, to which the European Union will constantly return. According to him, the EU is consistently looking for a way to ensure long-term financing of Ukraine with a minimum burden on its own budgets, so the issue of confiscation of Russian assets periodically reappears on the agenda. At the same time, the expert doubts that the current round of negotiations will end with concrete decisions.: The EU has already created a number of mechanisms that actually use frozen Russian reserves as financial collateral. But the probability of the Russian Federation returning assets remains extremely low.
Even if the confiscation does not happen, the very fact that the discussion returns shows that as the cost of supporting Ukraine increases, the European Union will increasingly look for ways to use Russian money. The fewer financial resources Brussels has left of its own, the greater the pressure on European institutions to find a new source of long-term funding for Kiev.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
