Russia now threatens Belgium with legal action if our country helps deploy immobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine.
This threat is not only cynical, it is one that reverses reality. The only state in Europe guilty of a full-scale war of aggression, whose president is wanted by the International Criminal Court for the deportation of Ukrainian children, and the only state responsible for more than $480 billion in destruction, is Russia.
And in every system of international law, it is the aggressor who pays. Belgium would not be violating international law. It would simply be reminding the world who is the aggressor and who is the victim.
Belgium is the only country telling the truth
One crucial fact is rarely acknowledged: Belgium is the only EU member state that openly discloses the volume of immobilised Russian central bank assets on its territory.
Roughly €180 billion sits at Euroclear in Brussels. While other EU states remain silent, Belgium has chosen transparency—and that choice gives our country a moral credibility that others have yet to match.
Belgium did not seek this responsibility, which emerged from the realities of global financial flows, yet the consequence is unmistakable: a significant part of Europe’s justice and credibility now runs through Brussels.
An urgent debate—because the war continues
In 2024 alone, these immobilised assets produced €6–7 billion in net profits, with €1.7 billion collected in Belgium through taxation. The EU has already agreed that most of this revenue should go to Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction.
Yet one question still hangs in the air: what about the capital itself? What happens to the €180 billion sitting untouched? Every month we hesitate carries a price.
The longer this war drags on, the more Europe’s own defence bill grows. Economists have put it plainly: one euro invested today in Ukraine’s defence can save thirty tomorrow, when the frontline risks inching closer to NATO borders.
This is not rhetoric; it is the logic of deterrence. Discussing the use of Russian assets is not an ideological crusade. It is a rational choice and a matter of preventive security.
2027: the silent risk Europe is ignoring
The approaching end of the EU Temporary Protection Directive in March 2027 adds another layer of urgency to this debate.
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in Belgium and across Europe—elderly people, people with disabilities, single mothers, entire vulnerable households—may soon face the prospect of returning to a country where the war may still be raging.
And if we are honest, Europe is keeping those who are the most integrated, the most educated, the most adaptable. Yet it may be sending back those with the least ability to survive in wartime conditions. This is a reverse brain drain with deep human and economic consequences.
For Ukraine, it means losing even more doctors, nurses, teachers and engineers, many of whom are already mobilised or worn down by the war effort. For Europe, it means shifting a massive social burden onto a nation already under attack.
And for Ukrainians themselves, it risks creating a profound sense of abandonment, a feeling Russia is already eager to weaponise in its disinformation campaigns.
The recent Ukrainian energy scandal: proof that oversight works
Some will point to corruption in Ukraine, a criticism revived by the recent revelations in the energy sector. Yet this scandal shows the opposite of what critics claim.
It was uncovered by Ukraine’s own oversight bodies. Investigations began immediately. And Ukraine’s civil society, one of the strongest in Europe, continues to scrutinise every euro, every contract, every decision.
A sick democracy hides its scandals. A functioning democracy exposes them and acts on them. Ukrainians are defending European values not only on the battlefield, but also through watchdog institutions, investigative bodies and rigorous public accountability.
This is exactly why funds directed to Ukraine today have a genuine chance of being monitored, audited and used properly.
Using Russian assets: not a domination, but an advance on reparations
The option now being discussed in Brussels and across the EU is not a “donation” to Ukraine. It is a European reparation loan mechanism supported by the immobilised Russian assets.
Under this approach, Ukraine receives the funds it needs today. Repayment would take place once Russia pays the reparations it is legally obliged to provide. And until that happens, the interest generated by the frozen assets would cover the costs.
This fully aligns with international law: the aggressor pays, the victim survives.
Why Belgium must lead Europe now
Is Belgium the most exposed country? Yes. But it is also the most transparent—and in this debate, transparency is a form of courage.
Belgium can turn a vulnerable position into moral leadership by reminding the world that Russia has no right to intimidate its victims, by affirming that international law does not stand in the way of justice, and by showing that a small country can act with principled clarity.
Brussels does not simply host Europe’s institutions.
It embodies Europe’s conscience.
