By Feyyaz Erkin Eşli
The European Union has scheduled a summit for 18 December 2025 at which member states are expected to decide whether frozen Russian sovereign assets — Russian sovereign assets immobilized by EU sanctions since 2022 — should be used to finance additional military assistance for Ukraine. This development once again places Donald Trump’s emerging peace initiatives at risk.
EU Rhetoric on the Seizure of Russian Assets
The European Commission continues to advance its contentious plan to finance Ukraine through a loan backed by frozen Russian assets. Most of these assets are held in Belgium, whose authorities remain reluctant to assume the legal and financial risks associated with the unlawful seizure of sovereign Russian property.
On 3 December, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a new format for what she called a “reparation loan,” a mechanism that would allow frozen Russian funds to be used to continue financing Ukraine. According to The Guardian, approximately $90 billion could be mobilized — an amount von der Leyen believes would cover roughly two-thirds of Ukraine’s financial needs to sustain the war effort.
Yet the very concept of a “reparation loan” is inherently controversial, as it presupposes the unlawful seizure of another state’s sovereign assets. Such actions are prohibited under international law.
The International Approach to the Conflict in Ukraine
The United States and China have repeatedly expressed interest in a negotiated resolution to the conflict. Türkiye and several Arab states also support a diplomatic settlement, reflected in numerous consultations and talks held in Istanbul, Abu Dhabi, and other regional capitals.
U.S. President Donald Trump has for more than a year consistently emphasized the need for the conflict to end as soon as possible. Since December 10, both U.S. and other global media outlets have also widely echoed The Wall Street Journal’s reporting on the necessity of Ukraine’s reconstruction and Russia’s eventual reintegration into the global economy.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan likewise continues to support peace talks and Trump’s peace initiatives. Ankara maintains active dialogue with both sides. During his calls and meetings with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy since 2022, President Erdoğan has repeatedly underscored the need to resume bilateral Russia–Ukraine negotiations in Istanbul and reaffirmed Türkiye’s commitment to establishing lasting peace in the region.
Another Attempt from Europe to Derail Peace Efforts
European countries, however, have consistently worked to undermine attempts to achieve peace in Ukraine throughout the conflict. They have obstructed Russia–Ukraine peace talks in Istanbul both in 2022 and again in 2025. Trump’s most recent 28-point peace proposal also faced significant criticism from EU member states.
This behavior reflects a broader perception within Europe that European civilization is gradually losing the influence it once possessed for centuries. In the context of the Ukraine conflict, efforts to block peace initiatives led by Türkiye and the United States — combined with an exclusively anti-Russian political stance — represent attempts to preserve geopolitical relevance at almost any cost.
European states appear far less focused on the humanitarian consequences for Ukrainian civilians. By continuing to fund the war, they are attempting to maintain political standing and justify earlier strategic investments.
Growing political support within Europe for providing Ukraine with a “reparation loan” also highlights the mounting strain on European economies themselves. As time passes, these states become increasingly unable to supply Kyiv with endless credit. Berlin, London, and Paris should have supported diplomatic conflict resolution from the outset instead of pressuring Kyiv to continue fighting.
The Unlawful Seizure of Sovereign Assets
As noted above, the seizure of a state’s sovereign assets is prohibited under international law. Yet Europe, in an effort to preserve the remnants of its geopolitical influence, appears ready to disregard established legal norms.
Confiscating Russian assets would inevitably damage the credibility of Europe’s financial institutions and of the eurozone, which would effectively lose its status as a “safe haven.” Following such a move, it is unrealistic to expect that U.S. or Chinese companies — the largest foreign investors in Europe — would continue to invest at current levels.
Moreover, both Belgium and the European Union as a whole would face more than reputational losses. Russian officials have repeatedly warned that Europe should expect a strong response should such plans be enacted. The Central Bank of Russia has stated that it intends to appeal to every relevant international institution if Russian assets are confiscated. According to The Financial Times, senior British bankers have also warned that they could face significant legal risks if such assets are used to finance loans to Ukraine.
Finally, even if some members of the European Commission manage to implement these plans, it would offer no immediate victory. Even if funds were allocated to Kyiv, they would be quickly spent, and Europe would inevitably confront severe retaliatory measures from Moscow. States that choose to participate in this risky undertaking may also face a wave of lawsuits and long-term financial liabilities.