Europe is facing mounting pressure to address the funding gap created by the United States’ withdrawal of military support for Ukraine. The decision by President Donald Trump to halt aid to Kyiv has left European leaders scrambling to find alternative solutions to continue supporting Ukraine in its defense against Russia. One of the most contentious options on the table is the potential seizure of frozen Russian assets to finance Ukraine’s war efforts and eventual reconstruction.
The Context: Changing U.S. Policy Toward Ukraine
President Trump’s return to the White House has marked a significant shift in American foreign policy. In recent weeks, Trump has openly criticized Ukraine, blaming it for starting the war, and referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a “dictator.” The U.S. president has even initiated unilateral talks with Russia, excluding Ukraine and European allies, causing widespread dismay in Kyiv and across Europe.
Adding to the uncertainty, tensions between Trump and Zelenskyy erupted into a public clash during a televised meeting in the Oval Office, further straining diplomatic relations. As a result, U.S. military support for Ukraine has been suspended, leaving European nations to shoulder the burden of military and financial aid.
Frozen Russian Assets: Europe’s Potential Solution
In response to the U.S. withdrawal, European leaders are exploring the possibility of seizing Russian state assets frozen in the region. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, approximately 300 billion euros ($322 billion) in Russian foreign reserves were frozen in the West. Of this, an estimated 210 billion euros are held in the European Union, with 183 billion euros sitting in Belgium, primarily managed by the bank Euroclear.
While these assets have remained frozen, the question of whether they can be seized and repurposed has gained urgency. European leaders argue that it is morally and financially justifiable for Russia, as the aggressor in the conflict, to shoulder the costs of Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction.
Support and Opposition Within Europe
The idea of seizing Russian assets has divided opinion within the European Union. Several leaders, including Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas and EU Commissioner for Economy Valdis Dombrovskis, have voiced strong support for the measure. Kallas has argued that European taxpayers should not bear the financial burden of the war, stating that “it should come from the country that destroys Ukraine, which is Russia.”
Similarly, U.K. Foreign Minister David Lammy has urged Europe to act decisively, advocating for a shift from freezing to seizing Russian assets. Estonia and Poland have also been vocal supporters of the proposal, with Estonia recently presenting a draft paper outlining legal pathways to confiscate the funds.
However, key players like Germany and France remain cautious. Concerns about the legal and economic ramifications of asset seizure have made these nations hesitant to move forward. Despite this, recent reports suggest that both countries are now open to discussions on the matter, signaling a potential shift in their positions.
Legal and Economic Hurdles
The legal complexities of seizing frozen assets present a significant challenge. Under international law, any countermeasures against Russia must be “temporary” and “reversible.” Armin Steinbach, a professor of EU law and economics at HEC Paris, explained that while morally compelling, the seizure of state assets is legally difficult. He suggested an alternative solution in which Ukraine transfers its damage claims against Russia to the G7, which could then enforce these claims by confiscating Russian assets.
Critics of asset seizure have also warned of potential economic repercussions, particularly for the eurozone. However, proponents argue that the initial freezing of Russian assets did not destabilize European financial markets, and a formal seizure is unlikely to have further adverse effects. Nigel Gould-Davies, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), emphasized that extensive legal studies have identified a “safe legal path” to seizing assets and dismissed fears of economic fallout as overblown.
What’s Next?
As Europe continues to deliberate on the issue, the outcome will depend on whether the EU can achieve consensus among its 27 member states. One option is for the EU to unanimously agree to mandate Belgium, where the majority of the assets are held, to confiscate them. Alternatively, Belgium could act independently if EU sanctions on Russia expire without renewal. However, Belgium has expressed concerns about the potential risks of such unilateral action.
With the war showing no signs of resolution and negotiations between the U.S. and Russia raising the possibility of frozen assets being returned to Moscow, time is of the essence for Europe. Ukrainian officials and their European allies argue that seizing these assets is not only a matter of justice but also a practical necessity to sustain Ukraine’s defense and rebuild the country.
The Stakes Are High
The decision to seize Russian assets would mark an unprecedented move in international law and diplomacy. It could provide Ukraine with much-needed financial support while sending a powerful message to aggressor states. However, it also carries significant risks, including potential retaliation from Russia and legal challenges that could set complex precedents for future conflicts.
As European leaders weigh their options, one thing is clear: the costs of inaction are rising, and the need for bold decisions has never been more urgent.
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
↔ 
→ 
→ 
→ 
→ 
→ 
→ 
→ 
