Belgium’s Frozen Russian Assets

In the middle of Europe’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Belgium has become a key actor, as one of the world’s largest financial institution formed to facilitate the exchange, Euroclear, is located in Brussels. Euroclear holds shares in multiple Russian central banks, most of which were frozen by the EU. Significantly, Euroclear holds about 180 billion euros of said frozen state assets. Consequently, this large concentration of funds has placed Belgium in a complex legal and political debate about how far EU sovereignty can go in using these assets in support of Ukraine. 

Following the full-scale invasion committed by Russia in 2020, the EU and its partners froze Russian assets, including cash, bonds, and securities held abroad, as part of a larger sanctions package. It must be noted that freezing assets means “temporarily retaining property”, and is not a full transferring of ownership. Simply, it is used to prevent owners of accessing or moving illegally owned goods. Thus, legally, Russian assets remain theirs, despite being immobilised abroad. This distinction is crucial in understanding the discussion on the extent to which the EU can use them.  

Euroclear’s location also means that the Belgian government is responsible for overseeing the frozen assets, as well as decisions concerning them. Hence, any legal decision made must take into consideration Belgium’s responsibility towards the regulation of such assets as well as the potential consequences towards Euroclear. Belgium has expressed skepticism and concerns towards the proposals of using these funds to support and rebuild Ukraine due to Russian damages. Particularly, the concerns often relate to international law breaches, the legality behind such apprehension and usage of frozen funds, as well as violation of sovereignty and security. The concerns have further gained strength as Russia initiated legal action against Euroclear, highlighting the potential threats of assertive actions as such. However, many legal advisers and lawyers disagree with this view, arguing that legal retaliation by Russia would likely fall through as courts which would allow for such proceedings, like the international court of justice, would likely not hear the case, largely due to the fact that Russia does not recognise their jurisdiction in the first place. 

Moreover, Belgium does not support full seizure of the frozen assets, and has vetoed their use, along with other member states like Italy who have asked to find alternatives. This divergence in opinion has divided the EU block, and as of right now, whilst the EU has committed to a loan, with a sum of multiple billion euros in support of the rebuilding of Ukraine, it has yet to decide on using the frozen assets. Nevertheless, there has been a use of profits made from tax and interest of the goods for Ukraine and helping the war-torn country. This approach allows for financial contribution without acting in a grey legal area.  

Overall, the debate surrounding Belgium’s role and the use of Russian assets remains unresolved. It also tackles broader questions about the balance between legal caution and active political decision-making in times of crisis, something the EU has often been criticised for being too passive. Whether the approach taken by Belgium is in commitment to international legal norms or due to a more cautious political standpoint is still unclear however what is evident is that their positioning will continue to shape and influence heavily the EU’s ability to mobilise resources for Ukraine, as well as fight back against crimes committed at its eastern border.  

Bibliography: 

Vinocur, Nicholas. “Legal Opinions Contradict Belgium’s Claims over Russian Assets.” POLITICO, 16 Dec. 2025, www.politico.eu/article/legal-opinions-contradict-belgiums-claims-over-russian-assets-euroclear/. Accessed 24 Jan. 2026.  

Vohra, Anchal. “Russia’s Frozen Assets — Everything You Need to Know.” Dw.com, Deutsche Welle, 17 Dec. 2025, www.dw.com/en/russias-frozen-assets-everything-you-need-to-know/a-75180873. Accessed 24 Jan. 2026.  

Reuters. “Euroclear Can Offset Its Assets Seized by Russia with Russia’s Assets -EU.” Reuters, 12 Dec. 2025, www.reuters.com/business/euroclear-can-offset-its-assets-seized-by-russia-with-russias-assets-eu-2025-12-12/. Accessed 24 Jan. 2026.  

Kirby, Paul. “Zelensky Gives Stark Warning as EU Leaders Decide on Russia’s Frozen Assets.” Bbc.com, BBC News, 18 Dec. 2025, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vjlj1ezpgo. Accessed 24 Jan. 2026.  

“The Belgian Company at the Heart of a Tussle over Russia’s Frozen Assets.” Luxembourg Times, 30 Dec. 2025, www.luxtimes.lu/businessandfinance/the-belgian-company-at-the-heart-of-a-tussle-over-russias-frozen-assets/120623926.html. Accessed 24 Jan. 2026.  

EU. “EU Council Chief Says Talks on Russian Assets at Euroclear Not a Clash with Belgium.” Aa.com.tr, 2025, www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/eu-council-chief-says-talks-on-russian-assets-at-euroclear-not-a-clash-with-belgium/3773370. Accessed 24 Jan. 2026.  

Kirby, Paul. “EU Backs Indefinite Freeze on Russia’s Frozen Cash ahead of Big Loan Plan for Ukraine.” Bbc.com, BBC News, 12 Dec. 2025, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98nnd01g91o. Accessed 24 Jan. 2026.