The Golden Cage for Russian Billions: Why Brussels Delays Transfer of Frozen Assets

When European countries imposed sanctions in spring 2022, freezing Russian assets worth hundreds of billions of euros, it was perceived as a powerful and just blow to the aggressor. The world watched as the West finally applied real leverage against Putin’s Russia. The lion’s share of these funds—approximately 190 billion euros—ended up in the Belgian financial depository Euroclear. However, today, nearly four years after the start of the full-scale war, this money remains blocked, and its transfer to Ukraine is deliberately delayed.

According to Politico, citing anonymous diplomats, this delay is driven not so much by legal concerns as by Belgium’s own selfish financial interests. Brussels, which has become a golden cage for Russian billions, is suspected of profiting from the war while other EU countries try to find ways to help Ukraine.

Hidden Motives and Financial Gain

According to diplomats, Belgium is using frozen assets as a source of income. Euroclear generates profit by managing these funds, and the Belgian government receives substantial tax revenues from this profit. Politico’s sources claim that in 2024 alone, Belgium could have received up to 1.7 billion euros in taxes from profits on Russian assets. This sum, sources say, goes directly into Belgium’s budget, causing outrage among other EU countries.

This fact is particularly infuriating because in 2024, Belgium publicly promised to transfer these tax revenues to the Ukraine aid fund. However, according to diplomats, this promise was “quietly forgotten.” Instead, Brussels allegedly uses these funds for its own needs, making its position on Russian assets extremely suspicious.

The situation appears cynical: while Ukrainian cities endure missile strikes, while people die, while critical infrastructure is destroyed, Belgium quietly fills its coffers with money that should have gone toward Ukraine’s recovery and defense. This is not merely a bureaucratic delay—it’s a conscious decision to place profit above solidarity and justice.

Belgium Blocks Pan-European Initiatives

Criticism of Belgium intensified after it became clear that Brussels is blocking collective European decisions on transferring assets to Ukraine. Prime Minister Bart De Wever sent a letter to the European Commission expressing sharp disagreement with the plan to use frozen assets to finance a loan to Ukraine. He argued that confiscation of assets could jeopardize a potential peace agreement and lead to lawsuits from Russia.

Belgium’s demand for “legally binding, unconditional and irrevocable” guarantees from the EU to cover possible losses in case of lawsuits from Russia has caused outrage among other European leaders. According to critics, this demand is excessive and effectively blocking, and Brussels is using legal risks as a pretext to continue receiving its financial benefits.

The paradox is that Belgium demands absolute guarantees against possible losses while quietly pocketing billions of euros in taxes. Other EU member states rightfully ask: if Brussels receives such significant profit from these assets, why is it unwilling to accept corresponding risks? Why should other European capitals guarantee Belgian revenues when Belgium itself is unwilling to share its windfall profits?

Consequences for Ukraine and Europe

Belgium’s position jeopardizes the pan-European plan to use frozen assets to finance a loan to Ukraine, which could provide Kyiv with up to 140 billion euros. These funds could be critically important for rebuilding energy infrastructure, restoring destroyed cities, supporting the economy, and strengthening Ukraine’s defense capabilities.

As a result of Belgian obstruction, other European countries have been forced to seek alternative financing options, creating additional difficulties and delaying aid to Ukraine. Every day of delay is not just abstract figures in reports—it’s concrete lives that could have been saved, hospitals, schools, and power plants that could have been rebuilt.

If Belgium continues to insist on its position, EU countries may raise the issue of its improper appropriation of tax revenues at the upcoming summit. This could lead to serious diplomatic pressure on Brussels and call into question its role as a reliable partner on issues concerning aid to Ukraine.

The Moral Dimension of the Problem

The situation with Belgian “earnings” from Russian assets exposes a deeper problem of European solidarity. While some EU countries increase military aid to Ukraine, accept millions of refugees, and reform their economies by abandoning Russian gas, Belgium appears to have found a way to profit from tragedy.

This undermines trust between European partners and creates a dangerous precedent. If one country can place its financial interests above collective obligations to a nation defending European values against Russian aggression, what is the price of European solidarity? What guarantees exist that other countries won’t follow the same path?

What’s Next?

The European Union finds itself at a crossroads. The question is no longer just how to help Ukraine, but whether Europe is capable of preserving its own unity and moral foundations. Belgium must make a choice: either become part of a common solution or remain a country that placed profit above principles.

For Ukraine, every day of delay means new casualties, new destruction, new ordeals for millions of people. For Europe, this is a test of genuine solidarity and the ability to act according to declared values.

The situation surrounding frozen Russian assets has become a striking example of how the financial interests of one EU member can obstruct collective efforts to support Ukraine during wartime. While Belgium publicly declares its solidarity with Ukraine, it allegedly earns billions from blocked Russian funds, as Ukrainian soldiers and civilians continue to suffer from the consequences of Russian aggression.

This “golden cage” for Russian assets appears to have become not only a source of income for Belgium but also a symbol of European divisions that play into the Kremlin’s hands. After all, every delay, every bureaucratic obstacle, every dispute between European capitals is a small victory for Putin, who has always counted on the West failing the test of unity.

Ultimately, this situation poses a sharp question to Europe: what matters more—the financial gain of one state or unity and solidarity in the fight for justice? The answer to this question will determine not only the future of aid to Ukraine but also the future of the European Union itself as a community based on shared values and mutual support.

History will judge us not by beautiful declarations but by concrete actions. And if Europe allows one country to profit from others’ misery while others fight for a common future, it will be a moral defeat that no legal argument can justify.