• Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain and Poland are urging the EU to reopen discussions on making greater use of frozen Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine.
• The EU holds about €210 billion in immobilized Russian central-bank assets, most of them in Belgium.
• The four countries want the European Commission to explore legal and technical options for using the assets for Ukraine’s benefit.
• Their initiative comes as the EU’s previously approved €90 billion loan for Ukraine for 2026–2027 is considered insufficient to cover all of Kyiv’s needs.
• Belgium remains concerned about legal and financial risks because much of the Russian money is held through Brussels-based Euroclear.
• The issue is expected to return to the EU agenda at a meeting of foreign ministers in Ireland on September 1–2.
• The proposal is about finding a mechanism to make greater use of the immobilized assets themselves, not simply the profits already being generated from them.

Four EU countries are pushing Brussels to revive efforts to use more than €200 billion in frozen Russian central-bank assets to support Ukraine. Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain and Poland argue that Ukraine needs more predictable long-term financing as the EU’s existing €90 billion support package does not cover all of Kyiv’s needs.

Four EU Countries Want the Russian Assets Debate Reopened

Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain and Poland are calling on the European Union to restart work on a mechanism that could allow frozen Russian sovereign assets to be used for Ukraine.

The four countries sent a letter to EU foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas and Ireland’s Foreign Minister Helen McEntee, whose country currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency.

The initiative is aimed at reviving a debate that stalled earlier this year.

More Than €200 Billion Is at Stake

The European Union has immobilized approximately €210 billion in assets belonging to Russia’s central bank.

Most of this money is held in Belgium, where it is managed through the Brussels-based securities depository Euroclear.

The amount is therefore large enough to potentially have a major impact on Ukraine’s long-term financing.

The Four Countries Are Not Proposing a New Aid Package From National Budgets

The initiative is significant because it seeks to use Russian assets rather than simply asking EU governments to provide more money from their own budgets.

The four governments argue that the assets of the state responsible for the war should contribute to supporting Ukraine.

Their proposal is therefore fundamentally different from another conventional aid programme financed by European taxpayers.

Why Has the Issue Returned Now?

The push comes as Ukraine faces continuing financial and military needs.

The EU has already agreed to provide Kyiv with a €90 billion loan for 2026 and 2027.

However, the four countries argue that Ukraine needs additional support in both the short and long term.

The €90 Billion Loan Is Considered Insufficient

The existing EU loan was designed to cover a substantial part of Ukraine’s financial needs through 2027.

But the continuing war and intensified Russian attacks have increased pressure on Ukraine’s budget.

European governments are therefore looking for additional sources of financing.

Ukraine’s Defense Needs Are Growing

Ukraine continues to require large amounts of money for air defense, ammunition, drones, missiles and other military equipment.

The country’s own revenues cannot cover all wartime expenditure.

That makes predictable international financing increasingly important.

The Proposed Amount Could Be Enormous

The frozen Russian assets in Europe amount to more than €200 billion.

The four countries are therefore effectively asking the EU to explore whether a financial resource of unprecedented size could be used to support Ukraine.

The proposal does not mean that €200 billion has already been transferred to Kyiv.

It remains a political and legal initiative.

The Money Is Still Frozen

The assets are currently immobilized, meaning Russia cannot freely access them.

The EU has not simply transferred the principal amount to Ukraine.

Instead, the bloc has so far developed mechanisms to use extraordinary profits generated by some of these assets.

The EU Already Uses Profits From the Assets

The distinction between the assets themselves and the income they generate is important.

The EU has already established mechanisms allowing extraordinary revenues from immobilized Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine.

In August 2026, the EU announced another €1.4 billion in windfall profits generated by interest on immobilized Russian central-bank assets.

Billions in Windfall Profits Have Already Been Generated

According to the European External Action Service, the immobilized Russian assets had generated approximately €8 billion in windfall profits by August 2026.

Those revenues are already being used within European support mechanisms for Ukraine.

The New Proposal Goes Further

The four countries want the EU to return to the much more difficult question of how the underlying Russian assets could be used.

This is substantially more controversial than using the interest generated by those assets.

Belgium Is the Main Obstacle

Belgium has previously opposed plans that would expose it to potentially significant financial and legal liabilities.

The country’s concerns are particularly important because the majority of the Russian central-bank assets in Europe are held through Euroclear in Belgium.

Why Is Belgium Concerned?

Belgian authorities fear that using the assets could lead to legal challenges by Russia.

There are also concerns about what could happen to European financial markets if sovereign assets are confiscated or otherwise redirected.

The Legal Question Is Complicated

Russian sovereign assets enjoy protections under international law, and the EU has been cautious about directly confiscating them.

The central question is whether Europe can legally use the principal of the assets without creating unacceptable legal consequences.

Supporters Say New Legal Mechanisms Could Be Found

The four countries want the European Commission and EU governments to explore alternative legal and technical mechanisms.

They are asking Brussels to determine whether there are ways to overcome the existing obstacles and distribute potential risks among EU countries.

The Earlier Plan Failed

A previous proposal envisaged using the frozen Russian assets as the basis for a much larger loan to Ukraine.

That plan effectively stalled after Belgium refused to accept the associated risks.

The EU ultimately agreed on the €90 billion loan instead.

Now the Four Countries Want to Revisit the Idea

Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain and Poland argue that the circumstances have changed and that the EU should not abandon the issue.

Their letter calls for the discussion to be reopened rather than assuming that the previous proposal is the only possible model.

Why Sweden Is Leading the Initiative

Sweden initiated the current push.

The four countries represent different parts of the European Union — Northern Europe, Western Europe, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe.

Their combined support is intended to demonstrate that the issue is not limited to one regional group within the EU.

Poland Has a Particular Interest in Ukraine’s Defense

For Poland, Ukraine’s defense is directly connected to European security.

Warsaw has consistently argued that Russia must be prevented from continuing its aggression and that Ukraine needs sustained military support.

The Netherlands Has Also Been a Major Supporter

The Netherlands has provided significant military and financial support to Ukraine and has been involved in European discussions about using Russian assets.

Its participation adds weight to the proposal.

Spain’s Participation Broadens the Coalition

Spain’s involvement is also politically significant.

It shows that support for exploring the use of Russian assets extends beyond the countries closest geographically to Russia.

The Four Countries Want a Long-Term Solution

The letter argues that Ukraine needs support that is both predictable and structured.

The objective is not simply to find money for one quarter or one year.

The countries are looking for a mechanism that could provide Ukraine with greater financial certainty.

Why Predictability Matters for Ukraine

Military planning requires long-term commitments.

Ukraine needs to know whether it will have sufficient resources to purchase air-defense systems, ammunition and other equipment months and years ahead.

Uncertain financing makes strategic planning more difficult.

The Defense Budget Has Come Under Pressure

Ukraine has repeatedly warned its partners that military spending requirements are rising.

Russian bombardments are forcing Ukraine to spend more on air defense and long-range strike capabilities.

This makes additional financing particularly urgent.

European Budgets Are Also Under Pressure

At the same time, EU governments face their own fiscal constraints.

The idea of using frozen Russian assets is attractive to supporters because it could potentially reduce the need for European taxpayers to finance the entire burden.

The Political Argument Is Straightforward

Supporters of the initiative argue that Russia should ultimately bear the financial cost of the destruction caused by its war.

They see the frozen assets as a natural source of compensation.

The Legal Argument Is More Difficult

The fact that Russia is responsible for the war does not automatically resolve the legal status of sovereign assets.

This is why European governments have moved much more cautiously than Ukraine has requested.

Ukraine Has Welcomed the Initiative

Kyiv has consistently supported efforts to use Russian sovereign assets to finance Ukraine.

The Ukrainian government has argued that Russian resources should contribute to covering the enormous costs of the war.

The Debate Is About More Than Weapons

If a mechanism were created, the funds could potentially support Ukraine’s broader financial needs as well as defense.

The current four-country initiative is explicitly focused on strengthening Ukraine’s ability to withstand Russian aggression.

The Assets Are Mostly in Euroclear

The location of the assets is one of the most important practical issues.

A large share of the Russian central-bank assets is held at Euroclear in Brussels.

That makes Belgium particularly exposed to any legal or financial consequences.

Euroclear Is Not a Russian Bank

Euroclear is a major international financial infrastructure provider.

It holds and settles securities and cash for financial institutions.

The Russian central-bank assets became immobilized there following EU sanctions.

What Would Happen to Russia’s Claims?

Any mechanism that transferred or repurposed the principal could trigger claims from Russian authorities.

European governments therefore want to ensure that any solution is legally defensible.

The Financial-Market Risk Is Another Concern

European policymakers also have to consider whether other countries might reconsider holding reserves in European financial institutions if sovereign assets can be redirected.

That concern has been raised in the debate around confiscation.

Supporters Reject the Idea That Europe Should Wait

The four governments argue that Russia’s continued war makes the issue urgent.

Their position is that leaving the assets frozen indefinitely does not provide Ukraine with enough immediate support.

The September Meeting Could Restart the Process

The four countries want the issue discussed at the upcoming meeting of EU foreign ministers in Ireland on September 1–2.

This would not necessarily result in an immediate transfer of funds.

It would primarily reopen political and technical discussions.

The European Commission Has Signaled Openness to Examining the Proposal

A European Commission spokesperson said the institution was ready to provide assistance that might be needed and would study the letter carefully.

That does not amount to approval of the proposal.

But it means the initiative has reached the EU’s institutional agenda.

The Debate Could Become Part of the Next EU Budget

The issue is also connected to negotiations over the EU’s long-term budget for 2028–2034.

The question of how Europe will finance continued support for Ukraine is likely to become increasingly important in those negotiations.

Why the Timing Matters

European governments are also approaching new election cycles.

Several major EU countries are expected to hold elections in 2027.

Supporters of the proposal want to establish Ukraine’s financing arrangements before domestic political pressures become even stronger.

A Long-Term Fund Could Change Ukraine’s Planning

If Europe were able to establish a large multi-year financing mechanism backed by Russian assets, Ukraine could potentially plan defense procurement more confidently.

It could also give European defense companies greater certainty about future demand.

It Could Strengthen European Defense Production

A predictable flow of money for Ukrainian defense would likely support longer-term contracts.

That could encourage European and Ukrainian manufacturers to increase production capacity.

Ukraine Could Receive More Than Emergency Aid

The broader objective would be to move from short-term emergency assistance toward a predictable financing structure.

That could be particularly important for ammunition, drones, air defense and other systems requiring long production cycles.

The Proposal Still Faces Major Obstacles

Despite its scale, the initiative is far from becoming reality.

The key challenges include:

• Belgium’s opposition;
• legal risks;
• possible Russian litigation;
• concerns about European financial stability;
• the need for agreement among EU member states.

The Four Countries Cannot Decide Alone

EU member states would need to agree on the mechanism.

The European Commission would also have to determine how any proposal could be implemented within EU law.

The €200 Billion Figure Is Not a Confirmed Aid Package

This distinction is essential.

The more than €200 billion refers to the approximate value of Russian central-bank assets immobilized in the EU.

It does not mean that Ukraine has been promised €200 billion.

The current initiative is an attempt to reopen discussions about how these assets could potentially be used.

The €90 Billion Package Is Already Agreed

Ukraine already has access to the EU’s €90 billion support package for 2026–2027.

The new initiative is intended to explore additional or alternative financing beyond that existing arrangement.

The Difference Between Frozen Assets and Confiscation

The term “frozen” or “immobilized” means that the owner cannot freely use the assets.

Confiscation would mean permanently taking ownership.

The EU has so far avoided taking that final step with Russia’s sovereign principal.

The Current Debate Is About Finding a Legal Route

The four countries are calling for technical work to identify possible mechanisms.

That could involve loans, guarantees, risk-sharing arrangements or other structures rather than simply transferring the money directly to Ukraine.

The exact mechanism has not yet been agreed.

Why This Could Be a Turning Point

If the EU eventually finds a workable mechanism, it could unlock one of the largest pools of potential financing available for Ukraine.

It would also establish a precedent for making an aggressor state’s sovereign assets contribute to the cost of war.

Why It Could Also Set a Precedent

Other countries are watching the debate closely.

A decision by Europe to use Russian sovereign assets could influence how governments around the world think about sanctions, sovereign reserves and compensation after international conflicts.

Russia Is Expected to Oppose Any Such Move

Moscow has consistently rejected Western efforts to use its frozen assets for Ukraine.

A move to use the principal would almost certainly face Russian legal and political challenges.

Europe Is Trying to Balance Speed and Legal Certainty

The central dilemma is clear.

Ukraine needs money quickly.

European governments want to provide it without creating legal or financial risks that could affect the EU for decades.

The Current Proposal Seeks a Compromise

Instead of immediately confiscating the assets, the four countries want the EU to explore mechanisms that could allow the resources to support Ukraine while distributing risks across the bloc.

That is why the European Commission’s technical assessment will be important.

The Next Step Is Discussion, Not Transfer

The immediate outcome expected from the September meeting is political discussion.

There is no confirmed decision to transfer €200 billion to Ukraine.

The process would need several additional legal and political stages.

What the Proposal Could Mean for Ukraine

For Kyiv, successful use of the Russian assets could provide a major new source of funding for defense and other wartime needs.

It could also reduce pressure on Ukraine’s own budget and on European national budgets.

What It Could Mean for the EU

For the EU, the decision would involve both strategic and financial considerations.

Using Russian assets could strengthen Ukraine while demonstrating that the economic consequences of aggression can extend to the aggressor’s sovereign resources.

But the bloc would also have to manage the associated legal and financial risks.

The Question Is Back on Europe’s Agenda

After months of deadlock, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain and Poland have succeeded in putting the issue back into the European political debate.

The next major test will come in early September.

A Potentially Historic Financial Decision

If the EU eventually agrees on a mechanism to use the Russian assets themselves, it would represent a major shift in the financing of Ukraine’s defense.

For now, however, the proposal remains at the stage of political pressure and technical exploration.

What Happens Next

The four countries want EU foreign ministers to discuss the issue on September 1–2.

The European Commission is expected to examine their request and consider possible legal and technical options.

Belgium’s position will remain particularly important because of the concentration of Russian assets in Euroclear.

The central question for Europe is increasingly clear: should Russian sovereign assets remain frozen until the end of the war, or can they be transformed into a long-term source of financing for Ukraine’s defense?