The Ukraine War and the Decision-Making Crisis in Europe

Strategic Council Online – Opinion: At the European Union summit, it was decided that, to assist Ukraine, instead of using Russia’s frozen assets in European countries, 90 billion euros would be borrowed from financial markets and allocated to Ukraine. This issue is considered a very significant development in the European Union’s policy toward Russia.

Seyed Reza Mirtaher – International Affairs Expert

Until now, most European leaders supported the view that Russia’s frozen assets in European countries, estimated at over 300 billion euros, should be used and allocated to help Ukraine. However, this matter has created a new rift within the European Union. In particular, Belgium, which holds the largest frozen Russian monetary reserves among European countries (approximately 160 to 200 billion euros), expressed opposition to this issue. This opposition is primarily because, first, such action contradicts international banking and financial regulations. If this action were normalized, any country would claim the right to seize the assets of a third country within its territory and use them in any way. In other words, such a step would completely undermine trust in the international financial and monetary system, and countries would not be able to trust each other with the safekeeping of monetary deposits. The second reason relates to Belgium’s concern that Russia might file claims against it in related international forums and institutions, demanding the return of its frozen assets. The third reason essentially stems from the Europeans’ uncertainty about the ultimate outcome of the Ukraine war, particularly in light of Donald Trump’s 25-point peace plan for Ukraine. Trump threatened that if Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, did not accept this plan, which centers on transferring between 20 to 25 percent of Ukraine’s total territory to Russia, U.S. aid to Ukraine would effectively be halted. If this occurs, even with European assistance, Ukraine would certainly be unable to continue the war against Russia.

It seems that these combined factors have led Europeans to act with greater caution. Whereas previously they continuously extended sanctions on Russia, today, given opposition from EU member states, especially Hungary and Slovakia, consensus within the European Union has eroded. In this context, intensifying disagreements is inevitable given the ongoing Ukraine war.

Meanwhile, Europe, recognizing that the U.S. president has in effect suspended American aid to Ukraine and that European countries are compelled to cover the costs of the military equipment supplied by the United States, has partially adjusted its policy toward Ukraine. Europe, due to security threats from Russia, considers it obligated to provide all possible support to Ukraine so that it can resist Russia. Some Western analysts have claimed that Russia intends not only to capture all Ukrainian territory but also to expand its influence in Eastern Europe, which was the Soviet sphere of influence after World War II. Indeed, from Ms. Maya Kallas’s perspective, Head of European Union Foreign Policy, this would constitute an existential threat to Europe from Russia. Therefore, Europeans regard the Ukraine war as a life-and-death struggle for themselves and believe that a Russian victory, even if accompanied by territorial gains, would open the way for Moscow to make new claims and take new actions in Europe. In this situation, according to Eastern NATO and EU members, such as the three Baltic republics, direct security threats from Russia will be directed at these countries. Hence, at this critical moment, Europeans, given Belgium’s opposition to using Russia’s frozen assets to aid Ukraine, were forced to consider an alternative: borrowing from European financial markets and providing a 90-billion-euro loan to Ukraine. This will be used both to support the Ukrainian government and to continue military backing of the Ukrainian army.