Belgium: Sovereign European State

On the conflict between Belgium and the European Commission over Russian assets

For more than a year, the international press has been stirring things up, writing commissioned articles, and lobbying heavily for and alongside European politicians, with a particular focus on the use of Russian funds frozen in Western banks at the start of the war in Ukraine in February 2022. The total amount of these funds is approximately €320 billion[1], of which €210-230 billion is located in EU countries or their surroundings. There are two categories of countries here: those that have officially declared the amounts they hold, such as Belgium with €185 billion, and those that have not yet declared the exact amount on the grounds that “the money is in private banks” (sic!), France with 20-30 billion euros, England with 20-25 billion pounds, the USA with 5-6 billion dollars, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, and Singapore combined with 20-30 billion euros, and Japan with “several billion”.[2]

Absolute transparency!

The colossal sum has been giving the European Commission (EC) pause for thought for some time now, as to how to use it or, better still, confiscate it.

But this required a strategy worthy of attention, which we will attempt to unravel below!

After bombarding the European Union (EU) population with this topic in the media for over a year, like artillery before a ground invasion, in a bid to achieve uniformity of thoughts, at the end of September 2025, the EC established its imperial strategy. In fact, the strategy was no different from the one used until then, up to a point.

The cannons representing the mass media loyal to the cause, charged with the “holy” mission of crushing the will of the people and annihilating their existential symptoms, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and its powerful arm, Rapid Response Systems (RRS), as censorship mechanisms that were to prevent the dissemination of information that was not to the taste of the Union[3], and the infantry was represented by NGOs generously funded by European programs with public money.[4]

In this case, the victim was to be Belgium, a small country of only 11 million inhabitants, peaceful by definition and also a founding member of the EU.

The balance of power, clearly in favor of the EC, which was supported by the leaders of the 25 member states, except Hungary, made the image suggest a steamroller-compressor passing over a mound of Belgian ants on its messianic path to sow peace and prosperity on the continent.

As in the biblical battle between David and Goliath, the outcome was surprising.

Now, more than a month after the events unfolded, when silence has fallen suspiciously quickly in the international press, it would be interesting to observe what were the most important phases in the unfolding of the event and what are the consequences for the Old Continent and its long-suffering population.

The strategy opted for by the EC, as outlined above, had nothing in common with classical or modern diplomacy. It was rather a mixture of intimidation through the display of force—the “GORILLA” model—misinformation through a flood of information divorced from reality, and psychological pressure. And the operation was carried out by colorful, arrogant actors with little public credibility. Essentially, the complex and “noisy” strategy established by the EC was developed on the basis of a “lack of understanding of the problem,” which clearly led to the development of a “fundamentally flawed” plan (letter from Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever to EC President Ursula Von der Leyen on November 27, 2025).*

In fact, the letter and the words used by the Belgian Prime Minister (PM) revealed diplomatic maneuvers underway and the ferocity of the battle being fought through these channels. The differing visions of a founding member of the EU and the EC were fundamental.

But in order to arrive at this diplomatically worded letter of defection, one must take into account the maneuvers of Belgian diplomacy, which are worthy of being cited as examples in future books on negotiation.

Sometime in mid-2024, as if on cue, after the Belgian PM had consolidated his position, with reference to Russian money in Euroclear — a Belgian financial institution — within his government alliance, the entire Belgian diplomatic corps, which numbers less than 3,000 people (including ushers and drivers)[5] worldwide, sprang into action with remarkable speed, efficiency, and devotion to the Belgian flag and 21st-century human values. The strategies developed, sometimes ad hoc, were followed and synchronised perfectly.

From the inductive negotiation model (concrete observations and experiences on a phenomenon/issue, in order to deduct general principles or rules) to the deductive negotiation model (moving from a general principle to a particular principle), using implacable logic, throwing up smokescreens to ease the pressure on him, everything was synchronized and used to perfection.[6]. As time passed, support, both internally and externally, arrived slowly but surely. Internally, Belgian PM Bart de Wever achieved the extremely rare (and probably unprecedented) feat of aligning all the country’s political parties behind his action (including opposition parties, which would publicly support him).

In foreign policy, new countries aligned themselves with the Belgian cause, including Babis’s Czech Republic and Fico’s Slovakia.

As of September 2025, the deadlock became embarrassing for the EC, so the EC President called on the “heavy cavalry” to join the fray. France, Germany, and Europe’s fugitive, England, with its versatile PM Starmer (who promised domestically before the elections that he would not raise taxes on the British people, but after his election victory, he raised them substantially). Visit after visit to Brussels, London, Paris, Rome and Berlin followed without any notable progress. As a result, major European powers, in cahoots with a vassal international press, will attempt a new communication maneuver. They will present the issue as simplistically as possible to suggest the “stupidity” of the Belgian leader.

In other words, Belgium would demand too many guarantees from the EC that it would not be left alone to pay the Russians at the end of the war. The Belgian Foreign Minister, Maxime Prevot, put it as it really was: “We are certainly not pro-Russian, but the other member states of the European Union cannot demand Belgium’s solidarity and at the same time refuse to offer us the same solidarity.” (rtbf.be – 17.12.2025). The Belgian PM added that the EC was proposing “a fundamentally flawed solution”: “This is money from a country with which we are not at war. It would be like breaking into an embassy, taking out all the furniture, and selling it”. Both statements shed light on an issue that was much more complex than EC officials suggested in the press. In fact, Belgium was drawing attention to a more complex set of problems that could arise without serious and mature management on the part of the EU. This could serve as a precedent for other international actors and could have incalculable consequences in the future for European finances and for world peace and security[7] . Apart from the fact that US President Donald Trump is taking actions around the world without any legal basis, Europe must maintain its position of respect for the existing international order, established at the end of World War II. And Belgium’s position was based precisely on this type of argument.

There were three main points that Belgium wanted to bring up:

International law:

– The EC is requesting Belgium’s approval to use frozen Russian sovereign assets worth €185 billion held at Euroclear (Belgium) as collateral for loans worth €90-140 billion to be granted to Ukraine in 2026-2027.

Belgium, on the other hand, feared possible lawsuits brought by Russia under bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or arbitration with its courts as a battleground. No EU compensation could fully protect it from potential claims. At the same time, one of Russia’s top bankers threatened 50 years of litigation if the idea became reality. Moreover, the “scheme” could affect Euroclear’s credibility, discouraging global depositors and eroding confidence in Belgian financial centers if Russia retaliates or if sanctions are lifted. Several countries have already begun withdrawing their money and refraining from making new investments in euros because they believe the same thing could happen to them one day (China, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf countries). Other countries have expressed their desire to withdraw all their money (Hungary) if the EC’s action is successful. The consequence has also been signaled by the European Central Bank, which “is also among the skeptics, fearing that any measure to confiscate Russian assets would undermine confidence in the euro and damage financial stability”.[8]

– When the conflict ends, the parties involved—Russia and Ukraine—can ask for war reparations or compensation for the damage they caused. However, according to international law, this is possible in three situations.

When the parties directly involved (Russia and Ukraine) agree on the compensation to be paid (a treaty must be signed between the two parties), when the winner forces the loser to sign a treaty under pressure, or when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has a decision in this regard, and the third possibility is through the activation of various compensation mechanisms such as the UN Compensation Commission.[9]

However, none of these three solutions offers a clear legal basis for confiscating Russia’s money for use in compensatory measures at the end of the war.

Financial point of view:

-Under the contractual obligation within the BIT, Euroclear is obliged to pay Russia the money (€200 billion) at the first request if the sanctions are lifted (it should not be forgotten there is already a Trump-Putin deal regarding the use of these frozen funds). But as Euroclear no longer holds this money, because it has been deposited as collateral for the loan to Ukraine, the Belgian state would be obliged to intervene (it holds 20% of the shares). However, Belgium’s operating budget for one year is
€200 billion, which would automatically lead to Belgium’s bankruptcy. In addition, the EC accuses Belgium of earning a high annual interest rate on the money deposited with Euroclear, which exceeds Belgium’s contribution to the war effort.

In response, Belgian officials demonstrated that the country’s contribution to the war effort, calculated on the basis of each country’s GDP, had been paid in full to the last cent, despite Belgium already having an internal budget deficit of €20 billion.

-Belgian businesspeople have invested in Russia and hold assets worth over €18 billion. They have expressed concern about their investments after the media sensationalized the issue and Russia announced legal action to confiscate investments made by Belgian investors. (Other European countries—France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Denmark…—also have investments in Russia. Total investments amount to €215.6 billion).[10]

In this case, too, the EC offers no guarantees against potential losses (see the Raiffeisen Bank case).

In terms of international peace:

Also in his letter to the President of the European Commission on November 27, 2025, Belgian PM Bart De Wever mentioned that “the European Union’s plan to use frozen Russian state assets to finance Ukraine could undermine the chances of a potential peace agreement that would end the war that has been going on for almost four years”.[11]

His statement was essentially based on events that were visible both internationally and on the battlefield:

a) The US stopped funding Ukraine when President Trump took office.

b) More than 60% of the war effort is shouldered by the EU[12] and the high-performance weapons used by the Ukrainian armed forces are bought from the US by the EU and then donated to Ukraine (sic!).

c) The situation on the front lines at the end of 2025 is disastrous for Ukrainian forces, and there is no sign of improvement. They lost more than 4,200 km² of territory in 2025 alone.

d) The number of victims, summed up by both parties, is about 35,000-40,000 deaths/month.[13]

e) The EU population is exhausted by the economic and financial effort made in this war and the economies of the main European countries are stagnating or preparing to enter a recession (France, Germany, Italy, England). The cost of living in Europe has increased by more than 30% in the last 6 years, including the COVID period[14], during which the EU is forced to buy at exorbitant prices, in order to ensure its subsistence, energy from the USA through harmful agreements for its population.

f) Far-right political parties in the EU are slowly but surely climbing in the polls, and 2026 and 2027 are years in which parliamentary and presidential elections (10 countries) will impact the future of the EU.

So in Belgium’s view, European peace and security are threatened from within the system, while inviting the EC and member states to meditate before choosing a solution.[15]

Noting the determination with which Belgium defends its interests, especially as other voices have joined it, the EC is adapting its tactics and threatening to use Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). The TFEU was designed for situations of maximum urgency. Used less and less lately and only when the situation was absolutely necessary (the financial crisis of 2010, the immigrant crisis of 2016, the COVID crisis of 2020-2022, the energy crisis of 2022 and the decision on the immobilization of Russia’s assets of 2025) appeared as a possible solution for the adoption in force of a questionable legal act.

Article 122 of the TFEU states that only EU Member States affected by an economic, financial or natural disaster from outside the Union are covered. Paragraph 1 of Article 122 allows the Council, “in a spirit of solidarity between Member States“, to decide on measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular where there are serious difficulties in the supply of certain products. And paragraph 2 empowers the Council to grant Union financial assistance to a Member State facing serious difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional events. The initiative of the legal act, which would come from the EC, is subject to the approval of the Council which, on the basis of a qualified majority vote, can vote for it or not. And the European Parliament cannot interfere in the process of adopting a legal act issued by the Council.

It is interesting to note the interpretation, at least strange, of Article 122 by the EC.

In this case, the EC explains that the war in Ukraine, started by Russia, has caused a “serious economic impact“ for the EU, triggering “serious supply disruptions, greater uncertainty, higher risk premiums, lower investment and consumption expenditure”. Consequently, the EC considers that it would have the right to use Russia’s money, not to reduce the energy bills of the EU population or to make efficient investments in order to improve the living conditions of its population, but to continue arming Ukraine (sic !).

Three things stand out in the logic of the EC’s argument:

Firstly, Article 122 (1) of the TFEU, designed for economic solidarity between Member States or from the EC to a Member State in situations of supply crisis, such as energy shortages, does not apply to foreign policy sanctions or asset freezes against third countries.

Secondly, the EC elites show an extraordinary imagination and cynicism. The poverty of the EU population does not interest them. The bills and costs of our lives are constantly increasing, as money goes to support a corrupt administration in Ukraine in a war lost from the beginning[16]. The appearance of a hybrid ostrich-camel animal on the streets of Brussels I do not think would be as surprising as the arguments made by the EC President, Ms Ursula Von der Layen. It is clear that the EU population is only a pawn on a chess board in which the president condemns several million more people to total poverty and perpetual indebtedness.

Thirdly, the EC and its complicit countries have made it clear that they do not care how many Ukrainians and Russians die from now on.

Belgium’s stance is getting other countries to start realizing the danger the EU is slowly but surely getting into by backing the EC’s proposal. Malta and Bulgaria will also back Belgium’s position.

But even with Germany in favour and France and Italy undecided, the vote was still in favour of the EC. It was Italy led by its charismatic leader G. Meloni who would ultimately decide the dynamics of the vote. The support given by France, after Italy had placed itself in the direction of Belgium, came on a purely economic motivation. If Belgium was going to lay off the 185 billion euros, then France would have to leave the 25 billion euros, money that is in the accounts of French banks, out of its hands. Given that France’s economy is in a phase of stagnation with a deficit of 5.4% and public debt of 115%, well above the limit of the EU treaty established in Maastricht, the decision seems quite natural. Even more so because France has investments made in Russia of over 9 billion euros. In the same logic, G. Meloni who prefers to protect their investments made in Russia (4 billion euros), to continue to keep money to Russia that is in its temporarily frozen accounts and to “enjoy” the assets already seized and traded, following the EC decision, which belonged to Russian businessmen (2.3 billion euros).

This time, “Lorelai’s Song” failed to prevail over Italian-French pragmatism. After lengthy negotiations, 24 member states reached an agreement, allowing Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic to withdraw without exercising veto power through “enhanced cooperation” on December 18, 2025.

The European Council President Antonio Costa announced the agreement, which would cover Ukraine’s needs for 2026-2027 in terms of military (60 billion euros) and budgetary (30 billion euros) support. This money will be borrowed from the global capital market and will be given as a loan to Ukraine. The interest, which amounts to 3 billion euros annually, will be borne by the EU, which will distribute them proportionally to the 24 member countries, except those that opted not to participate, in particular Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic. But according to estimates of the International Monetary Fund, due to the reduction of financial support from the US, Ukraine’s budget deficit in the next two years will approach $160 billion. The figures mentioned by the IMF are much more credible than those suggested by the EU which has the habit of providing an amount at the beginning after which it slowly but surely changes.

A few questions are worth asking.

Where will the EU get this 160 billion euros, in the context in which it has already pumped 200 billion into this war? Will the EU be able to finance the committed part (now 90 billion euros) given that so far only half of the funds promised by the EU on various topics (commitments on climate finance, development aid, humanitarian aid) have been delivered, and with the cost of living constantly increasing in the EU by 10-15% annually? Are the economies and finances of the 24 EU countries so “healthy” that they can afford to borrow money for Ukraine? The answer to these questions offered by the EU’s over-feminised leaders is simple. New loans and bonds will be contracted to fuel the war in Ukraine. In reality, this money will be paid by the EU population. The Draghi report (2024) talks about the need for the EU to invest 750-800 billion annually in the dying European economy or 5% of the EU’S GDP to close the competitiveness gap with the US and China.

Instead, in addition to funding the war in Ukraine (1/4 of its annual budget or €200 billion over four years)[17], the EC promises President Trump to invest $750 billion in the US, with an agreement to be signed to this effect, buys energy from the U.S. at a prohibitive price, sacrifices its European agriculture by introducing absurd savings, and signs agreements with MERCOSUR and India to protect Germany’s automotive and France’s alcohol industries.

Investors have reduced their participation in the EU economy due to the suffocating bureaucratic system and what speaks of “suppleness” and “transparency” because it sounds good, is part of the smoke curtain thrown. Max Weber regarded bureaucracy as the embodiment of “rational-legal authority,” contrasting it with traditional or charismatic power, and essential for modern states and corporations to manage complexity predictably. But he warned of the potential rigidity of the “iron cage” stifling innovation. Yes, the” iron cage “ already choked us.

The only big advantage that the European bureaucracy rests on is that the EU with its 440 million inhabitants are serious consumers. But if the “sheep “no longer have enough money to spend, this obviously decreases consumption. Indeed, consumption in the EU decreased in 2025 compared to 2024, which also decreases the amount of money that goes to the EU budget. It is possible that new taxes and spectacular financial engineering like that which occurred during COVID, or confiscating Russia’s money, can still save the EU budget[18]. How much longer can the EU population endure such damaging financial engineering?i

Consequences:

1. The War will continue without its course taking a different direction. Hundreds of thousands more will die. This crime is perpetuated only with the help and encouragement of leaders from Brussels, Paris, and London. The effort made by U.S. President Trump to stop the bloodshed in this war is hampered by the stubbornness of some “weak” and “decadent” European leaders[19]. At the same time, the situation comforts the American leader both economically (the EU is buying weapons from the USA to continue arming Ukraine, the EU is buying expensive energy from the USA, the EU is increasingly indebted to the global financial market) and geostrategically (the EU is becoming increasingly irrelevant internationally and quasi non-existent militarily). General observation: If the children of those who continue to encourage the continuation of war were on the front line to defend what their parents encourage and support, peace would very soon arrive.

2. The EU is divided, with no political consensus. Each country promotes its own interests. Sometimes heteroclite groups of countries force a decision to be reached. Generally, Germany, France, and Italy are part of this group. More recently, Poland and Spain have also emerged as important players. In this regard, the struggle for the main positions in EU institutions is fierce. Small countries, regarded as vassal states, are counted only to force a decision. After Orban’s Hungary initiated several “attacks” on the strategy and misguided policies initiated by the EC, the Council is thinking of a solution to permanently bury the rights of small and mid-sized countries by moving from a system of unanimous voting to a system of simple majority voting.

In this new framework the bureaucratic system will be strictly made only by the large EU member countries.

3. EU member countries will have major difficulties in delivering the 90 billion euros promised to Ukraine. The difficulty comes not from contracting the loan, but from the fact that the EU will have to contract other loans for its internal development and if the IMF forecast is correct, contracting new loans up to the 160 billion needed to continue the war by the end of 2027. In these circumstances a deadlock situation at the end of 2026 is very likely. More recently, new smokescreens have been created by the Western media and are served up to us daily. Given the current situation, Russia is facing significant economic challenges and will likely seek peace soon. In contrast, the statistics say that if the EU recorded an economic growth of 0.9% in 2024 and 1.4% in 2025, Russia had 4.3% in 2024 and 1% in 2025, under conditions of war.[20] The smokescreens put up by the international media are just to calm down the European psyche that the Russians are close to exhaustion so that one more small effort on our part (such as an extra tax) would be enough to defeat them or convince them to come to the negotiating table in a submissive manner.

4. The insatiability of the administrations of the American Democrats Clinton, Obama (who received the Nobel Peace Prize and introduced the “legacy of endless war”)[21], and Biden led to the creation of this explosive situation in Ukraine that can lead humanity to the brink of extinction. Obviously, the emergence of leaders in the EU without experience, elected more on principles of proportionality or corruption (Eva Kaili, Ursula Von Der Layen, Holohei, Mogherini…) helped to sacrifice Ukraine. The Ukrainian and Russian populations are the only ones paying this huge price.

Ukraine, a country extremely rich in terms of agriculture, minerals and human resources, at the confluence of EU interests with Russia and divided into zones of influence between them, had every chance to become an very prosperous country by developing itself, drawing advantages from both sides. In addition, it would help the EU to maintain a high international level in terms of economic development, scientific research, education and medical care, and standard of living.

But because of their thirst for power and desire to keep expanding its territory (check out Central and Eastern Europe), the EU and the US, who knew how to stir up the Ukrainians’ egos, created the humanitarian disaster that Ukraine and Russia are currently facing.[22]

5. Against this backdrop of Western ethical and moral decadence, China may well become the world’s premier power. And Russia supports it in categorical terms. In March 2023, Xi Jinping, on the occasion of his visit to Moscow, told his “friend” Vladimir Putin on leaving, “meetings and agreements of this kind take place every few hundred years”.[23]. America managed to distance Germany from Russia. But at what cost? Russia has found a more reliable and honest partner, complementary to its economic and strategic interests. China is the world’s largest creditor nation today (U.S. Treasuries benefit from $775 billion of the $3 trillion scattered around the world). Where is the EU, the victim of its own alienated strategists?

6. In the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine ,the latter says it wants to keep 800,000 soldiers under Arms, a security guarantee indispensable to its existence. Given that Ukraine will lose at least a quarter of its territory, the richest in minerals, and will be indebted to the financial market for at least another 10 generations, the EU is in a situation of economic stagnation (not to mention economic regression), the US has stopped providing aid to Ukraine, at least during the Trump administration, so who will provide the money needed for rearmament? Because those who will finance such an adventure are already thinking and foreseeing a Third World War.

7. The lesson offered by Belgium must be multiplied. Small countries, but with respect for the European moral and ethical values accumulated for millennia, must continue to exist and make their point known. Europe cannot be infinitely ruled by incompetence, nepotism and corruption. We need capable people, who we have, and who should lead us!

Bravo Belgium !!!

[1] The estimates are based on the lack of information that the international media has accustomed us to; europarl.europa, nytimes, kyivindependent, brusselstimes, euronews, reuters, epthinktank, politico. In these cases, the DSA does not apply… for obvious reasons.

[2] This fund of €310-320 billion does not include the amounts confiscated from Russian businessmen who held assets or money in Western banks. Their assets have been sold and the money has already been spent by the countries that confiscated it (France, England, Spain, etc.). A “blacklist” that is constantly updated based on simple complaints has been circulating for several years at the EC. The BBC wrote on December 26, 2025, that there was “a collective loss—of Russian billionaires—of $263 billion.”

[3] DSA was successfully used in the referendum held in Moldova in October 2024 and in the coup d’état in Romania in December 2024.

[4] https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAHTMLNews/NEWS-SR-2025-11/en/body.html

5 European institutions have 60,000 employees. Of these, 32,871 work for the EC, 8,000 for the EP, 3,500 for the Council, and the rest for the ECJ, EEAS, and others. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/772909/EPRS_BRI(2025)772909_EN.pdf

6 news.futunn.com-21.10.2025

[7] Look at the case of Kosovo, which went from being a province belonging to Serbia, UN Resolution 1244/1999, to becoming an independent state in 2008 under pressure and diplomatic maneuvering by the EU in collusion with the US. At the time, Russia warned that this would set a precedent that could disrupt all agreements established after 1945. In 2014, Russia used the same set of arguments to annex Crimea.

[8] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-west-uses-russias-frozen-reserves-help-ukraine-2025-03-05/

[9] Primo, as long as EU countries are not directly involved in war with Russia, they have no right to be signatories to an agreement referring to possible compensation.

Secondo, Russia is a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice by virtue of its UN membership, because all UN member states are automatically parties to the ICJ Statute under Article 93 of the UN Charter. However, this does not mean Russia accepts the Court’s jurisdiction in all disputes: like other states, it must still consent in each case (for example, through a compromissory clause in a treaty, a special agreement, or a declaration under Article 36), which is why jurisdiction is contested in cases such as Ukraine v. Russia.

Terzo, a possible UN compensation commission could raise money primarily from international donors at the international conferences it organises. The UN can only contribute a very small amount to this budget. Firstly, because its operating budget does not allow it (5.4 billion dollars for 2025-2026) and secondly, because only 61 countries have paid their annual contribution. Among the countries that have not yet paid their contribution to the UN are the USA, Russia, and China.

[10] https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/russia_en

[11] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/belgium-pm-says-using-frozen-russian-assets-could-derail-ukraine-peace-deal-2025-11-28/