The summit of European heads of state, taking place in Brussels on December 18 and 19, stands as a crucial test of the 27 member states’ ability to finally put the idea of a “powerful Europe” into action. Long held up as a banner by leaders, the term has so far struggled to manifest into reality. The decision regarding the future of the frozen Russian assets in Europe is set to be critical for the European Union’s credibility in the face of Russian aggression and US indifference.

The issue centers on the use of €210 billion belonging to the Central Bank of Russia, currently blocked in Europe under international sanctions imposed after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. With US aid suspended since Donald Trump’s election and Europe’s support capacity for Kyiv flagging, the 27 member states have been forced to find new resources to keep Ukraine afloat. The situation is urgent, as Ukraine will run out of cash in the first half of 2026. Hence the plan to use Russian assets to raise money by means of a “reparations loan” to benefit Ukraine.

The challenge lies in using these assets while respecting international law. The European Commission has put forward a proposal that would overcome most legal hurdles. The European Union would raise funds by asking institutions holding Russian assets to lend them to the EU at favorable rates. The money would then be made available to Ukraine, which would repay the loan if Russia eventually agreed to pay reparations for war damages. This complex mechanism avoids the operation being characterized as confiscation.

The proposal has broad support among the 27 member states, with the notable exception of Belgium, where most of the Russian assets are held within Euroclear, a Brussels-based financial deposit institution. The concerns of Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever are legitimate. Russian agents have issued physical threats against Euroclear staff, while Moscow is taking increasing legal action against the Belgian company. The EU has responded by pledging European solidarity in the event of reprisals, particularly concerning budget guarantees.

Yet it is also legitimate to question the real motivations behind the reservations voiced by De Wever, a Flemish nationalist who, just days ago, declared it would not be desirable for Russia to lose the war. While it is understandable that Belgium does not wish to be left alone on the front line, the country’s leader must clarify his position on support for Ukraine, a pivotal issue for European security.

Technically, the 27 member states can move forward without Belgium’s agreement, but not politically. Forcing through a decision would trigger a crisis with unpredictable consequences. Yet failing to use the Russian assets would be even more damaging. It would confirm the EU’s inability to meet confrontation head-on, folding at the first sign of intimidation. In the face of Russia intensifying its hybrid war against Europe, it is vital for the EU to command respect. The Russian assets are one of the few levers left to defend its interests. Renouncing them would send a disastrous message both to its adversaries and to those who still believe in the European project.