Using Russian Assets As Collateral Is a Fantasy

Speech by Ralf Dekker MP to Parliament, 17 December 2025

Chair,

In terms of support for Ukraine, the Netherlands is the world’s leading donor per capita. If we include the money spent on receiving Ukrainians here, we have already spent approximately €20 billion.

On top of this come the negative economic effects of EU sanctions.

One of the EU’s 19 sanctions packages against Russia involves freezing the central bank reserves that Russia holds within the EU, around €190 billion of which is held at Euroclear in Brussels.

The EU sanctions were introduced with the rule that they must be renewed every six months, unless one of the EU Member States exercises a veto. Unanimity was therefore required for renewal.

This was radically changed last week. By invoking economic emergency measures (Article 122 TFEU), a new rule has been agreed whereby Russian assets in the EU will remain frozen permanently, unless unanimity is reached to decide otherwise.

A veto therefore now works in exactly the opposite way to before. This has led to anger in Hungary and Slovakia. But Belgium, Italy, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic also oppose this. In my view, that anger is justified. The rules of the game are being changed during the game itself. Legal vandalism.

The next idea is to use these permanently frozen Russian assets as temporary collateral for the issuance of loans to Ukraine and to oblige the Belgian institution Euroclear, which holds €40 trillion in foreign assets, to provide loans on this basis in exchange for eurobonds. So-called “forced loans”.

These loans would only need to be repaid by Ukraine once Russia starts paying war reparations, assuming, of course, that Russia will ultimately be the losing party.

Chair, let us be realistic. Reparations from Russia will not materialise. Using permanently frozen Russian assets as temporary collateral until imaginary war reparations are received is a fantasy, and completely contrary to existing international law.

First of all, this move amounts to de facto confiscation. That is close to a declaration of war. It is an escalation that will provoke severe Russian countermeasures.

Moreover, this measure is extremely damaging to the confidence of countries and investors in the EU and the euro, with potentially enormous negative economic consequences. It is not without reason that national and supranational financial institutions strongly advise against this.

In legal terms, this construction is likely to prove unsustainable in the long run, meaning that sooner or later the EU will be forced to repay hundreds of billions that we will no longer have.

The intended loans to Ukraine may fund perhaps another two years of the Ukrainian budget, war, and dead soldiers and civilians, assuming the war does not end on the battlefield much sooner.

Belgium wants to borrow the required billions for Ukraine on the money and capital markets and leave the Russian assets untouched, because it fears risks to Euroclear, to the Belgian state, and also to the EU and the euro.

As far as those risks are concerned, FVD agrees with the Belgian Prime Minister. Permanently freezing Russian assets is a flagrant violation of international law and will return to us like an economic boomerang.

In addition, Chair, we are appalled at the prospect of the EU taking on and maintaining large loans on the basis of eurobonds. This can only happen if the EU also has substantial own resources and is therefore allowed to levy taxes itself. This is a situation we would wish to prevent at all costs.

Chair, continuing to provide large-scale support to Ukraine in this hopeless struggle against Russia is immoral, as it merely prolongs the bloody war and solves nothing. Ukraine will ultimately be its main victim.

The Dutch share of this continued support could amount to around €12 billion. FVD is categorically opposed to this. This is not our war. We could use that money far better elsewhere.

Let us stop this, Chair.

Thank you.