As the ‘coalition of the willing’ faction in Europe has been stymied in their funding of Kiev for another year or two of the proxy war in Ukraine, voices in opposition continue to be heard. The European Commission’s latest attempt, on Oct 7, to secure agreement on a scheme to use frozen Russian assets in Belgium’s Euroclear system as the collateral for a $160 billion loan, to keep Ukraine in the fight to weaken Russia, has come to no avail.
The next day, on Oct 8, Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico stated that they will not support any such EU initiative. He stated on the Saturday Dialogues show: “I said this very clearly: the Slovak Republic, as long as I am prime minister, will not participate in any legal or financial mechanisms whose goal would be the confiscation of frozen assets and which are intended to end up as military expenditures in Ukraine.” He pointed out the obvious, that Brussels seems to have little interest in ending the hostilities and is scheming on $160 billion more funds to buy two more years of Ukraine’s suffering.
Finally, he also warned that the EU’s reckless action could trigger billion-euro arbitrations, causing enormous difficulties for EU member states. Even the Belgian government has cautioned that the move could provoke severe retaliatory measures from Moscow.
Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken spoke out against the push by the EU leadership’s plan for their so-called “reparations loan.” He pointed out the obvious, that there were no ”reparations” involved, posting on X on Oct 7: “Of course, this money will not rebuild Ukraine but will continue the war.” He said that many EU leaders, led by the bloc’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, “want to give these assets to Ukraine through a legally questionable structure.” Further, he said that, not only does the proposal undermine trust in institutions such as Euroclear, but Russia could simply retaliate, by seizing €200 billion in assets of Belgium, the U.S., Germany and France, held by Russia.
His protest is even more notable: only two weeks ago, he had argued for the reckless action of delivering Tomahawk missiles to Kiev. He explained that it could safely be done as any Russian attack on Brussels would leave Moscow “flattened,” and since, if Moscow took offense, NATO could “wipe Moscow off the map.”
