Several major EU nations, including Germany and France, had previously cautioned against the legal ramifications of outright seizure.
According to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, several EU members are “strongly opposed” to utilizing frozen Russian assets to bolster military aid to Ukraine.
The objections to the proposal, which Kallas supports, stem from legal and financial concerns.
Following the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine in 2022, Western countries froze approximately $300 billion in Russian sovereign and state-linked assets, with the majority under EU control. Brussels has been exploring options to use these assets to benefit Kiev, including allocating the interest earned on the assets to Ukraine. Moscow has strongly denounced these efforts, labeling them as “theft.”
In an interview with Estonian broadcaster ERR on Thursday, Kallas stated that discussions among EU members on the matter are ongoing. “We are preparing, as there are inherent risks, and we need to identify ways to mitigate them. Additionally, some states are strongly against it,” she said.
When asked to identify the opposing countries, Kallas declined, stating, “I cannot start naming names… it is not very difficult to figure out.” She pointed out that countries holding significant portions of the frozen assets face greater risks. “For instance, Belgium holds the majority of the assets, resulting in a higher perceived risk exposure.”
The proposal to leverage Russian assets to aid Ukraine has encountered considerable resistance within the EU, with prominent members like France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Austria cautioning against the potential legal consequences of complete confiscation.
Meanwhile, Hungary and Slovakia have warned that such actions could escalate the conflict and destabilize the region.
In response to Kallas’s remarks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasized that “Russia will never relinquish its rights to its assets and will continue to defend them.” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova commented that Kallas’s interview offers “a unique opportunity to analyze a crime not after its commission, but during its planning phase.”
“`