As the Russia-Ukraine war drags into its fourth year, new fractures are appearing in the once-solid front of Western unity. The most unexpected of these cracks has emerged not from an Eastern European skeptic or populist strongman, but from the very heart of Europe — Belgium, the country that hosts both the European Union and NATO headquarters.
In a dramatic and politically charged development, Belgium has openly opposed EU and NATO plans to seize and redirect Russia’s frozen assets to finance Ukraine’s war effort and post-war reconstruction. This move, described by analysts as an “open revolt,” threatens to undermine Europe’s credibility, divide the alliance, and shake the foundations of the Eurozone’s financial integrity.
Rutte’s Optimism Meets Geopolitical Fatigue
NATO’s new Secretary General Mark Rutte, who took office earlier this year, has sought to rally Western allies behind the message of perseverance. During a London visit on October 24, Rutte declared that Russia is “running out of money, troops, and ideas.”
According to Rutte, the sanctions regime and military pressure have crippled Moscow’s war machine. He called for continued military and economic support to Ukraine, emphasizing that Russia’s defeat is “only a matter of time.”
Yet this optimism contrasts sharply with growing skepticism among European policymakers, who point to the alliance’s own logistical exhaustion. Western arms stockpiles are depleted, defense industries are struggling to replenish ammunition, and public support for the war is waning.
A recent report by the Kiel Institute found that Western military and financial aid to Ukraine dropped by more than 40% in 2025 compared to the previous year — a sign of donor fatigue and domestic political strain.
Zelenskyy’s Private Warning: A Long War Ahead
While NATO projects confidence, Ukraine’s own leadership paints a far more sober picture.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk revealed in an interview that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy privately told him that Ukraine is preparing for another two to three years of conflict.
This admission stands in stark contrast to Western leaders’ public declarations of imminent victory. It underscores Kyiv’s strategy of endurance — sustaining the fight through Western financial and military assistance rather than expecting rapid breakthroughs.
But sustaining such a war economy requires massive funding. And with taxpayers increasingly reluctant to foot the bill, the EU has turned to a controversial alternative — Russia’s frozen sovereign assets.
The Frozen Assets Flashpoint
Since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the EU, U.S., and G7 allies froze around €300 billion of Russian central bank assets. The lion’s share — nearly €210 billion — sits in Euroclear, a Belgian financial clearinghouse that processes trillions in global transactions every day.
Earlier this year, the European Commission unveiled a plan to use the interest earnings from those assets, estimated at around €3 billion annually, to fund Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction. In the long term, some EU leaders have even suggested confiscating the assets outright to cover Kyiv’s estimated €486 billion in war damages.
However, at the October 23 EU summit in Brussels, Belgium blocked the proposal, citing both legal and financial risks.
Belgian Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib emphasized that while Belgium supports Ukraine, the plan must respect international law. She warned that seizing state assets could violate the principle of sovereign immunity, expose Belgium to lawsuits, and damage the stability of Euroclear — a cornerstone of global financial trust.
Belgium’s Revolt: Protecting Credibility Over Compliance
Belgium’s Prime Minister Alexander De Croo went even further, describing the idea of using frozen assets for war financing as “reckless.” According to him, “If we politicize financial systems, we destroy the very credibility that Europe’s economy rests upon.”
For Belgium, the issue is not merely about Ukraine — it’s about preserving confidence in Europe’s legal and financial system. As home to NATO and the EU’s core institutions, Belgium views itself as a neutral steward of global finance. Any perception that it allows political interference in asset security could deter investment, trigger capital flight, and erode Brussels’ standing as the Eurozone’s financial hub.
In private, Belgian officials reportedly warned that such a precedent could encourage China, the Gulf states, and developing economies to withdraw reserves from European banks — fearing future confiscation under political pressure.
Allies Divided: The Return of Strategic Fragmentation
Belgium’s resistance has exposed a widening schism within the European alliance.
Eastern European nations — particularly Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia — have condemned Brussels’ hesitation as “appeasement.” They argue that frozen Russian funds must be turned into weapons and infrastructure for Kyiv immediately, warning that delay only strengthens Moscow.
On the other hand, France and Italy have quietly backed Belgium’s cautious stance, while Hungary and Slovakia have openly sided with it.
This division leaves the EU split between two camps: those demanding aggressive reallocation of Russian assets, and those prioritizing legal and economic prudence.
For NATO, the timing is especially perilous. With U.S. President-elect Donald Trump preparing to re-enter the White House and threatening to cut back funding for Ukraine, European disunity could cripple Western strategy altogether.
Russia Reacts — and the Global Market Watches
Moscow has seized on Belgium’s opposition as proof that the Western front is fracturing. Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov called the EU’s plan “daylight robbery” and warned that Russia could retaliate by freezing or nationalizing Western companies’ assets inside its territory.
Global markets, too, are watching closely. If Belgium’s fears are realized and Euroclear’s neutrality is compromised, it could spark a confidence crisis across Europe’s banking sector. Analysts warn that even a perception of risk could lead to hundreds of billions in capital outflows from European institutions.
For now, Belgium’s stand has forced EU leaders to delay the decision until the December summit — a move that underscores both the depth of disagreement and the fragility of consensus.
A Battle for Europe’s Identity
Beyond the legal debates and financial calculations lies a deeper question:
What kind of Europe does Belgium’s revolt represent?
To some, it’s a betrayal of solidarity — a small nation putting markets above morality.
To others, it’s a rare act of integrity — a refusal to sacrifice law and stability for political expediency.
What’s certain is that Belgium’s defiance marks a turning point in Europe’s war politics. For the first time since the invasion began, one of the EU’s founding members is openly challenging the collective strategy — not out of sympathy for Moscow, but out of concern for Europe’s long-term survival.
As one Belgian official reportedly remarked,
“You cannot defend democracy abroad by dismantling it at home.”
The Quiet Revolt That Could Redefine Europe
Belgium’s stand against the EU and NATO may not make headlines as loud as a battlefield victory, but its implications are profound. It questions the limits of Western unity, the legality of economic warfare, and the future of Europe’s financial sovereignty.
When EU leaders meet again in December, they face a stark choice: push ahead with the asset seizure and risk credibility, or heed Belgium’s warning and risk Ukraine’s lifeline.
Either way, this dispute marks a pivotal moment — when the heart of Europe dared to say “no” to its own creation.
