"How horrible, strange, incredible it is to be digging trenches and testing gas masks for a dispute in a distant country among people we know nothing about!"
This was said in a radio speech by the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Conservative Neville Chamberlain, on September 27, 1938. Three days later, in the German city of Munich, Chamberlain, along with the French Prime Minister, Édouard Daladier, and the leaders (those were their official positions) of Germany and Italy, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, signed the annexation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany. "Peace for our time," Chamberlain announced. "Our time" was short. 11 months later, World War II broke out.
The summit being held today by the leaders of the European Union in Brussels is a financial Munich. At stake is the use as collateral of around 185,000 million euros from the frozen Russian Central Bank at the Belgian financial intermediary Euroclear to provide a loan to Ukraine to help the country survive economically for two years. Belgian reluctance, Russian threats, increasing alignment of the United States with Russia, Italy's change of heart, and France's ambivalence have cast doubt on the plan. What is at stake is clear: without the loan, the war is over, and Russia has won.
All the keys to the negotiation between the US and Russia: Why is Trump betting on Putin?
To understand the situation, EL MUNDO has spoken with individuals close to the negotiations and has gathered the opinions of two experts: the Anglo-American financier Bill Browder, possibly one of the most despised individuals by Vladimir Putin, and the British journalist Hugo Dixon, who has been coordinating an initiative for the loan for almost two years.
What are the chances of reaching an agreement today?
Dixon puts them at 50%. Browder does not give percentages. But he believes that "despite all the noise Belgium is making to prevent an agreement, the consequences would be so extremely serious for Europe that the loan will be approved in the end."
What happens if Ukraine does not get the loan?
According to Browder, the answer is simple: "Russia will win the war." Dixon agrees. "Ukraine will have to surrender," he explains.
And why does that matter to us? Some people think immigration is much more important
Unfortunately, Ukraine is indeed our war because everything indicates that if Ukraine wins, Russia will continue advancing westward with the support of China. In Browder's words, if the loan does not materialize, "the EU will be on the front line of the battle against Russia, and Europeans will die in combat." The financier and philanthropist also has a message for those concerned about immigration: "A Russian victory would bring 20 million Ukrainian refugees to Europe that no one wants to come."
The whole agreement is a numbers game...
· The Russian state has around 210,000 million euros frozen in the EU since the invasion of Ukraine. Of these, approximately 185,000 million are in Euroclear, which is a Central Securities Depository (CSD). A CSD acts as an intermediary in a financial transaction, recording, safeguarding, and settling securities to ensure that the transaction is executed correctly. The other 25,000 million are mainly in banks and are also controversial.
· Out of these 210,000 million, 45,000 cannot be touched because they have already secured a G-7 loan to Ukraine. In other words, we are not talking about anything new. These 45,000 million also generate interest (technically "excess profits") that are used to repay that loan to Ukraine.
· The current debate is about using another 90,000 million euros as collateral for loans to Ukraine. It is being considered to provide 22,500 million every six months, covering approximately two-thirds of Ukraine's state expenses. The need arises from Donald Trump suspending all aid to Kiev starting in 2026.
· This is not a confiscation. If, when the war ends, Russia compensates Ukraine for the damages caused during the invasion (as Iraq did with Kuwait after invading it in 1990), Kiev will repay the loan. On the contrary, if Russia does not compensate (as desired not only by Putin but also by Donald Trump), the Euroclear funds will be used to repay the loan.
What caused the agreement to go from almost certain to uncertain?
Several countries have changed their stance.
Given that the money is in Belgium, does that country play a key role, right?
Exactly. Brussels demands guarantees that the rest of the EU will bear the costs of possible legal actions by Moscow. The issue is that in the previous summit where this was discussed, in October, those guarantees were very vague and barely filled a paragraph. The Belgian government rejected that option. It is assumed that this has now been resolved.
What legal actions could Russia take against Belgium?
Moscow could only seize assets of the Belgian state on its territory, which are probably non-existent (they would not even include the official car of the ambassador). It can also pursue legal proceedings in third countries. This is what the US investment fund NML did when it managed to have the Argentine Navy training ship, the frigate Libertad, immobilized in Ghana for two months due to a dispute over the country's external debt payment.
Obviously, Russia is a country that does not play by the same rules as others. So one option is that Moscow seizes the few assets of Belgian companies and citizens in Russia, which is illegal (in the 1990s, Russia had to compensate foreigners whose properties had been nationalized by the Soviet communists). And with Moscow, there is always a risk of accidents. The website EUobserver has reported that the CEO of Euroclear, Valérie Urbain, has received death threats from Russia if the loan goes through.
So, it's due to legal threats and security risks...
And also due to Belgian political maneuvering. According to sources consulted by this newspaper, the Belgian ambassador to the EU does not have a good relationship with the current Prime Minister of the country, Bart de Wever. This has led the Belgian government to overturn agreements reached by its representation at the EU. De Wever is the first Flemish (Dutch-speaking) leader to head the government in Belgium, and according to those sources, he wants to project a tough and nationalist image.
Why did Italy change its stance?
Dixon explains that the government of Giorgia Melloni "has never been very enthusiastic about the plan and has taken measures in the last week that do not help." The most significant is a joint declaration with Malta, Bulgaria, and Belgium requesting the European Commission to explore other possibilities. Meloni's change of attitude is surprising because she had previously been known for her support for Ukraine. Some see it as a political move by the prime minister to be able to tell her government partners, the pro-Russian ultranationalists of the League, that she tried everything before giving in. Others, more conspiratorial, see another influence: Donald Trump.