By Ivan Butenko
Deficit of the Ukrainian budget
On 3 December, the Ukrainian Parlament approved the Budget for 2026[1]. With an approximately 2.4 trillion UAH deficit, sources for covering an amount of around 19 billion USD are still to be found [2]. To address this issue European Commission came up with 2 solutions:
Plan A
EU borrowing, guaranteed by the ‘headroom’ in the EU budget [3]. The obvious problem and the main one, which initially caused denial by a number of member countries, is that states would accumulate more debt. Albeit later this plan was adopted and EU will provide 90 billion EUR as interest-free loan to Ukraine [4].
Plan B
Reparation Loan, that would be financed with cash taken from Russian frozen assets in the EU jurisdiction. The main part of that money is supposed to come from Euroclean, an organization that acts as the Central Securities Deposit (CSD). The function of those organizations is to transfer titles of ownership between parties as payments between them (inside CSD) are confirmed, and settle external transactions.
To protect Euroclear from legal disputes, the EU proposed to indefinitely freeze assets [5]. Thus, leaving legal owners’ rights over the active, but gaining freedom in cash operating. By doing so, Euroclean would provide credit to Ukraine without disruption to the financial system. Eventually, if Russia paid reparations, they would go directly to cover the debt. Belgium was a main opponent to this plan, as the risks associated with the plan falls primeraly on the states jurisdiction.
USA involvement
An interesting phenomenon that could be found in this case is the US’s interest in Russian frozen assets in general and Euroclear’s money in particular. It could be seen by the pressure that they apply to allies, pushing them towards rejection of the Reparation Loan plan, which would otherwise put in jeopardy the future use of the assets by the USA [6].
Dispite occurrence of similar cases between three sides is not rare, it is unusual to see four countries (one of which is neither a direct side of the conflict nor the current holder of assets) competing for one asset, concidering context (reparation dispute) where the situation is taking place. Initialy US did’t have any relation to frozen assets in Euroclear, but was able to connect itself through ongoing negotiations. Drafts of a peace plan is highlighing US ambitions to profit from future investments of that money [7].
Interests and reasons to claim assets
Russia
Russia claims the immobilized money that is held in Euroclean as its own and is trying to gain back access to it [8]. Despite currently having no real progress, drafts of the so-called “peace deal” mentioned the return of frozen assets [7, 9, 10], including the money in Euroclean.
Ukraine
Ukraine seeks to fund the current budget and eventually receive that money as part of reparations for the damage that is done by Russia [11]. Another application of them is to have additional leverage during negotiations.
Belgium
As part of the EU, Belgium is pushed towards helping Ukraine with coverage of the budget deficit. Belgium is empowered to do so by the mechanism that Euroclean uses to operate. When holding assets at Belgian’s Central Securities Deposit, the Central Bank of Russia separated their rights to operate cash from financial claims towards Euroclean [5]. That is made to simplify the clearing process on the Russian side. At the same time, it leads to obtaining control over the cash by Euroclean. Despite having executive control over cash that is located in Euroclean, Belgium afraid that if sanctions would be lifted, it would cause a threat to stability, as Euroclean’s reserves would not have sufficiant amount of cash for the smooth work of the CSD [8].
USA
Initial interest of the US was leaked with 28 points plan[7], but it seems to stay in later iterations [9, 10]. Uncommon is a practice for a mediator country to seek a direct financial benefit, which is taking place here. While it still could be considered as a commission for efforts that the USA is putting, it is hard to miss political preasure that is apllied to all parties in this case [6]. That underlines the USA’s agenda of finding financial and economic benefits in “deals” that they are producing.
Conclusion
While it’s not uncommon to see that 3 party are arguing over one sum, it is unusual to see a fourth party that is not a part of the conflict attempt to claim rights on the assets. Although Euroclen is not the only multi-sided place of interest, it is a good example of a new trend that the current USA government is setting, trying to directly push forward its own financial interests. As the US plan is neither purely beneficial nor aligned with the Ukrainian nor the Russian side, but definitely with American interests, the USA’s actions could be seen as a mechanism of expansion. The one that, unlike previous conflicts, where sides have been involved physically to claim a large proportion of benefits, could apply soft power to become involved and achieve similar results.
Bibliography
[1] Department of Information and Public Communications of the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, “State Budger for 2026 adopted: Yulia Svyrydenko”, Government Portal, 3 December 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/news/derzhavnyi-biudzhet-na-2026-rik-ukhvaleno-iuliia-svyrydenko. [Accessed: 19 December 2025]
[2] Волокіта В., “Рада ухвалила бюджет на 2026 рік: дефіцит – -18,5%”. Economichna Pravds, 3 December 2025. [Online]. Available: https://epravda.com.ua/finances/yakiy-byudzhet-uhvalila-verhovna-rada-na-2026-rik-814958/. [Accessed: 19 December 2025]
[3] Think Tank European Parliament. “Financing Ukraine in 2026 and 2027: Reparations loan, revision of long-term EU budget or alternative solution?”, Think Tank European Parliament 17 December 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2025)779267. [Accessed: 19 December 2025]
[4] Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz [@bundeskanzler] “The financial package for Ukraine is in place: Ukraine will receive an interest-free loan of 90 billion Euros as I suggested’’. X, 19 December 2025. [Online]. Available: https://x.com/bundeskanzler/status/2001833920019743203. [Accessed: 21 December 2025]
[5] European Commission, “Proposal for a Regulation Of The European Parliament And Of The Council establishing the Reparations Loan to Ukraine and amending Regulation (EU) 2024/792 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 February 2024 establishing the Ukraine Facility”, European Commission, Brussels, 3 December 2025. [Online]. Available: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/ceae8dde-0291-4ee3-8519-80b30317bf35_en. [Accessed: 19 December 2025]
[6] Sheftalovich Z., Jack V., “The EU’s problem isn’t Belgium – it’s Trump”, Politico, 17 December 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-belgium-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-war-ukraine-friedrich-merz/. [Accessed: 19 December 2025]
[7] Ravid B., Lawler D., “Trump’s full 28-point Ukraine-Russia peace plan”, Axios, 20 November 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.axios.com/2025/11/20/trump-ukraine-peace-plan-28-points-russia. [Accessed: 19 December 2025]
[8] Panourgias N., “How Europe could use billions in frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort – and why it’s so risky”, The Conversation, 26 December 2025. [Online]. Available: https://theconversation.com/how-europe-could-use-billions-in-frozen-russian-assets-to-fund-ukraines-war-effort-and-why-its-so-risky-272087. [Accessed: 19 December 2025]
[9] Miller C., “US and Ukraine draft new 19-point peace plan but defer biggest decisions”, Financial Times, 24 November 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ft.com/content/883e5a47-430c-4fc2-85ee-cd6af9bb599d. [Accessed: 19 December 2025]
[10] Zelenskyy V., “The 20 Points for Ending the War Form a Fundamental Document; We Are Actively Working – Address by the President”,President Of Ukraine Volodymyr ZelenskyyOfficial Website, 10 December 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/dvadcyat-punktiv-dlya-zakinchennya-vijni-ce-fundamentalnij-d-101909. [Accessed: 19 December 2025]
Society of European Future 
Leave a comment