BRUSSELS — The European Commission on Wednesday unveiled a €90 billion loan to Ukraine aimed at saving it from financial collapse as it continues to battle Russia while aid from the U.S. dries up. About one-third of the cash will be used for normal budget expenditures and the rest will go to defense — although countries still need to formally agree to what extent Ukraine can use the money to buy weapons from outside the EU. A Commission proposal gives EU defense firms preferential treatment but allows Ukraine to buy foreign weapons if they aren’t immediately available in Europe. While the loan is interest-free for Ukraine, it is forecast to cost EU taxpayers between €3 billion and €4 billion a year in borrowing costs from 2028. The EU had to resort to the loan after an earlier effort to use sanctioned Russian frozen assets ran into opposition from Belgium. The race is now on for EU lawmakers to agree on a final legal text that’ll pave the way for disbursements in April, when Ukraine’s war chest runs out. Meetings between EU treasury and defense officials are already planned for Friday. The European Parliament could fast-track the loan as early as next week. The financing package is also crucial for unlocking additional loans to Ukraine from the International Monetary Fund. The Washington-based Fund wants to ensure Kyiv’s finances aren’t overstretched, as the war enters its fifth year next month. The €90 billion will be paid out over the next two years, as Moscow shows no sign of slowing down its offensive on Ukraine despite U.S.-led efforts to agree on a ceasefire. “Russia shows no sign of abating, no sign of remorse, no sign of seeking peace,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters after presenting the proposal. “We all want peace for Ukraine, and for that, Ukraine must be in a position of strength.” When EU leaders agreed on the loan, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the deal an “unprecedented decision, and it will also have an impact on the peace negotiations.” Adding to the pressure on the EU, the U.S. under President Donald Trump has halted new military and financial aid to Ukraine, leaving it up to Europe to ensure Kyiv can continue fighting. Once the legal text is agreed, the EU will raise joint debt to finance the initiative, although the governments in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia said they will not participate in the funding drive.  The conditions on military spending are splitting EU countries. Paris is demanding strict rules to prevent money from flowing to U.S. weapons manufacturers, while Germany and other Northern European countries want to give Ukraine greater flexibility on how to spend the cash, pointing out that some key systems needed by Ukraine aren’t manufactured in Europe. MEETING HALFWAY The Commission has put forward a compromise proposal — seen by POLITICO. It gives preferential treatment to defense companies based in the EU, Ukraine and neighboring countries, including Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, but doesn’t rule out purchases from abroad. To keep the Northern European capitals happy, the Commission’s proposal allows Ukraine to buy specialized weapons produced outside the EU if they are vital for Kyiv’s defense against Russian forces. These include the U.S. Patriot long-range missile and air defense systems. The rules could be bent further in cases “where there is an urgent need for a given defense product” that can’t be delivered quickly from within Europe. Weapons aren’t considered European if more than 35 percent of their parts come from outside the continent, according to the draft. That’s in line with previous EU defense-financing initiatives, such as the €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons program. Two other legal texts are included in the legislative package. One proposes using the upper borrowing limit in the current budget to guarantee the loan. The other is designed to tweak the Ukraine Facility, a 2023 initiative that governs the bloc’s long-term financial support to Kyiv. The Commission will also create a new money pot to cover the borrowing costs before the new EU budget enters into force in 2028. RUSSIAN COLLATERAL Ukraine only has to repay the €90 billion loan if it receives post-war reparations from Russia — an unlikely scenario. If this doesn’t happen, the EU has left the door open to tapping frozen Russian state assets across the bloc to pay itself back. Belgium’s steadfast opposition to leveraging the frozen assets, most of which are based in the Brussels-based financial depository Euroclear, promises to make that negotiation difficult. However, the Commission can indefinitely roll over its debt by issuing eurobonds until it finds the necessary means to pay off the loan. The goal is to ensure Ukraine isn’t left holding the bill. “The Union reserves its right to use the cash balances from immobilized Russian assets held in the EU to repay the Ukraine Support Loan,” Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said alongside von der Leyen. “Supporting Ukraine is a litmus test for Europe. The outcome of Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine will determine Europe’s future.” Jacopo Barigazzi contributed to this report from Brussels.

Global central banks rallied behind Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on Tuesday, pushing back against a perceived political attack on the independence of the world’s most important financial institution. “We stand in full solidarity with the Federal Reserve System and its Chair Jerome H. Powell,” the officials said in a joint statement. “The independence of central banks is a cornerstone of price, financial and economic stability in the interest of the citizens that we serve. It is therefore critical to preserve that independence, with full respect for the rule of law and democratic accountability.” The statement was signed by European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde on behalf of the ECB’s Governing Council, by Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey as well as the heads of the Swiss, Swedish, Danish, Australian, Canadian, South Korean and Brazilian central banks. Pablo Hernández de Cos, general manager of the Bank for International Settlements and François Villeroy de Galhau, chair of the Board of Directors of the Bank for International Settlements, also signed the statement. Over the weekend, Powell disclosed that the Fed had been served with grand jury subpoenas by the Department of Justice, raising the threat of a criminal indictment tied to his congressional testimony on the ongoing renovation of the Fed’s Washington headquarters. In what amounted to a dramatic escalation in the standoff between the White House and the central bank, Powell used an unusually direct video message to argue that the legal action is politically motivated and part of a campaign of “intimidation,” designed to push the Fed into cutting interest rates more aggressively. “The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” Powell said in language rare in its starkness for a serving Fed chair. Trump, a longtime critic who has piled personal insults on Powell since his reelection both through ad hoc comments and through his social media feed, denied any role in the investigation. Speaking to NBC News on Sunday, Trump said he was unaware of the probe but added that Powell is “certainly not very good at the Fed, and he’s not very good at building buildings.” The joint statement on Tuesday took a different view. “Chair Powell has served with integrity, focused on his mandate and an unwavering commitment to the public interest,” it said. “To us, he is a respected colleague who is held in the highest regard by all who have worked with him.” Expressions of support for Powell from around the world had already begun on Monday, with Bundesbank President Joachim Nagel telling POLITICO that: “The independence of central banks is a prerequisite for price stability and a great public good. Against this background, the recent developments in the U.S. regarding the Fed chairman are cause for concern.” Bank of France Governor Villeroy de Galhau, meanwhile, had told a  new year event at the ACPR regulator that Powell was “a model of integrity and commitment to the public interest.” POLITICO reported on Monday that the decision to subpoena the Fed had also raised concern among various White House officials, who are concerned that it may trigger volatility in financial markets and complicate efforts to keep the economy on track in an election year. Senior Republican Party lawmakers have also spoken out against the move.

BRUSSELS — Germany and the Netherlands are at odds with France in seeking to ensure Kyiv will be able buy U.S. weapons using the EU’s €90 billion loan to Ukraine. EU countries agreed the crucial lifeline to Kyiv at a European Council summit in December, but the capitals will still have to negotiate the formal conditions of that financing after a European Commission proposal on Wednesday. This sets up tense negotiations with Paris, which is leading a rearguard push to prevent money flowing to Washington amid a growing rift in the transatlantic alliance. French President Emmanuel Macron is keen to give preferential treatment to EU military companies to strengthen the bloc’s defense industry — even if that means Kyiv can’t immediately buy what it needs to keep Russian forces at bay. A majority of countries, led by governments in Berlin and The Hague, respond that Kyiv must have more leeway in how it spends the EU’s financial package to help fund its defense, according to position papers seen by POLITICO. These frictions are coming to a head after years of debate over whether to include Washington in EU defense purchasing programs. Divisions have only worsened since U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration threatened a military takeover of Greenland. Critics retort France’s push to introduce a strict “Buy European” clause would tie Kyiv’s hands and limit its ability to defend itself against Russia. “Ukraine also urgently requires equipment produced by third countries, notably U.S.-produced air defense systems and interceptors, F-16 ammunition and spare parts and deep-strike capacities,” the Dutch government wrote in a letter to other EU countries seen by POLITICO. While most countries including Germany and the Netherlands support a general “Buy European” clause, only Greece and Cyprus — which currently maintains a neutral stance as it is chairing talks under its rotating presidency of the Council of the EU — are backing the French push to limit the scheme to EU firms, according to multiple diplomats with knowledge of the talks. CASH FOR KYIV EU leaders agreed last month to issue €90 billion in joint debt to support Ukraine, after Belgium and others derailed a separate plan to mobilize Russian frozen state assets. Over two-thirds of the Commission’s funding is expected to go toward military expenditure rather than ordinary budget support, according to two EU diplomats briefed on the discussions. With only a few days until the Commission formally unveils its plan, EU capitals are trying to influence its most sensitive elements. French President Emmanuel Macron is keen to give preferential treatment to EU military companies to strengthen the bloc’s defense industry. | Pool photo by Sarah Meyssonnier via AFP/Getty Images Germany broke with France by proposing to open up purchases to defense firms from non-EU countries. “Germany does not support proposals to limit third country procurement to certain products and is concerned that this would put excessive restrictions on Ukraine to defend itself,” Berlin’s government wrote in a letter sent to EU capitals on Monday and seen by POLITICO. The Netherlands suggested earmarking at least €15 billion for Ukraine to buy foreign weapons that are not immediately available in Europe.  “The EU’s defence industry is currently either unable to produce equivalent systems or to do so within the required timeframe,” the Dutch government wrote in its letter. The French counterargument is that Brussels should seek to extract maximum value from its funding to Ukraine. Critics say that boosting Ukraine’s defense against Russia should take precedence over any other goal.    “It’s very frustrating. We lose the focus on our aim, and our aim is not to do business,” said a third EU diplomat. Another diplomat said that a potential French veto can be easily overcome as the proposal can be agreed by a simple majority of member countries. GERMANY FIRST In a further point of controversy, the German government, while rejecting the EU preference sought by France, still suggested giving preferential treatment to firms from countries that provided the most financial support to Ukraine. This would play to the advantage of Berlin, which is among the country’s biggest donors. “Germany requests for the logic of rewarding strong bilateral support (as originally proposed for third countries by the Commission) to be applied to member states, too,” Berlin wrote in the letter. Diplomats see this as a workaround to boost German firms and incentivize other countries to stump up more cash for the war-torn country. Giovanna Faggionato contributed to this report.

LONDON — Reform UK’s deputy leader Richard Tice has floated replacing the Office for Budget Responsibility with a rotating panel of experts to produce economic forecasts for the U.K. government.  In an interview with POLITICO, Tice attacked the OBR’s “woeful” forecasts and proposed replacing it with a revolving panel of the top economic forecasters in the country, who would produce their own estimates of the U.K.’s fiscal health. “What’s the point of them if you’re not going to do your job properly?” Tice said of Britain’s under-fire fiscal watchdog. “There is a turgid reluctance to accept the process of continuous improvement.” “If you didn’t have the OBR, what are you replacing [it with]? Well, maybe you could have a revolving panel of the top eight economic forecasters who have, twice a year, a mandate to produce their own estimate of the key six [to] eight metrics,” he added. His comments follow previous suggestions from Reform UK’s leader Nigel Farage to abolish the body, but it has not yet been clear what the party would propose to take its place. As Reform continues to top U.K. opinion polls, the development of the party’s economic agenda has been closely watched by the financial sector and beyond. The OBR has come under attack for its forecasting record from both sides of the political aisle. It faced significant scrutiny in November after its economic and fiscal outlook, which contained detailed information on the contents of Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ autumn budget, was accidentally made accessible hours before she began her official announcement. OBR Chair Richard Hughes stepped down as a result of the leak. The OBR has also been criticized for its outsized influence on government spending, given that its forecasts can have a significant impact on which policies the Treasury decides to include in the budget. “The OBR is literally telling the government how to run its policy,” Tice said. “The government comes up with an idea, and it says to the OBR ‘what’s the consequence of this?’” “[The OBR] say this is our forecast, so the government says I can’t do that or I can do that, and then you find out that the OBR forecast was useless, not worth the paper it’s written on.” Tice joins former Prime Minister Liz Truss in his criticism of the independent body. Truss, who also called for the OBR to be abolished, shunned the watchdog’s provision of an independent economic forecast and analysis for her 2022 mini budget, leading to market turmoil. One of the Labour Party’s first acts upon reaching government in July 2024 was to put in place a “budget responsibility” bill to enable the OBR to produce of its own volition a forecast on major government tax or spending plans.

Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Portugal will face off for the European Central Bank’s No. 2 job, according to a statement from the Council of the EU. The crowded race for the vice presidency kickstarts a wider battle for a seat on the ECB’s coveted six-person executive board, the eurozone’s most powerful forum for economic and monetary policy. Four of the seats, including the presidency itself, will become vacant over the next two years. Competition will be fierce, as the eurozone’s largest economies will seek to maintain their influence on the board, leaving smaller countries with fewer seats to fight over. Eurozone finance ministers are set to pick the winner behind closed doors in a secret ballot when they meet in Brussels for this month’s Eurogroup meeting on Jan. 19. The winner will need at least 16 votes from the 21 ministers, representing around 65 percent of the eurozone’s population. Eurozone leaders formally propose the candidate to succeed the outgoing vice president, Luis de Guindos, whose eight-year term ends on May 31. The European Parliament and the ECB are entitled to an opinion about the final pick. Northern European applicants make up the bulk of the contenders, with Finland’s central banker, Olli Rehn, facing competition from Baltic neighbors. These include his central banking peers, Estonia’s Madis Müller and Latvia’s Mārtiņš Kazāks. Lithuania’s former finance minister, Rimantas Šadžius, completes the Baltic round-up. The other two applicants come from Southern Europe: Portugal’s ex-Eurogroup president, Mário Centeno, and the Croatian central bank governor, Boris Vujčić. The candidates are tentatively scheduled to face questions from MEPs behind closed doors before finance ministers meet on Jan. 19.

PARIS — French Budget Minister Amélie de Montchalin refused on Thursday to rule out using a controversial constitutional maneuver to pass a state budget for the year, despite her boss’ vow not to do so. France entered 2026 without a proper state budget after talks in parliament broke down in December, and the new year has brought little assurance that the government can put together a package that would pass France’s hung parliament. Given the impasse, some lawmakers have called on Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu to employ the clause, Article 49.3 of the French constitution, to pass a proper state budget. De Montchalin was asked specifically about that possibility during an interview with radio station RTL, to which she replied: “I am not ruling out anything that could provide France with a budget.” Lawmakers last year voted to effectively roll over the 2025 budget into the new year to avoid a government shutdown, but that stopgap solution does nothing to bring down France’s massive budget deficit. Lecornu promised not to use the clause last year to ensure the immediate survival of his minority center-right government. But using the mechanism now would be risky, and not just because it might look like going back on his word. Employing it would dramatically raise the stakes of the debate, as lawmakers’ only remaining option to block the legislation would be to respond with a no confidence motion that, if successful, would leave France with neither a government nor a proper state budget. The center-left Socialist Party, a member of the opposition that has proven more willing to engage in talks than other parties, said it could refrain from backing a motion of no confidence even if the government were to use Article 49.3, provided the legislation forced through parliament included some of its policy requests.

Bulgaria joined the eurozone on January 1, becoming the currency union’s 21st member. The euro replaced the Bulgarian lev, with a final exchange rate set at 1 euro = 1,96 levs as of Dec. 31. President Rumen Radev said in his New Year’s statement: “The introduction of the euro is the final milestone in Bulgaria’s integration into the European Union — a place that we deserve with the achievements of our millennial culture and the civilizational contribution of our country.” The Bulgarian central bank’s governor, Dimitar Radev, has taken a seat on the table with the Governing Council of the European Central Bank. “I warmly welcome Bulgaria to the euro family and Governor Radev to the ECB Governing Council table in Frankfurt,” ECB President Christine Lagarde said in a statement on Thursday. People will still be able to pay in levs for about a month, but they will start getting their change in euros. Until June 30, old money can be exchanged for no fee at banks and post offices, and indefinitely at the Bulgarian Central Bank. Public opinion, however, remains mixed. According to a Eurobarometer poll from March, 53 percent of 1,017 Bulgarians surveyed opposed joining the eurozone, while 45 percent were in favor. A majority also felt Bulgaria was not ready to introduce the euro. The main fear was concern over “abusive price setting during the changeover.”  Bulgaria joined the European Union on January 1, 2007. In an official EU survey from May, 58 percent of Bulgarians said the country has benefited from its EU membership.

BRUSSELS — Diplomats are working on a long-shot 11th-hour compromise to salvage a deal on sending vital financial aid to Ukraine at Thursday’s high-stakes EU leaders’ summit. On Wednesday evening Europe’s leaders were split into irreconcilable camps, at least publicly, and seemed unlikely to agree on how to fund Kyiv, thanks partly to the reemergence of the same bitter north-south divisions over joint debt that torpedoed EU unity during the eurozone crisis. Only a few hours before the 27 leaders gather in Brussels, two opposing groups are crossing swords over whether to issue a loan to Ukraine based on frozen Russian central bank reserves, largely held by the Euroclear bank in Belgium. Germany along with Nordic and Eastern European countries say there is no alternative to that scheme. But they are running into hardening resistance from Belgium and Italy, which are gunning for Plan B: Support for Kyiv based on EU debt guaranteed by the bloc’s common budget. Bulgaria, Malta, Hungary and Slovakia are also against the use of the assets. In a stark illustration of the schism, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said on Wednesday she would use the Council meeting to demand answers on the “possible risks” of leveraging the assets, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz doubled down on the assets plan “to help end this war as quickly as possible.” ESCAPE PLAN The first contours of a potential route out of the impasse — one that would have to be hashed out during hours of negotiations — are beginning to take shape. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen cautiously opened the door to joint debt on Wednesday morning during a speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. “I proposed two different options for this upcoming European Council, one based on assets and one based on EU borrowing. And we will have to decide which way we want to take,” she said. The key to such a plan would be carving Hungary and Slovakia — which both oppose giving further aid to Ukraine — out of the joint debt scheme, four EU diplomats told POLITICO. A deal could still be agreed at the Council among the 27 EU countries, but the ultimate arrangement would stipulate that only 25 would be involved in the funding. Agreeing such a scheme would give a crucial lifeline to Ukraine’s shattered public finances as its coffers risk running dry as early as next April. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán is already predicting the assets will not be discussed in Brussels, and that negotiations have shifted to joint loans. Multiple diplomats, however, retorted that Orbán was wrong and that the Russian assets were still “the only game in town.” CRUNCH TIME Despite growing political pressure on the EU to prove it can rise to meet the existential challenges facing Ukraine, diplomats from the rival camps were often skeptical on Wednesday that a compromise could be found. The idea of EU joint debt has for years been anathema to the northern member countries, who have been unwilling to underwrite bonds for highly indebted southern countries. “The closest [situations] to what’s happening now with frozen assets are the 2012-2013 financial crisis and Greece’s bailout in 2015,” said a senior EU diplomat who, like others quoted in this story, was granted anonymity to speak freely. With respect to the Ukraine war, the northerners deny they oppose the use of eurobonds over concerns about the solvency of other EU countries, but argue they prefer the assets because they would provide a greater long-term cash infusion to Ukraine. “This is not about frugals versus spenders. It’s about being pro-Ukraine or not,” said a second EU diplomat, adding that northern and eastern European countries have taken the lead in bankrolling Ukraine’s war needs over the past four years. BACKING THE BELGIANS Despite weeks of painstaking negotiations over the assets, efforts to bring Belgium around are backfiring. The country adamantly opposes using the Russian money held by Euroclear in Brussels, and has now attracted allies. “[The Commission] created a monster, and they’ve been eaten by it,” said a third EU diplomat, referring to the assets plan. Germany and its allies, however, warn there is still no alternative to targeting the Euroclear money. “If you want to do something together as Europeans, the reparations loan is the only way,” a fourth EU diplomat said. The idea behind the assets-based loan is that Kyiv would not have to repay it unless Moscow coughs up the billions-worth of reparations needed to rebuild Ukraine’s pulverized cities — an unlikely scenario. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever is expected to push the Commission to explore joint debt during Thursday’s summit of EU leaders — in the hope that others around the table will echo his demands. His supporters claim the model “is cheaper and offers more clarity,” said a fifth EU diplomat. But critics point out it will also require the political blessing of Hungary’s pro-Russia Prime Minister Orbán — who has repeatedly threatened to torpedo further financial aid to Kyiv. The impasse would require the Commission to concoct a workaround to keep Ukraine afloat while allowing Orbán to save face, according to the four EU diplomats. In exchange for his support the Commission could spare Hungarian and Slovak taxpayers from having to pay for Ukraine’s defense.   “The Commission now pushes joint loans, but we will not let our families foot the bill for Ukraine’s war,” Orbán wrote on X on Wednesday afternoon. He added that “Russian assets will not be on the table at tomorrow’s EUCO [European Council].” However, a senior EU official was quick to reject the Hungarian leader’s claim that the Russian reserves were no longer in play. “The reparations loan is still very much on the table,” they said. Bjarke Smith-Meyer, Gabriel Gavin and Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this report

Less than 24 hours before EU leaders descend on Brussels for vital talks on financing Ukraine’s war effort, Belgium believes negotiations are going in reverse. “We are going backward,” Belgium’s EU ambassador, Peter Moors, told his peers on Wednesday during closed-door talks, according to two diplomats present at the meeting. The European Commission and EU officials are in a race against time to appease Belgian concerns over a €210 billion financing package for Ukraine that leverages frozen Russian state assets across the bloc. Belgium’s support is crucial, as the lion’s share of frozen assets lies in the Brussels-based financial depository Euroclear. Bart De Wever, the country’s prime minister, refuses to get on board until the other EU governments provide substantial financial and legal safeguards that protect Euroclear and his government from Russian retaliation — at home and abroad. One of the most sensitive issues for Belgium is placing a lid on the financial guarantees that currently stand at €210 billion. Belgium believes that the guarantees provided by other EU countries should have no limits in order to protect them under any scenario. Talks looked to be going in the right direction. The Belgians backed a Commission pitch for EU capitals to cough up as much as possible in financial guarantees against the Ukrainian package — only for Belgium’s ambassador to drop a bombshell at the end of the meeting. “I just don’t know anymore,” one diplomat said, on condition of anonymity in order to speak freely. A spokesperson for the Belgian permanent representation declined to comment. Another key demand from Belgium is that all EU countries end their bilateral investment treaties with Russia to ensure Belgium isn’t left alone to deal with retaliation from Moscow. But to Belgium’s annoyance, several countries are reluctant to do so over fears of retribution from the Kremlin. Moors said during the meeting that any decision on the use of the assets will have to be taken by De Wever, according to an EU diplomat. Belgium is pushing the Commission to explore alternative options to finance Ukraine, such as issuing joint debt — a position that’s gained traction with Bulgaria, Italy, and Malta. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen cautiously opened the door to joint debt during a speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday morning. “I proposed two different options for this upcoming European Council, one based on assets and one based on EU borrowing. And we will have to decide which way we want to take,” she said. But joint debt requires unanimous support, unlikely given Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s threats to veto further EU aid to Kyiv.  Moors proposed a possible workaround on Tuesday by suggesting triggering an emergency clause — known as Article 122 — that would nullify the veto threat. The Commission and Council’s lawyers rebuffed the Belgian pitch at the same meeting, saying it was not legally viable. The idea was first proposed by the president of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, during a dinner of finance ministers last week, but has been challenged by Northern European countries. De Wever is expected to suggest this option during the meeting of EU leaders on Thursday.

BRUSSELS ― Two legal opinions prepared by international lawyers contradict Belgium’s claim it could be on the hook to pay substantial damages if the EU moves ahead with plans to use Russia’s frozen assets to help Ukraine. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has said his country could be found liable for using the assets, arguing in a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that the risk of successful legal retaliation by Moscow is “very real.” Russia has since ramped up those fears, with the central bank filing a lawsuit in Moscow against Brussels-based financial depository Euroclear — where most of Russia’s frozen assets in Europe are held — over the freezing of funds and securities. But according to two legal opinions — one prepared by law firm Covington & Burling, another by a group of international legal scholars — assert that the risk of a successful legal claim against Belgium over the assets is minimal.  The main reason cited by the scholars is that Russia would find it nearly impossible to find a jurisdiction that would be willing to hear a case against Belgium or enforce any claim against the Belgian government or Euroclear over the assets. “Any judgment of a Russian court would not be recognized or enforced in the EU or the U.K. on public policy grounds,” six legal scholars wrote in a paper, adding that the Russian central bank is unlikely to bring claims in either U.K. or EU jurisdictions because doing so would waive its sovereign immunity. A claim brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union, the International Court of Justice or any comparable international institution would prove similarly problematic largely because Russia does not accept their jurisdiction, argue the authors of a paper by Covington & Burling.  In his letter to von der Leyen, De Wever raised the fact that Belgium has a bilateral investment treaty with Russia that exposes Brussels to legal risk in the event of a dispute. The letter cites specialized law firms but does not name them. The authors of both legal opinions assert that Russia would not be able to pursue its claim against Belgium or the EU via such a treaty due to the fact that the treaty does not cover sovereign assets. “A Tribunal constituted pursuant to such a treaty would lack jurisdiction to hear a dispute relating to alleged expropriation of Russia’s sovereign assets,” wrote Covington & Burling. The legal scholars — who are linked among other institutions to Stanford University, the Kyiv School of Economics and German law firm Bender Harrer Krevet, among others — conclude that Belgium has already weathered the most serious risk when the assets were frozen in the first place and when the EU voted to immobilize them indefinitely. “No material new risks will be created by adopting the full Reparations Loan plan and any such negligible risks are materially outweighed by the proposal’s benefits for European peace, security, stability, and the long-term viability of Ukraine,” write the scholars. The Belgian government did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.