Morning Edition · Friday, October 16, 2026Published at 1:18 AM EDT · New York
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also proposed EU-wide strategic gas reserves over fears of a winter shortage, while Zelensky sought European backing as his relationship with Trump deteriorates.

European Union (EU) governments are again discussing confiscation of frozen Russian assets, the Russian business outlet BFM reported, and Belgium again opposes the idea. Most of the more than €200 billion in immobilized Russian state funds held in the EU sits at Euroclear, the Brussels-based securities depository. The Russian magazine Profile reported that leaders could reach a final decision at the October 23-24 summit. It also reported that the 27 member states still disagree on how the funds would be used and on who would bear the losses if Moscow sued.
Belgium's position follows from its exposure. The Belgian government prefers to keep the assets frozen indefinitely. It has said it would discuss seizure only if all member states share the potential legal and financial risk, because Euroclear and the Belgian state would face any Russian claims first.
The EU is also preparing for a shortage of energy. Von der Leyen proposed that member states discuss creating common strategic gas reserves because of fears of a fuel deficit this winter. The proposal comes with the Gulf war keeping crude above $100 and with the EU no longer able to rely on Russian pipeline gas.
Europe's leaders are moving to take on a larger role as the United States pulls back. After meeting Zelensky in Brussels, French President Emmanuel Macron said it was "crucial" that Ukraine receive "all the means necessary to protect itself", The Hindu reported. The frozen assets are the largest source of money Europe controls that does not require new borrowing or new taxes. That explains why the proposal keeps returning despite Belgium's objection.
Part of a tracked trend
Sovereign Reserves Lose Their Immunity
Each Western step toward using or seizing frozen central-bank assets raises the perceived confiscation risk of holding reserves in Western custody, so reserve managers outside the Western alliance will keep shifting toward gold and non-Western custodians.
Euroclear and the Belgian state gain if the assets stay frozen and are not seized, Kyiv and EU treasuries gain if the principal funds Ukraine without new borrowing, and gold sellers and custodians outside the West gain from any rise in perceived confiscation risk.
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has called confiscation an "act of war", and the summit timing rests mainly on Russian outlets. The Kyiv Independent reports that the two leaders did not mention the assets when Zelensky met De Wever in Brussels on October 15. The article also leaves out reports that EU leaders rejected a US proposal to put the assets under Washington's control.
An open-source-intelligence read of how likely this story is true with its real nuance, not a judgment of any outlet. It assesses the claim, weighing independent and adversarial reporting. How we label confidence.
Start a discussion in Townsquare.
More from this edition
What this means
The mechanism is custody risk. Every central bank that holds reserves in Western depositories is watching whether immobilized assets can become confiscated assets. A seizure would show that sovereign reserves in euros and dollars depend on political alignment. That increases demand for gold held at home and for custodians outside the West. The exposed parties are Euroclear and the Belgian state, which carry the legal risk, and the euro's appeal as a reserve currency for non-aligned states such as the Gulf producers, India and Turkey. Europe has the money and lacks only agreement. Moscow can retaliate against Western assets still inside Russia, but it cannot recover the funds. The 2022 freeze was followed by a sustained rise in central-bank gold buying, and official buyers in the Global South have led it since. The likelier outcome at the October summit is a compromise that uses the assets as collateral for loans to Ukraine, with the principal left in place. That is what Belgium can accept. It depends on the risk-sharing guarantees Belgium has demanded. It would be proved wrong by an outright decision to transfer the principal, which would be a larger step against sovereign immunity than anything taken so far.
What to watch
Observations to monitor, not financial advice.
Comments
0No comments yet.