World

EU weighs Plan B for Ukraine as Belgium raises bar on reparations loan

Published

3 months ago

November 29, 2025

EU weighs Plan B for Ukraine as Belgium raises bar on reparations loan

European Union leaders are coming to terms with the idea that an emergency funding solution to keep the Ukrainian economy afloat will have to be deployed after Belgium raised the bar higher to unlock a reparations loan that would bolster Kyiv’s finances.

The solution could see the EU raise money on the markets to deliver a non-repayable grant to Kyiv that would cover its most immediate financial and military needs in 2026.

This, in turn, would give leaders more time to break the deadlock over the proposed loan, a bold attempt to channel the immobilised assets of the Russian Central Bank to Ukraine.

The bulk of the assets, around €185 billion, is kept at Euroclear, a central securities depository in Brussels. This makes Belgium the cardinal vote in the debate.

Initially, EU leaders were expected to be able to assuage the Belgian reservations and sign up to the unprecedented project during their next meeting on 18 December.

In a new twist in the long-running saga, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever penned a scathing letter to Ursula von der Leyen, blasting the reparations loan as “fundamentally wrong” and ridden with legal and financial pitfalls.

“Why would we thus venture into uncharted legal and financial waters with all possible consequences, if this can be avoided?” De Wever tells the president of the European Commission in the letter. “I will never commit Belgium to sustain on its own the risks and exposures that would arise from the option of a reparations loan.”

Upping the ante, De Wever demands “legally binding, unconditional, irrevocable, on-demand, joint and several guarantees” to cover the €185 billion of the assets and all the potential fallout, such as arbitration costs, interests, investment opportunity loss and even the “quantification of financial impact to the Central Bank of Russia’s credit”.

He also asks for total coverage for Euroclear’s holdings in “Russia-friendly jurisdictions”, which he said could be subject to retaliatory measures from the Kremlin.

“Some may hold the belief that this is only a theoretical exposure. l am making the point that this danger is, to the contrary, real and likely to happen,” De Wever writes.

By raising the bar so high for the guarantees, which are a crucial element to unlock the reparations loans, De Wever makes its approval exponentially more difficult.

It is unlikely that the other leaders will be able to show up at the summit in December with multi-billion guarantees that rely for the most part on a hypothetical calculus. For some countries, such a complex structure would require the blessing of their parliament.

The hurdles are weighing heavily in the minds of EU officials and diplomats as they rush to break the deadlock before Ukraine runs out of foreign aid. The country expects a fresh injection of assistance in the second quarter of 2026 at the latest.

Adding to the pressure is an $8.1 billion programme that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is meant to grant Ukraine. For the IMF to make a final decision, it will need firm commitments by European allies to ensure Kyiv’s macro-economic stability.

The mounting urgency has drastically raised the odds for a bridge solution to plug the gap. The interim financing could be backed by either national guarantees or the EU budget, which currently forbids borrowing for a country outside the bloc.

Tweaking the budget’s rules would need unanimity, a tall order given Hungary’s adamant opposition to aiding Kyiv in any capacity. The same obstacle would remain if leaders chose joint debt as the long-term arrangement to support Ukraine.

The Trump factor

In his letter, De Wever goes beyond law and economics and dives headfirst into politics.

The Belgian leader warns that pushing the reparations loan at this particular stage could imperil the White House’s efforts to secure a peace deal to end Russia’s war.

“Hastily moving forward on the proposed reparations loan scheme would have, as collateral damage, that we, as the EU, are effectively preventing reaching an eventual peace deal,” De Wever tells von der Leyen.

“We can hardly engage the Russian sovereign assets for multiple purposes at the same time. Either they are immobilised for the purpose of financing reconstruction of Ukraine, or they are spent now on financing war efforts or Ukraine’s core budget.”

De Wever argues that it is “very probable” that Russia will not be declared the “losing party” in the conflict and therefore be entitled to recover its sovereign property currently under sanctions. If this happens, he adds, the reparations loan will fall apart and European taxpayers will have to foot the bill themselves.

This section in the letter stands in stark contrast with the position advocated by other leaders, who see the Russian assets as the bloc’s most powerful leverage.

“We must quickly reach an appropriate agreement by the EU leaders’ summit in December at the latest to strengthen our negotiating position and send another signal of solidarity and support to Ukraine,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Thursday.

Von der Leyen has also framed her proposal under a moral lens to “make Russia pay”.

“To be very clear – I cannot see any scenario in which the European taxpayers alone will pay the bill. This is also not acceptable,” she said this week.

The internal disagreements come at a precarious time for Europeans, who were caught off guard by a 28-point peace plan secretly drafted by US and Russian officials and are now scrambling to close ranks and project political unity.

The original draft pitched a highly controversial model that would use the Russian assets for Washington’s and Moscow’s commercial benefit. The provision is believed to have been removed after high-level talks in Geneva between the US and Ukraine.

Still, the text highlighted the value of the Russian assets. For some, it confirmed the need to approve the reparations loans. For others, it prompted second thoughts.

Hours before De Wever sent his letter to von der Leyen, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that touching the funds would amount to the “theft of someone else’s property”.

(Under the proposal, Moscow would be allowed to recover the immobilised assets if it agreed to compensate Ukraine for the damages caused by the war.)

“The government of the Russian Federation, by my assignment, develops a package of reciprocal measures in case this happens,” Putin said during a briefing.

In awkward timing for Kyiv, the debate on the reparations loan coincides with a spiralling corruption scandal that precipitated the resignation of Andriy Yermak, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s powerful chief of staff and main negotiator in the peace process.

A diplomat told Euronews that President Zelensky will “have to straighten out the situation as it looks really bad”, and the optics make it significantly more challenging for Europe to sign off on another round of funding.

Still, diplomats insist that aid for Ukraine, a country on the front line of Russian aggression, should not be linked to the scandal.

For its part, the European Commission, which has been criticised for not taking De Wever’s initial concerns seriously, is putting on a brave face.

“These are uncharted waters, so it’s legitimate to ask questions, to share concerns,” said Paula Pinho, the Commission’s chief spokesperson. “We are really doing our utmost to address those concerns in a satisfactory manner so that everybody can feel confident and comfortable with any solution that is put forward eventually.”

Asked if the Commission was ready to override Belgium and push the reparations loan with a qualified majority, Pinho said: “We’re not there yet.”

Related Topics:Bart De Wever Featured Reparations Loan Russia Ukraine Ursula von der Leyen

Click to comment

World

A look at some of the contenders to be Iran’s supreme leader after the killing of Khamenei

Published

3 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

A look at some of the contenders to be Iran’s supreme leader after the killing of Khamenei

Iran’s leaders are scrambling to replace Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who ruled the country for 37 years before he was killed in the surprise U.S. and Israeli bombardment.

It’s only the second time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that a new supreme leader is being chosen. Potential candidates range from hard-liners committed to confrontation with the West to reformists who seek diplomatic engagement.

The supreme leader has the final say on all major decisions, including war, peace and the country’s disputed nuclear program.

In the meantime, a provisional governing council composed of President Masoud Pezeshkian, hard-line judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei and senior Shiite cleric Ayatollah Ali Reza Arafi is guiding the country through its biggest crisis in decades. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that a new supreme leader would be chosen early this week.

The supreme leader is appointed by an 88-member panel called the Assembly of Experts, who by law are supposed to quickly name a successor. The panel consists of Shiite clerics who are popularly elected after their candidacies are approved by the Guardian Council, Iran’s constitutional watchdog.

Khamenei had major influence over both clerical bodies, making it unlikely the next leader will mark a radical departure.

Here are the top contenders.

Mojtaba Khamenei

The son of Khamenei, a mid-level Shiite cleric, is widely considered a potential successor. He has strong ties to Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard but has never held office. His selection could prove awkward, as the Islamic Republic has long criticized hereditary rule and cast itself as a more just alternative.

Ayatollah Ali Reza Arafi

Arafi is a member of the provisional government council. The senior Shiite cleric was handpicked by Khamenei to be a member of the Guardian Council in 2019, and three years later he was elected to the Assembly of Experts. He leads a network of seminaries.

Hassan Rouhani

Rouhani, a relative moderate, was president of Iran from 2013 to 2021 and reached the landmark nuclear agreement with the Obama administration that U.S. President Donald Trump scrapped during his first term. Rouhani served on the Assembly of Experts until 2024, when he said he was disqualified from running for reelection. Rouhani criticized it as an infringement on Iranians’ political participation.

Hassan Khomeini

Khomeini is the most prominent grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He is also seen as a relative moderate, but has never held government office. He currently works at his grandfather’s mausoleum in Tehran.

Ayatollah Mohammed Mehdi Mirbagheri

Mirbagheri is a senior cleric popular with hard-liners who serves on the Assembly of Experts.

He was close to the late Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, a fellow hard-liner who wrote that Iran should not deprive itself of the right to produce “special weapons,” a veiled reference to nuclear arms.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mirbagheri denounced the closure of schools as a “conspiracy.”

He is currently the head of the Islamic Cultural Center in Qom, the main center for Islamic teaching in Iran.

World

US cleared to use British bases for limited strikes on Iranian missile capabilities

Published

5 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

US cleared to use British bases for limited strikes on Iranian missile capabilities

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The U.S. has been cleared to use British bases for limited strikes on Iran’s missile capabilities after Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed off on the plan, and while U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey stated on Sunday Britain had “stepped up alongside the Americans.”

“The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source, in their storage depots or the launchers which are used to fire the missiles,” Starmer confirmed in a recorded statement to the nation.

“The U.S. has requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose,” he said. “We have taken the decision to accept this request.”

The decision came amid escalation across the Middle East in the wake of U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory missile and drone attacks, raising fears of a broader regional conflict.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed off on a plan to use British bases for limited strikes on Iranian missile capabilities. (Kin Cheung / POOL / AFP via Getty Images)

On Feb. 28, in the wake of Operation Epic Fury, Starmer confirmed British planes “are in the sky today” across the Middle East “as part of coordinated regional defensive operations to protect our people, our interests and our allies.”

Healey went on to disclose Sunday that two Iranian missiles were fired in the direction of Cyprus, where Britain maintains key sovereign base areas.

The Royal Air Force confirmed that Typhoon jets operating from Qatar as part of the joint U.K.-Qatar Typhoon Squadron successfully intercepted an Iranian drone heading toward Qatar.

About 300 British personnel are stationed at a naval facility in Bahrain, where Iranian missiles and drones struck nearby areas.

“We’re taking down the drones that are menacing either our bases, our people or our allies,” Healey told “Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips” on Sky. “We’ve stepped up alongside the Americans. We’ve stepped up our defensive forces in the Middle East. We’re flying those sorties.”

ISRAEL’S LARGEST EVER MILITARY FLYOVER HAMMERS IRANIAN MILITARY TARGETS

British Defense Secretary John Healey stressed that the U.K. had “no part” in the American-Israeli strikes on Iran. (Peter Nicholls/Pool via Reuters)

Healey also made sure to stress that the U.K. had “no part” in the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran and insisted all British actions were defensive. “All our actions are about defending U.K. interests and defending U.K. allies,” he said.

When asked if the U.K. would join the U.S. in offensive action, Healey said, “I’m not going to speculate,” according to Sky News.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Downing Street also confirmed Feb. 28 that Starmer and President Donald Trump had spoken by phone about the “situation in the Middle East,” the BBC reported.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Downing Street for comment.

Emma Bussey is a breaking news writer for Fox News Digital. Before joining Fox, she worked at The Telegraph with the U.S. overnight team, across desks including foreign, politics, news, sport and culture.

World

Pakistan calls troops, orders 3-day curfew as 24 killed in pro-Iran rallies

Published

6 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Pakistan calls troops, orders 3-day curfew as 24 killed in pro-Iran rallies

Army deployed and some areas in northern Gilgit-Baltistan region put under curfew after deadly violence over Khamenei’s killing.

By AFP, Anadolu and The Associated Press

Published On 2 Mar 2026

Pakistan has called in the military and imposed a three-day curfew in some areas following deadly protests over the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a joint United States-Israeli attack on Saturday.

At least 24 people were killed and dozens injured in clashes between protesters and security forces across the country on Sunday, prompting authorities to tighten security around the US embassy and consulates.