Connect with us

World

How the reparations loan for Ukraine fell apart at the eleventh hour

Published

on

How the reparations loan for Ukraine fell apart at the eleventh hour

It was so bold that, at times, it seemed impossible — and in the end, it was.

The European Union’s attempt to channel the immobilised assets of the Russian Central Bank into a zero-interest reparations loan failed when the bloc’s 27 leaders, faced with a leap into the unknown, chose to support Ukraine’s resistance with the tried-and-tested method of joint debt.

“If you take money from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin, you are exposed,” said Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, the chief opponent of the reparations loan, explaining its failure. “If you’re exposed, then people like certainty, and where can you find certainty? In charted waters.”

The bloc will now go to the markets to raise €90 billion on its own, without touching the €210 billion in Russian assets, which will remain immobilised until Moscow ceases its war of aggression and compensates Kyiv for the damages.

The choice means that there will be no reparations loan — and not what the European Commission had promised to Ukraine, a complex proposal that advocates thought ingenious and detractors said was foolhardy.

Advertisement

Euronews has pieced together the events of the last four months to understand how and why the reparations loan spectacularly fell apart.

September: The pitch

The first appearance of the loan proposal dates back to 10 September, when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivered her hour-long State of the EU speech in Strasbourg.

There she proposed using the cash balances from the immobilised Russian assets held in the EU to issue a reparations loan to support Ukraine. She did not provide any details at the time.

“This is Russia’s war. And it is Russia that should pay,” von der Leyen said. “It should not only be European taxpayers who bear the brunt.”

But it was not von der Leyen who would define what was about to become the most energy-consuming political debate of 2025. It was German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Advertisement

A few days after von der Leyen’s speech, he published an opinion piece in the Financial Times that offered a full endorsement of the project, presenting it as a foregone conclusion despite its lack of precedent.

“That decision should, ideally, be unanimous,” he wrote. “Failing that, it should be adopted by the large majority of member states who are firmly committed to Ukraine.”

The so-called “Merz op-ed” caught diplomats and officials by surprise. Some saw it as yet another example of Germany exploiting its position as the largest member state to single-handedly set the agenda for the entire bloc.

Subsequently, the Commission put forward a two-page document that outlined, in highly theoretical terms, how the initiative would work in practice.

The chain of events triggered one country in particular.

Advertisement

October: The pushback

Belgium holds the bulk of the Russian assets — about €185 billion — in central securities depository Euroclear, and felt it should have been adequately consulted before the Commission’s two-page proposal was circulated.

The Belgian resistance burst into the open in October when De Wever delivered a remarkably frank press conference in Copenhagen in which he argued the reparations loan would deprive the EU of its most powerful leverage vis-à-vis the Kremlin.

“The question now is: can we eat the chicken?” De Wever said. “The first problem, of course, is that you lose the golden eggs if you eat the chickens. You have to consider that. If you put the chicken on the table and you eat it, then you lose a golden egg.”

De Wever then delineated, one by one, his demands for the untested project: bulletproof legal certainty, full mutualisation of risks and real burden-sharing among all countries holding Russian sovereign assets.

He reiterated his concerns about the plan during a closely watched summit in mid-October, where leaders hoped to endorse the reparations loan. De Wever held his ground, and the meeting ended with a vague mandate tasking the Commission to design several “options” that could meet Ukraine’s financial and military needs for 2026 and 2027.

Advertisement

Von der Leyen, however, seemed to interpret the mandate as an implicit affirmation of her bold idea, which she framed as the only viable option.

“There are points to be clarified and have a deep dive,” she said at the end of the summit. “We agreed on the what, that is, the reparations loan, and we have to work on the how, how we make it possible (and) what’s the best option to move forward.”

A few days later, the EU’s three Nordic leaders publicly ruled out issuing joint debt to support Ukraine. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen went as far as to declare that “for me, there is no alternative to the reparations loan”.

November: The shock

The inconclusive summit revealed that without Belgium’s consent, the reparations loan would not be possible. The Commission accelerated bilateral talks with De Wever’s team to address the sticking points and sketch out a landing zone.

On 17 November, von der Leyen sent leaders a letter detailing three options to raise €90 billion for Ukraine: bilateral voluntary contributions, joint debt and the reparations loan.

Advertisement

“The options presented in this note are stark both in their design and in their implications. Clearly, there are no easy options,” she said.

The section devoted to the reparations loan was explicitly written to mitigate the Belgian concerns. It addressed two of De Wever’s key demands: providing “legally binding, unconditional, irrevocable and on-demand guarantees” and securing the participation of all EU and G7 countries holding Russian sovereign assets.

The letter also acknowledged the disadvantages of the reparations loan, warning of reputational damage to the eurozone and “knock-on effects” for its financial stability.

Just as diplomats were digesting von der Leyen’s matter-of-fact assessment, a hurricane swept through Europe: the now-infamous 28-point plan drafted by US and Russian officials to end the war in Ukraine that, among other things, proposed using the immobilised assets for the commercial benefit of both Washington and Moscow.

The plan incensed European leaders, who quickly closed ranks and emphasised that any issue within European jurisdiction would require full European involvement. Rather than weakening the case for the reparations loan, the 28-point plan seemed to strengthen it.

Advertisement

But then, De Wever re-entered the scene with a strongly worded letter to von der Leyen describing her blueprint as “fundamentally wrong” and riddled with “multifold dangers”.

“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 said in the most controversial segment of the letter.

His invective revealed the chasm that still existed between Belgium and the Commission, and raised the bar even higher for a compromise.

December: The collapse

Undeterred by De Wever’s castigations, von der Leyen forged ahead and unveiled the legal texts of the reparations loan in early December — just as the European Central Bank declined to provide a liquidity backstop for the measure.

The complex proposal, which diplomats said arrived too late in the process, further expanded the guarantees to protect Belgium, erected safeguards to nullify arbitration and created an “offset” mechanism to recoup any eventual losses.

Advertisement

“We want to make very sure to all our member states, but specifically also to Belgium, that we will share the burden in a fair way, as it is the European way,” von der Leyen said.

This time, the pushback came from Euroclear itself, rather than De Wever. In a statement to Euronews, the depository decried the texts as “very fragile,” describing them as excessively experimental and liable to trigger an exodus of foreign investors from the eurozone.

As uncertainty over the project deepened, the leaders of Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden came together in its defence.

“In addition to being the most financially feasible and politically realistic solution, it addresses the fundamental principles of Ukraine’s right of compensation for damages caused by the aggression,” they wrote in a joint statement.

High-level Commission officials, from Kaja Kallas to Valdis Dombrovskis, echoed von der Leyen’s message and framed the reparations loan as the most credible option.

Advertisement

The proposal was bolstered after member states, fearing a repeat of the 28-point plan, invoked an emergency clause to indefinitely immobilise the Russian assets, something that on paper could help alleviate one of Belgium’s most pressing concerns.

Yet the momentum proved to be short-lived.

In an unexpected twist, Italy, Bulgaria and Malta joined Belgium in urging the Commission to explore “alternative solutions” to finance Ukraine with “predictable parameters” and “significantly less risks”. Separately, Andrej Babiš, the newly appointed prime minister of the Czech Republic, called on the Commission to “find other ways”.

The reservations set the scene for the make-or-break summit on 18 December.

During the closed-door talks, officials worked to address all the outstanding Belgian concerns and unblock the reparations loan. But in the end, the effort backfired, instead laying bare the scope of commitment that governments were required to undertake.

Advertisement

At one point, a compromise was floated: to provide “uncapped” guarantees and reimburse “all amounts and damages” stemming from the scheme.

The wording was too much for the sleep-deprived leaders: all of a sudden, they were staring down the prospect of bailing out the entire Belgian banking system.

Faced with mounting concessions and liabilities, leaders shelved the reparations loan and opted for joint debt.

“I knew beforehand that the enthusiasm for the reparations loan was not so big as people thought it would be,” De Wever said, suggesting that von der Leyen, while doing an “excellent job,” had been misled by Germany, the Nordics and the Baltic states.

“It turned out, as I knew it would, that many more countries that hadn’t spoken yet were extremely critical of all the financial aspects of it, finding out that a simple truth: there is no free money in the world. It just does not exist.”

Advertisement

World

‘Harry Potter’ Trailer: Harry, Ron and Hermione Head to Hogwarts to Meet Dumbledore, Snape and Hagrid; Christmas 2026 Release Date Set on HBO

Published

on

‘Harry Potter’ Trailer: Harry, Ron and Hermione Head to Hogwarts to Meet Dumbledore, Snape and Hagrid; Christmas 2026 Release Date Set on HBO

Grab your wands and polish your broomsticks, because Hogwarts is calling. HBO has released the first trailer for its upcoming “Harry Potter” series, inviting audiences to return to the Wizarding World with a fresh take on the iconic series. Season 1 will premiere during Christmas 2026, the network says.

The trailer starts out by showing Harry living in his cupboard room under the stairs at the Dursleys’ home. He’s bullied by his cousin Dudley and gets a painful haircut by his Aunt Petunia, who tells him he’s not special — until he gets his acceptance letter to Hogwarts. The trailer then shows Hagrid explaining the Wizarding World to Harry and teases some information about his deceased parents. With his luggage piled onto his trolley, Harry runs through the gateway at Platform 9 3/4 to board the Hogwarts Express.

On the train, he sees Ron hugging his mother goodbye as he boards. The two sit down on the train with Hermione, and Ron asks him “Are you really Harry Potter?” There’s also a montage that show the trio exploring Hogwarts, Harry unwrapping a Quidditch broomstick and quick looks at Dumbledore, Snape, Draco Malfoy, Mr. Ollivander, the Sorting Hat and more.

Dominic McLaughlin stars as the young Harry Potter, joined by Alastair Stout as Ron Weasley and Arabella Stanton as Hermione Granger. Together, they navigate the challenges of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, forming close friendships and facing the rising threat of Lord Voldemort.

The ensemble also includes John Lithgow as Albus Dumbledore, Paapa Essiedu as Severus Snape, Janet McTeer as Minerva McGonagall, Nick Frost as Rubeus Hagrid, Paul Whitehouse as Argus Filch, Luke Thallon as Quirinus Quirrell, Lox Pratt as Draco Malfoy, Bel Powley and Daniel Rigby as Petunia and Vernon Dursley and Katherine Parkinson as Molly Weasley.

Advertisement

The series is structured as a faithful retelling of J.K. Rowling’s novels, with each season adapting one book from the seven-part saga. Fans can expect iconic moments brought to life, from the magical classrooms to the soaring Quidditch pitch. A first-look image previously released by HBO showed Harry in his Gryffindor cloak walking toward the Quidditch field, signaling the production’s attention to detail and reverence for the source material.

Filmed at Warner Bros. Studios Leavesden in the U.K., the series is led by showrunner Francesca Gardiner, with “Succession” director Mark Mylod taking on multiple episodes. Executive producers include Rowling, Neil Blair, Ruth Kenley-Letts and David Heyman.

The “Harry Potter” series is set to give fans a chance to step back into the magic that has captivated generations.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Iran-linked influence campaign pushes anti-Israel messaging disguised as US voices: report

Published

on

Iran-linked influence campaign pushes anti-Israel messaging disguised as US voices: report

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A new analysis of social media activity during the opening days of Operation Epic Fury suggests that much of the online backlash and anti-Israel content may not have been driven by Americans at all.

The report identified recurring narratives pushed by foreign-based accounts, including claims that the operation was a “betrayal of MAGA,” “highly unpopular with the American people” and carried out “on behalf of Israel.”

Sixty percent of the most viral posts on X mentioning “Iran” during the first week of the operation originated from accounts based outside the United States — despite often presenting themselves as American voices, according to research conducted by Argyle Consulting Group, a private intelligence and data analysis firm.

WITH DOGS, DANCE AND UNCOVERED HAIR, IRANIANS DEFY ‘UNHOLY ALLIANCE’ OF SOCIALISTS, RADICALS: ‘HYPOCRITES!’

Advertisement

“These aren’t just random opinions,” Eran Vasker, CEO and co-founder of Argyle Consulting Group, told Fox News Digital. 

“What we’re seeing is discourse that looks American — written in English, using U.S. political language — but is actually coming from outside the country … almost impossible for a regular user to detect,” Vasker said, explaining that the accounts “look very American” and mirror domestic political language and debates.

A new analysis of social media activity during the opening days of Operation Epic Fury suggests that much of the online backlash and anti-Israel content may not have been driven by Americans at all. (Lori Van Buren/Times Union)

The analysis examined 100 highly X viral posts — each with more than 10,000 shares — between Feb. 28 and March 7. In total, posts containing the word “Iran” generated 98 million posts, 696.4 million interactions, and an estimated 1.5 trillion potential views, making it one of the largest online information events on record. 

Foreign accounts alone generated 155.6 million views, compared to 93.4 million from U.S.-based accounts, outpacing them by more than 60 million views in the sample.

Advertisement

Even more striking, every single foreign-based post in the dataset was negative toward the operation, while the only supportive content came from U.S.-based users, Argyle found. 

WHY TRUMP IS DENOUNCING THE MEDIA’S IRAN WAR COVERAGE AS TOO NEGATIVE – BOOSTED BY RHETORICAL FCC BACKING

Among the most influential voices driving engagement, seven of the top 10 accounts were based outside the United States, including accounts linked to Russia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and South Asia, Argyle found.  (Rashid Umar Abbasi for Fox News Digital)

JP Castellanos, Binary Defense director of threat intelligence and a former member of U.S. Central Command’s Active Cyber Defense Team, said much of the activity is focused on Israel and combines disruption with messaging. 

“About 42% of the attacks that we’re seeing or the claims that we’re seeing online are directed toward Israel,” Castellanos said.

Advertisement

He also pointed to doxing campaigns and AI-generated videos “trying to basically shape the information space.”

Much of the challenge, Castellanos said, is distinguishing real cyber incidents from inflated online claims by hacktivist groups seeking attention.

“A lot of times, these are just claims that they put online,” he said. 

BLOODY NYC KHAMENEI VIGIL REVEALS ANTI-US PROTEST NETWORK LINKED TO IRAN

Cyber threat analysts say that an online narrative campaign is unfolding alongside broader activity by pro-Iranian and aligned groups across the digital space. (Rashid Umar Abbasi for Fox News Digital)

Advertisement

Researchers said the scale, consistency and geographic spread of the messaging point to a coordinated effort rather than organic global debate.

Cyber threat analysts say that an online narrative campaign is unfolding alongside broader activity by pro-Iranian and aligned groups across the digital space.

One of the most prominent groups to emerge in the current conflict, Castellanos said, is Handala, an Iran-linked hacking operation that has claimed responsibility for attacks on both U.S. and Israeli targets. 

Among the most influential voices driving engagement, seven of the top 10 accounts were based outside the United States, including accounts linked to Russia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and South Asia.

U.S. authorities and cybersecurity firms have linked Handala to Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, describing it as part of a broader effort combining cyberattacks with psychological and information operations.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The report identified recurring narratives pushed by foreign-based accounts, including claims that the operation was a “betrayal of MAGA,” “highly unpopular with the American people” and carried out “on behalf of Israel.” (Asra Q. Nomani/Fox News Digital)

The cybersecurity researchers told Fox News Digital Handala is part of a wider network of Iran-aligned and pro-Russian hacktivist groups that have mobilized since the start of the war, blending disruptive cyber activity with narrative-shaping campaigns online.

Fox News Digital reached out to X multiple times, providing a list of the accounts in question per their request, but has not yet received a response.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

‘Keffiyehs seized, left to die’: Inside the Palestine Action hunger strike

Published

on

‘Keffiyehs seized, left to die’: Inside the Palestine Action hunger strike

London, United Kingdom – A month after being released on bail, pro-Palestine activists who participated in a months-long hunger strike in prison are planning on taking legal action over their alleged mistreatment.

On Wednesday, at a news conference where four of the activists spoke about life in jail and their lasting medical conditions, Lisa Minerva Luxx, a campaigner who supports the group, said the defendants are “seeking to take legal action against the prisons for their medical neglect”, adding, “legal action is due to take place”.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Eight young activists linked to the protest group Palestine Action began a rolling hunger strike in November that lasted until January.

Qesser Zuhrah, 21, Teuta Hoxha, 30, Kamran Ahmed, 28, and 31-year-old Heba Muraisi were bailed in February after the High Court ruled that the proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful. They had been held on remand for 15 months in connection with a raid on the Elbit Systems UK factory in Filton, near Bristol, on August 6, 2024.

‘My hair is falling out in chunks’

Heba Muraisi, who refused food for 73 days, told Al Jazeera she is still suffering from “neurological issues”.

Advertisement

“My hair is still falling out in chunks, I can’t walk long distances without needing to take a break. Physically and mentally, I’m still recovering. I’m still not there yet,” she said.

She told the news conference that the treatment she faced in prison “only got worse” when the government proscribed Palestine Action as a “terror” group in July 2025.

Muraisi said she was physically assaulted to the point that the “wind was thrown out of me”, was regularly placed in solitary confinement, and had her keffiyeh confiscated – so she instead used a pillowcase as a headscarf while praying.

During her detention, Muraisi was transferred to a jail in northern England, much further from Bronzefield prison near her loved ones.

Prison authorities “refused to tell me where I was going,” she said. “My mother, who is unwell, couldn’t visit for five months.”

Advertisement

She claimed that she was not provided with electrolytes during her hunger strike “and only received vitamins after 30 days”.

‘A calculated regime of isolation’

Others, held at different prisons, spoke of similar patterns of alleged mistreatment.

Through tears and wearing a grey sweatsuit that resembled her prison gear – and that of Palestinians detained by Israel – Qesser Zuhrah said, “I was 19 when I was kidnapped from my home by counterterrorism police in a very violent raid.”

“For the entirety of my imprisonment, I was subject to a calculated regime of isolation, blocked from making any friends, especially other young people and Muslims,” she said. “One Muslim woman I met [was told by a guard that] there are dangerous people here and that she needs to be moved away from me.”

Zuhrah added that “multiple periods of prolonged confinement and isolation in my cell without reason” made her feel “like a ghost of myself”.

Advertisement

She said that one day, after two prisoners had died in a week, she asked the guards to unlock the cell of a claustrophobic inmate who was suffering from suicidal thoughts.

“They responded by assaulting me,” she said. “Female guards grabbed my arms, exposed my body, dragged me through the landing and up a metal staircase, and threw me into my cell against the metal bed frame.”

Zuhrah refused food for almost 50 days as part of the hunger strike, pushing her body to the limits. Like the other activists, she was hospitalised during this period.

“Our prisons mistreated us in the most elaborate ways, in order to teach us that our bodies don’t belong to us,” she said, claiming that she was also denied electrolytes and received vitamins after only 30 days.

Guards “tried to tempt me with food”, she said, alleging “cruel tactics” that impacted her health.

Advertisement

“On the 45th or 46th day, they left me paralysed with muscle wastage on my cell floor for 22 hours,” she alleged. “They left me to die on my cell floor, or at least let me believe that they would [leave me].”

‘I still bear the marks of the cuffs’

Kamran Ahmed, who refused food for 66 days, said he still suffers from chest pains and breathlessness.

He said that after being admitted to hospital, he was handcuffed to an officer while showering; the use of cuffs is usually restricted for people who are likely to escape or commit violence.

“I was chained so tight that even today I still bear the marks of the cuffs,” he said.

He also said he was made to walk without shoes during his detention.

Advertisement

“When I had to use the public toilet, with only socks, I had to dodge stains of urine and faeces,” he said.

Supporters of Palestine Action stage a protest outside the Royal Court of Justice in London, Friday, February 13, 2026 [Kin Cheung/AP Photo]

Teuta Hoxha, who underwent two hunger strikes whilst on remand for 15 months, said that during the second protest, she lost 20 percent of her body weight “and was defecating my muscle mass in hospital whilst chained to an officer like a dog”.

She claimed, “I witnessed guards threaten other prisoners with 14 years for saying ‘free Palestine’.

“When I raised this incident with the prison’s regional ‘counterterrorism’ lead, a meeting I secured through the hunger strike, he used the analogy of a neo-Nazi fascist symbol to compare the two.”

She added that other prisoners were warned not to associate with us “because we were deemed to be terrorists”.

Advertisement

But ultimately, Hoxha said, “the British state failed to disappear our resistance”.

The group called off their hunger strike, claiming victory after the UK reportedly denied a military training contract to Elbit Systems UK, instead choosing Raytheon UK, the subsidiary of the US defence firm, which also has several deals with the Israeli military.

Known as part of the “Filton 24”, the detainees denied the charges against them, such as burglary and criminal damage. Twenty-three members of the collective have been bailed. Only Samuel Corner, who faced an additional charge of allegedly assaulting a police sergeant, remains in prison.

Four other hunger strikers remain in prison, accused of involvement in a break-in at a Royal Air Force (RAF) base in Oxfordshire.

Both incidents were claimed by Palestine Action.

Advertisement

The Home Office has been granted permission to appeal the High Court’s decision on Palestine Action. An April date has reportedly been set for the appeal.

Al Jazeera has contacted the Ministry of Justice for a response. Throughout their hunger strike, the ministry denied that the prisoners were being mistreated.

Continue Reading

Trending