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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.”

Thousands of people gathered as Bondi Beach reopened days after a mass shooting targeting Jews at a Hanukkah celebration left 15 dead and dozens injured.

The commemoration began with thousands of people standing shoulder-to-shoulder on the sand before forming an enormous circle in the ocean, signifying solidarity among Sydney’s residents and support for the Jewish community, The Associated Press reported.

Police reopened parts of Bondi Beach on Thursday, just five days after the attack. Additionally, as questions emerge over the Jewish community’s safety as well as fears of backlash against Muslims, armed police officers were stationed outside of synagogues and mosques in Sydney on Friday, according to the AP.

At Bondi Beach, surfers took to the water for a paddle-out, a ceremony commonly held when a surfer dies that involves participants sitting on boards as tributes are made and some splash and cheer. A large crowd gathered for the paddle-out at Bondi as Jews prayed on the beach and others gathered to watch the scene, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

AUSTRALIA MOVES TO TIGHTEN GUN LAWS AFTER HANUKKAH MASS SHOOTING LEAVES 15 DEAD AT BONDI BEACH

The attack has spurred a sense of unity, particularly as stories about heroes of the day come to light, such as that of Ahmed al Ahmed, a Syria-born Australian Muslim store owner, who tackled and disarmed one of the gunmen. Al Ahmed was shot and wounded by the other assailant.

In a video posted on social media, al Ahmed said Australia is “the best country in the world” before raising his fist and chanting “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie,” according to the AP.

Following the tragedy, Australians showed their unity by setting a national record for blood donations, the AP reported. Nearly 35,000 donations were made and more than 100,000 appointments booked since Monday, according to the AP, which cited Lifeblood, a branch of the Australian Red Cross.

ISRAELI KNESSET MEMBER SAYS AUSTRALIAN OFFICIALS ‘DID NOTHING’ AMID RISE OF ANTISEMITISM BEFORE SYDNEY ATTACK

The iconic footbridge at Bondi Beach where the shooters were seen carrying out the attack has become a place for tributes to the victims. Beside a chalk drawing of a menorah and an Australian flag, is a drawing of a bumblebee, a symbol memorializing the youngest victim of the attack, 10-year-old Matilda.

Australian Opposition Leader Sussan Ley visited the site and walked across the footbridge.

“I wasn’t prepared for the feelings that hit me when I crossed the bridge,” Ley told the Sydney Morning Herald. “I saw that bridge on television the night that it happened, and like all Australians, I was in shock and horror.”

“Then I heard directly from people who sheltered under that bridge and saw the gunmen, and will never be able to walk through this part of Bondi again without all of those feelings coming back,” she added.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Australian Olympians Jessica Fox, Ian Thorpe and Steve Solomon, along with other athletes, visited the memorial and laid flowers, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

“Moments like this, coming in together, connecting, vowing for change, vowing for improvements and prosperity as a community and a country, is what gives us hope to put on the uniform as we have today,” Solomon, who is Jewish, told the Sydney Morning Herald.

Fox, who is also Jewish, became emotional at the site and said, “It shouldn’t take a tragedy to bring people together.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Violent protests have erupted in multiple cities in Bangladesh after prominent youth leader Sharif Osman Hadi died at Singapore’s General Hospital on Thursday.

Hadi died from gunshot injuries sustained during an assassination attempt in Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, last week.

Here is what we know so far.

Who was Sharif Osman Hadi?

Hadi, 32, was a prominent leader of Bangladesh’s 2024 student-led uprising.

He acted as a spokesperson for Inquilab Mancha, or “Platform for Revolution”, and was planning to stand as a member of parliament for the Dhaka-8 constituency in the Bijoynagar area of the city in the upcoming elections, expected in February 2026.

Hadi was also an outspoken critic of India, where Bangladesh’s ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled following the uprising last year, and its influence on domestic politics in Bangladesh.

Where, when and how did Hadi die?

Authorities in Singapore and Inqilab Mancha announced his death on Thursday.

He died in a hospital in Singapore, where he was receiving treatment after being wounded in an assassination attempt on December 12. He was shot in the head by two assailants on a motorcycle, which pulled up beside the battery-powered auto-rickshaw he was travelling in. He was rushed to Dhaka Medical College Hospital.

Hadi was found to have suffered brain stem damage and was transferred from Dhaka to Singapore General Hospital’s neurosurgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) on December 15 for treatment.

“Despite the best efforts of the doctors … Hadi succumbed to his injuries,” Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Thursday.

In a Facebook post late on Thursday, Inqilab Mancha announced: “In the struggle against Indian hegemony, Allah has accepted the great revolutionary Osman Hadi as a martyr.”

On Friday, groups of mourners began to assemble in the Shahbag neighbourhood in central Dhaka, awaiting Hadi’s body, which was expected to arrive in the capital on Friday evening, Al Jazeera’s Moudud Ahmmed Sujan reported from Dhaka.

How have Bangladeshi authorities responded to the shooting?

On December 12, Bangladeshi police launched a hunt for the attackers who shot Hadi.

The country’s counterterrorism unit, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) is also involved in this manhunt.

In a news release on December 13, the police released stills of CCTV footage of the incident, showing two key suspects. Police offered a reward of five million taka (about $42,000) for information leading to their arrest.

Both men in the CCTV stills are seen wearing black clothes and glasses. While one is wearing a black hoodie, the other is wearing a black dress shirt and a wristwatch.

Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Star reported that the country’s police and border guard have arrested at least 20 people linked to the incident so far, but the investigation is ongoing.

How have Bangladeshi leaders reacted to Hadi’s death?

The country’s interim government head, Muhammad Yunus, expressed his condolences and described Hadi’s death as “an irreparable loss for the nation”.

“The country’s march towards democracy cannot be halted through fear, terror, or bloodshed,” he said in a televised speech on Thursday.

The government also announced special prayers at mosques after Friday prayers and a half-day of mourning on Saturday.

“We are deeply saddened by the death of Sharif Osman Hadi, spokesperson of Inqilab Manch and independent candidate for Dhaka-8 constituency,” the acting chairman of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), Tareq Rahman, wrote on Facebook.

In a news statement to local media reports, the National Citizen Party (NCP) said it was “deeply saddened” by Hadi’s death and expressed condolences to his family.

How have protesters responded to his death?

Following the news of Hadi’s death, violent protests broke out in Dhaka and other parts of the country on Thursday and were continuing on Friday.

Protesters are demanding the resignation of the heads of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law, accusing the authorities of failing to ensure Hadi’s security. They also demand the return of the gunmen, who many believe have fled to India.

Reporting from Dhaka, Al Jazeera’s Tanvir Chowdhury said: “It’s mostly students, but also people from all walks of life, with some political party elements as well.

“Their main slogan is ‘We want justice’ for the killer of Osman Hadi.

“They’re saying the gunman must be brought to justice as soon as possible, or they will continue to protest.”

One group of protesters gathered outside the head office of the country’s leading Bengali-language Prothom Alo daily, which they view as taking a pro-India editorial line, in Dhaka’s Karwan Bazar area. They then surged into the building, according to online portals of various leading media outlets.

A few hundred metres (yards) away, another group of protesters pushed into the premises of the Daily Star, also viewed as pro-India, and set fire to the building.

The outlet reported that 28 journalists and staff members were trapped in the burning building for four hours.

Soldiers and paramilitary border guards were deployed outside the two buildings to monitor the situation, but did not immediately take any action to disperse the protesters.

Local media reported that protesters threw stones at the Assistant High Commission of India in Chittagong on Thursday.

What were the 2024 student protests in Bangladesh about?

In July 2024, students in Bangladesh took to the streets to protest against the conventional job quota system, under which jobs were reserved for descendants of Bangladesh’s freedom fighters in 1971 and who are largely regarded as the political elite now.

Hasina ordered a brutal crackdown as the protests escalated. Before she was eventually ousted and fled to India, where she remains in exile, nearly 1,400 people were killed and more than 20,000 wounded, according to the country’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT).

In July this year, Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit obtained recorded evidence that the former Bangladesh leader had ordered police to use “lethal weapons” against the protesters.

Last month, Hasina was convicted, in absentia, of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by the tribunal in Dhaka. India has so far not agreed to send her back to Bangladesh to face justice.

Why has this stirred up anger towards India?

In Dhaka on Friday, Al Jazeera’s Chowdhury reported: “There’s a strong anti-India sentiment in the crowd. They say India always meddles in Bangladesh’s affairs, particularly right before the elections – and that former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has been making provocative statements from India, where she is taking shelter.”

Now, following Hadi’s death, many Bangladeshis are sharing theories on the internet that the assailants have fled to India. Some politicians from youth parties have repeated these claims.

Local media quoted Sarjis Alam, a leader of the youth-led National Citizen Party (NCP), saying: “The interim government, until India returns assassins of Hadi Bhai, the Indian High Commission to Bangladesh will remain closed. Now or Never. We are in a war!”

Nadim Hawlader, 32, from Dhaka’s airport area and an activist of a Bangladesh Nationalist Party-affiliated volunteer organisation, told Al Jazeera that Hadi had been “brutally murdered” to silence dissent.

“We have come to protest his killing and what we see as Indian aggression,” Hawlader said.

He alleged that India had exerted undue influence over Bangladesh since 1971, and accused New Delhi of backing Sheikh Hasina’s rule during the past 17 years, over which time, he claimed, political repression and killings took place.

Hawlader also alleged that the perpetrators had fled to India and said the protests would continue until “Sheikh Hasina and all those responsible for killings are returned”.