World
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.
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.”
World
Takeaways from AP’s report on the ICE detention center holding children and parents
Many Americans were alarmed recently when immigration officers in Minneapolis took custody of a 5-year-old boy and sent him and his father to a Texas detention center. But he was no outlier.
The government has been holding hundreds of children and their parents at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, about 75 miles south of San Antonio. Some have been detained for months.
The Department of Homeland Security has strongly defended the quality of care and conditions there.
Here are key findings from an Associated Press report on how the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement is shaping life inside the facility.
Detention of children has been rising
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement booked more than 3,800 children into detention during the first nine months of the new Trump administration, according to an AP analysis of data from the University of California, Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project.
On an average day, more than 220 children were being held, with most of those detained longer than 24 hours sent to Dilley. More than half of Dilley detainees during the early part of the Trump administration were children, the AP analysis found.
Since being reopened last spring, the number of people detained at Dilley has risen sharply and reached more than 1,300 in late January, according to researchers. Nearly two-thirds of children detained by ICE in the early months of the Trump administration were eventually deported.
ICE holds many children longer than 20-day limit
The government is holding many children at Dilley well beyond the 20-day limit set by a longstanding court order.
“We’ve started to use 100 days as a benchmark because so many children are exceeding 20 days,” said Leecia Welch, the chief legal director at Children’s Rights, who visits Dilley regularly to ensure compliance. In a visit this month, Welch said she counted more than 30 children who had been held for over 100 days.
Many settled families among those currently detained
When the Obama administration opened Dilley in 2014, nearly all the families detained there had recently crossed the border from Mexico.
But many of those now sent to the facility have lived in the U.S. several years, according to lawyers and other observers, meaning children are being uprooted from the familiarity of schools, neighborhoods and many of the people who care for them.
Parents Allege Deficient Care
Parents and children recounted stressful conditions inside Dilley, including experiences that raise questions about the quality of care being provided.
A 13-year-old girl cut herself with a plastic knife after staff withheld prescribed antidepressants and denied her request to join her mother down the hall, the mother told the AP.
Another mother said when her 1-year-old daughter developed a high fever and vomited, medical staff repeatedly offered only acetaminophen and ibuprofen before she was eventually admitted to hospitals with bronchitis, pneumonia and stomach viruses. ICE disputed her account, saying the baby “immediately received proper care.”
Other families described more routine problems, like the difficulty of getting children to sleep in quarters where lights are kept on all night and of stomach aches caused by foul drinking water.
Both adults and children described the often overwhelming stress of being detained that has caused many to despair.
ICE, DHS defend Dilley
DHS did not respond to detailed questions about Dilley submitted by the AP. But both DHS and ICE sharply refuted allegations of poor care and conditions in statements issued this week.
“The Dilley facility is a family residential center designed specifically to house family units in a safe, structured and appropriate environment,” ICE Director Todd M. Lyons said in a statement.
Dilley provides medical screenings and infant care packages as well as classrooms and recreational spaces, ICE said.
Once in full operation, Dilley is expected to generate about $180 million in annual revenue for CoreCivic, the for-profit prison company that operates it under contract with ICE, according to the company’s recent filing with securities regulators.
In response to questions from the AP, a CoreCivic spokesman said no child at Dilley “has been denied medical treatment or experienced a delayed medical assessment.” The company said detainees receive comprehensive care from medical and mental health professionals.
Questions about oversight
The increased detention of families comes as the Trump administration has gutted an office responsible for oversight of conditions inside Dilley and other facilities.
In years past, investigators found problems at Dilley, including consistently inadequate staffing and disregard for the trauma caused by the detention.
A special committee recommended that family detention be discontinued except in rare cases, and the Biden administration began phasing it out in 2021. Dilley was closed in 2024. But in reopening it, the Trump administration has completely reversed course.
World
World leaders split over military action as US-Israel strike Iran in coordinated operation
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
World leaders reacted swiftly Saturday after the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran, exposing a deep divide between governments backing the attack on Iran and those warning the attacks risk a wider regional war.
In a joint statement, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney and Foreign Minister Anita Anand voiced firm support saying, “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” The statement described Iran as “the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East” and stressed it “must never be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.”
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also endorsed the action, writing on X, “Australia stands with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression.” He confirmed Australia supports “the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” while activating emergency consular measures and urging Australians to leave Iran if safe.
The United Kingdom said Iran “must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.” U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office said he was speaking with the leaders of France and Germany “as part of a series of calls with allies.”
A person holds an image of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as Iranian demonstrators protest against the U.S.-Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 28, 2026. (Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) )
French President Emmanuel Macron warned, “The outbreak of war between the United States, Israel and Iran carries grave consequences for international peace and security.” He added, “The ongoing escalation is dangerous for all. It must stop,” and called for an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council.
In a joint statement, the leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom also said they had “consistently urged the Iranian regime to end Iran’s nuclear program, curb its ballistic missile program, refrain from its destabilizing activity in the region and our homelands, and to cease the appalling violence and repression against its own people.”
The three governments said they “did not participate in these strikes,” but remain “in close contact with our international partners, including the United States, Israel, and partners in the region.”
They reiterated their “commitment to regional stability and to the protection of civilian life,” condemned “Iranian attacks on countries in the region in the strongest terms,” and called for a “resumption of negotiations,” urging Iran’s leadership to seek a negotiated solution. “Ultimately, the Iranian people must be allowed to determine their future,” the statement said.
European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas described developments as “perilous,” saying Iran’s “ballistic missile and nuclear programmes… pose a serious threat to global security,” while emphasizing that “Protection of civilians and international humanitarian law is a priority.”
Spain openly rejected the strikes. Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, “We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order.”
Meanwhile, Gulf states responded to reported Iranian missile activity.
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry said, “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia condemns and denounces in strongest terms the blatant Iranian aggression and the flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Jordan.” It affirmed “its full solidarity with and unwavering support for the brotherly countries” and warned of “grave consequences resulting from the continued violation of states’ sovereignty and the principles of international law.”
The United Arab Emirates’ Ministry of Defense said the country “was subjected to a blatant attack involving Iranian ballistic missiles,” adding that air defense systems “successfully intercepted a number of missiles.” Authorities said falling debris in a residential area caused “one civilian death of an asian nationality” and material damage.
The ministry called the attack “a dangerous escalation and a cowardly act that threatens the safety of civilians and undermines stability,” and stated the UAE “reserves its full right to respond.”
UN’S ATOMIC AGENCY’S IRAN POLICY GETS MIXED REVIEWS FROM EXPERTS AFTER US-ISRAEL ‘OBLITERATE’ NUCLEAR SITES
Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Manama, Bahrain, Feb. 28, 2026. (Reuters)
Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar “strongly condemned the unwarranted attacks against Iran” and called for “urgent resumption of diplomacy.”
China also weighed in. A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, wrote on X that Beijing is “highly concerned over the military strikes against Iran launched by the U.S. and Israel.” He added that “Iran’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity should be respected” and called for “an immediate stop of the military actions” and “no further escalation.”
Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan held calls with counterparts across the region, a Turkish Foreign Ministry source told Reuters. The discussions focused on “possible steps to be taken to help bring an end to the attacks.”
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy directly linked the developments to Russia’s war against his country.
“Although Ukrainians never threatened Iran, the Iranian regime chose to become Putin’s accomplice and supplied him with ‘shahed’ drones,” Zelenskyy wrote, adding that Russia has used “more than 57,000 shahed-type attack drones against the Ukrainian people.”
“It is important that the United States is acting decisively,” he said. “Whenever there is American resolve, global criminals weaken.”
Russia sharply criticized the operation. Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said, “All negotiations with Iran are a cover operation.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
An interception is visible in the sky over Haifa during the latest barrage. (Anthony Hershko/TPS-IL)
Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam warned, “We will not accept anyone dragging the country into adventures that threaten its security and unity.”
Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said the strike “is not in line with international law.”
Reuters contributed to this report.
World
Israel strikes two schools in Iran, killing more than 50 people
State media says Israeli attack on girls’ school in the city of Minab in the south of the country kills dozens.
Published On 28 Feb 2026
An Israeli strike has hit an elementary girls’ school in Minab, a city in the Hormozgan province of southern Iran, killing at least 53 people, according to state media, as the immediate civilian cost from Israel and the United States’ huge bombardment of Iran comes into sharper focus.
Workers are continuing to clear wreckage from the site, where 63 others have been injured on Saturday, said Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency. The strike is part of a wave of joint US-Israeli military attacks across Iran that has triggered an outbreak of regional violence.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shared a photo of the attack, which he said destroyed the girls’ school and killed “innocent children”.
“These crimes against the Iranian People will not go unanswered,” Araghchi wrote in a post on X.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei also slammed the “blatant crime” and urged action from the United Nations Security Council.
Separately, Iran’s Mehr news agency reported that at least two students were killed by another Israeli attack that hit a school east of the capital, Tehran.
Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Mohammed Vall said the attacks call into question US and Israeli claims that “they are targeting only military targets and they are trying to punish the regime, not the people of Iran.”
“President Trump has promised the Iranian people that aid or help is coming their way, but now we are seeing civilian casualties; that’s something that the Iranian government will stress as a case of violation of international law and an aggression against the Iranian people, ” said Vall.
There was no immediate reaction from the US or Israel on Iran’s claims about the school strikes.
The last time the US and Iran waged attacks on Iran in June 2025, sparking the 12-day war, the civilian toll in Iran was also heavy.
According to Iran’s Ministry of Health and Medical Education, thousands of civilians were killed or injured, and public infrastructure was damaged, during that conflict.
-
World3 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO3 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT