122 European lawmakers demand a new plan for frozen Russian assets

A cross-party push reopens a stalled debate

A group of 122 members of the European Parliament has asked EU leaders to revive efforts to use immobilised Russian sovereign assets for Ukraine. Euronews reported on September 10 that the letter spans the European People’s Party, Socialists and Democrats, Renew Europe, the Greens, European Conservatives and Reformists and The Left. Its breadth gives the initiative political weight, but it does not itself release any money.

The lawmakers addressed European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas, economy commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis, European Council President António Costa and Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin, whose government holds the rotating Council presidency. They want the Commission to produce a revised legal proposal after an earlier plan failed to win agreement among member states.

The proposed mechanism

The letter suggests transferring the immobilised assets into a new EU instrument that would assume legal obligations toward Russia’s central bank. The aim is to prevent Belgium, home to the Euroclear securities depository where most of the EU-held assets sit, from carrying disproportionate litigation and repayment risks. Belgium has been the central holdout, while Italy, Bulgaria and Malta have also raised concerns.

More than €200 billion in Russian central-bank assets are immobilised inside the European Union. Existing Western arrangements use profits generated by frozen reserves to service assistance for Ukraine, but ownership of the principal remains formally Russian. A European Parliament research briefing explains that policymakers have considered either a reparations-linked loan based on cash balances or common EU borrowing backed by the bloc’s budget.

Pressure from Ukraine’s financing needs

The renewed campaign comes as Kyiv identifies a €23 billion shortfall in defence funding. The EU has already approved a €90 billion support loan, but the signatories argue that it will not cover Ukraine’s continuing requirements. Separately, reconstruction estimates exceed the value of the Russian assets, reinforcing the political argument that Moscow should bear more of the financial consequences of the war.

The legal and financial objections remain substantial. Confiscating sovereign property could generate long litigation and concerns about reserve assets held in European jurisdictions. A structure that transfers risk to an EU-wide vehicle may make the proposal more acceptable to Belgium, but it would still require member states to agree on guarantees, governance and permitted uses.

The next meaningful development would be a formal Commission proposal rather than another political appeal. Watch for a response from von der Leyen’s team, changes in Belgium’s position and evidence that governments are willing to share liability. Until those steps occur, the letter increases pressure but leaves the assets frozen.