OddsFrontUkraine backs EU custodianship proposal for frozen Russian assets
The financing debate turns on who would bear legal exposure.
Ukraine’s finance minister, Sergii Marchenko, has backed discussion of transferring custody of immobilised Russian sovereign assets from Belgium to an institution controlled by the European Union, Euronews reported on September 5. The proposal seeks to redistribute legal exposure surrounding additional financing for Ukraine. It remains an idea under discussion, with no approved transfer established by the reporting.
Belgium’s concern centres on Euroclear, the Brussels depository holding much of the money. Euronews reported that Belgian officials remained concerned about litigation and other risks. Moving custody could change which institution faces those risks, but the report did not establish that Belgium had accepted the proposal or that the European Commission had adopted it.
What existing EU decisions establish
The assets already sit within an extensive legal framework. On December 12, 2025, the Council of the EU prohibited direct or indirect transfers of immobilised Russian central-bank assets back to Russia. Its decision also covered entities acting for the central bank, including the Russian National Wealth Fund. The Council described the measure as temporary and linked its duration to the economic dangers arising from Russia’s war against Ukraine.
That decision addressed the danger of resources returning to Russia. In its explanation, the Council argued that making those resources available could help prolong the war, aggravate uncertainty and increase fiscal pressure on EU governments. This provides the institutional background to the financing debate, but it does not itself establish a new European custodian or authorise the proposed change in custody.
Profits and principal raise different questions
A separate Council decision from May 21, 2024, established the use of extraordinary net profits generated at securities depositories holding immobilised Russian assets. Those legal acts directed contributions towards Ukraine’s military support, defence-industrial capacity and reconstruction. They distinguished the income produced under the sanctions arrangements from the underlying sovereign holdings. That distinction remains essential when assessing what a new financing proposal would actually change.
The next meaningful development would be a formal institutional proposal specifying custody, liability and the intended use of the funds. Until those elements are defined and approved, the latest discussion signals a search for a financing mechanism rather than an available new funding stream. For Ukraine and its European partners, the practical question is whether political agreement can turn that discussion into a legally workable instrument.