Will the EU approve the controversial Ukraine loan?

Using the frozen Russian assets is the best option, De Volkskrant concurs:

“In an emergency situation, Europe must have the courage to choose what matters most: support for Ukraine. If Europe fails, it will suffer an enormous moral defeat because it is abandoning a country that has been suffering as a result of Russian aggression for almost four years. Europe would also suffer a serious political defeat if it is unable to take effective action against Russian aggression, which threatens not only Ukraine but the European security order as a whole.”

In the end, it will probably be Europe's taxpayers who have to make good on the loan, writes Die Welt:

“Russia is unlikely to pay any reparations. ... The warlord will hardly hand over the central bank's assets of his own accord. Nor is it realistic to expect Ukraine to repay such a massive loan. But if the money is gone and Russia demands the return of its assets once the war ends, in whatever way that may happen, the EU states will be liable because they are guarantors for the repayment of the planned aid to Ukraine. A guarantee for a loan that will almost certainly default is, in effect, hidden public debt. In reality, it is not the aggressors who are footing the bill for this new financial boost to the war-torn country, but EU citizens – though they are being kept in the dark about it.”

Corriere della Sera considers the risks:

“Euroclear also holds deposits worth the equivalent of 17 billion euros in Russia, which belong to its clients, including JPMorgan Chase. This means the largest US bank could try to assert claims against Euroclear if the Russian government were to seize the latter's deposits. In this uncertain situation, one thing is guaranteed: should the European governments decide to mobilise Russia's reserves for Ukraine, the Kremlin could confiscate those 17 billion euros within hours. And it probably wouldn't be long before Moscow then targeted the assets of major European companies still operating in Russia, including France's TotalEnergies and Italy's Unicredit.”

Trud sees no sensible solution to the dispute over the loan:

“After years of debate on this issue, is forcing Belgium to comply really the best solution the Eurocrats can come up with? ... Merz says that Europe will suffer if it doesn't make this decision. But how much will it suffer if it is pushed through at any cost? The alternative is also scary. In a situation in which [several EU countries] have budget deficits, it will be very difficult to take out joint loans to finance Ukraine. This is the sad state of affairs after years of bad decisions. Basically, there are no more sensible options.”

De Morgen points out that the debates over the Mercosur agreement and the Euroclear funds highlight how much influence Meloni wields in the EU:

“It is not Berlin or Paris that call the shots, but Rome. The dilemma surrounding the Euroclear assets only became truly acute when Meloni sided with Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever. Anyone in Europe who wants to push through a difficult issue has to go through Meloni. It is no coincidence that Meloni has Donald Trump's ear. While we keep our eyes fixed on the president across the ocean, it is far‑right Rome that is determining our course.”

Instead of constantly trying to avoid alienating Trump, Europe should take decisive action, Der Standard argues:

“The dice will be cast at the EU summit on 18 and 19 December. The 'coalition of the willing' could convert part of the frozen Russian assets amounting to 193 billion euros into an interest-free loan for Ukraine, thereby preventing the Ukrainian state, which is fighting for survival, from collapsing next spring. Instead of rhetorical solidarity, the EU should overcome the national egoisms and coordinate the financing of arms production, including the purchase of US weapons. ... We can expect nothing from the Trump administration. The time for flattering the egomaniac Trump is over.”

Berlin is a driving force in this matter, Hospodářské noviny comments approvingly:

“Ukraine is fighting for survival, and Europe for its future security. One of the few politicians who understands this is German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, host of the latest round of negotiations in Berlin. He faces the task of not only accelerating the rearmament of his own army and the rest of Europe, but also of pushing through a key step this week: an EU loan to Ukraine secured by frozen Russian assets on EU territory. If he succeeds, this would be a historic step that would secure financial resources for Ukraine for the next two years and give Europe time to prepare.”

Naftemporiki describes the problems that this loan would entail:

“The legal complications of even indirect and guaranteed use of the frozen Russian funds remain serious, which is why tomorrow's EU summit promises to be contentious. But even if the project goes ahead, the path to implementation will once again be difficult for European governments as it involves not only financial but also political costs, particularly for governments in southern Europe. They will have to convince their citizens that, beyond the laudable goal of supporting Ukraine, they also need to finance their own war preparations to counter the Russian threat.”