Ninety billion for Ukraine: a good solution?
The EU is granting Ukraine an interest-free loan of 90 billion euros. The Russian funds frozen in Belgium will not be touched for the time being. Europe's media look at what was achieved with the agreement reached last Friday in Brussels on the controversial loan.
Economic stability secured
Blogger and financial analyst Serhiy Fursa evaluates the situation on Facebook:
“Russian funds remain untouched and Ukraine retains its claim to them. In full. ... And, of course, it is a big plus that macroeconomic stability in Ukraine is secured for another two years of large-scale war. This does not necessarily mean the war will last another two years. It may be more; it may be less. But Russia will certainly no longer be under the illusion that the Ukrainian economy cannot hold out. And perhaps this will give Putin an additional incentive to enter into genuine negotiations at some point.”
Money alone does not bring peace
Europe needs a strategic vision, La Libre Belgique stresses:
“A difficult and costly decision – that's all very well. But the real work is only just beginning. Because it's not just about money, it's also about strategy. ... Europe's moral responsibility is not to hasten a deceptive peace but to prevent a strategic defeat. ... Help Ukraine, yes – but if the balance of power is to be stabilised, we must not nurture the illusion that good will is all it takes. Peace won't come from a cheque. It will come from a Europe that is capable of seeing itself as a power to be reckoned with, of strengthening the diplomatic axis and of regaining a place at the negotiating table with the United States.”
Everyone goes home a winner
Helsingin Sanomat sees everyone satisfied with the agreed solution:
“The deal is similar to a reparations loan in that Ukraine only has to repay its debts to the EU if it receives war reparations from Russia. If this is not the case, the EU can draw on the Russian central bank's assets, which the EU member states have decided will remain frozen until Russia ends the war and pays reparations. However, the funds will not be touched immediately, so [Belgium Prime Minister] De Wever can rightly claim that he impeded the reparations loan. It remains to be seen whether these assets will be accessed in the future. Merz thinks this is possible, but Orbán does not. Everyone was able to go home a winner.”
Triple success for De Wever
Le Soir praises Belgium's prime minister for demonstrating political strength and securing European unity:
“Hats off to him! ... Bart De Wever has proven himself to be an exceptional statesman on three levels: he narrowly defeated the far right in the elections, he has helped the small country of Belgium regain its long-lost significance on the European stage, and he is enabling the EU to demonstrate its unity (with 24 members) and a decision-making ability that has been sorely lacking to date. This is all the more remarkable as he is thus strengthening three pillars: democracy, Belgium and Europe.”
Central European countries forgetting their past
The Czech, Slovakian and Hungarian governments are the only ones refusing to participate in aid for Ukraine, Deník N laments:
“This step could have very practical consequences for the Czech Republic in the future. For example, it could make it more difficult for Czech companies to access the Ukrainian market when post-war reconstruction offers major opportunities for Western companies. ... The reluctance of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary to contribute to this central European issue is particularly painful when we consider that, in all three countries, there are still many witnesses to the events of 1956 and 1968, when Russian tanks rolled through the cities of these three Central European countries.”
Visegrád 3 resurrected
The pro-government daily Magyar Nemzet welcomes Hungary's decision to stay out of the Ukraine conflict:
“Viktor Orbán has said it makes no sense to burden even our great-grandchildren with debt in order to prolong a war that cannot be won. It would make much more sense to support Donald Trump's peace efforts and push for an end to the bloodshed in Ukraine. There is hope that he will no longer be alone in this position in the future, because with the inauguration of Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, at least the Visegrád 3 have awakened from their apparent death, even if Poland is taking a different path.”
A bitter blow for Merz and von der Leyen
News247 comments:
“Ukraine had warned that it could become insolvent in early 2026 if it didn't receive additional support. EU leaders had committed not to leave the meeting in Brussels without agreeing on some form of financial assistance. ... The decision that the EU will now take out loans secured by European taxpayers' money instead of using Russian funds for this purpose comes as a political blow to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who had pushed for the reparations loans and tried to persuade Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever to withdraw his objections.”
Right that we shoulder this burden ourselves
La Stampa considers it right that the EU has ultimately decided to finance the loan itself:
“The belief that peace and the restoration of order in Europe are of inestimable value, and that we have been left alone in this conflict when it comes to preserving non‑negotiable values such as peace and freedom, is a good argument – if it is meant sincerely – for paying this price from our own resources rather than with those of others, even if they belong to the enemy. This is not a recognition of Russia's reasoning but a full assumption of political responsibility towards Europe's citizens.”
Also a signal to Moscow
Polityka hopes that this has also clarified relations with Russia:
“A formal confiscation of Russian assets has been avoided, but this is an interest‑free loan only in name. In practice, it amounts to 90 billion euros in non‑repayable aid for Kyiv (in tranches to be paid out in 2026–27), which in theory is to be offset in a reparations agreement with Russia, which, however, no one expects to materialise in the foreseeable future. ... The political advantage of such a reparations loan over other financial instruments also lies in the fact that Europe thus imposes irreversible losses on Russia, which would for a long time slow any attempts to normalise relations with Moscow without a prior peace with Ukraine.”
EU lacks a sense of crisis
Aftonbladet finds the decision worrying:
“This is both good and bad news. Good because Ukraine urgently needs the money. Bad because no agreement could be reached on the use of frozen Russian assets. And worrying because it shows that Europe still lacks a sense of crisis. ... However, yesterday's negotiations reveal more than just a lack of crisis awareness. There seems to be a certain amount of war weariness among the EU leaders at the negotiating table. This is shameful, because the war in Ukraine rages on and the Ukrainian people are suffering.”
So much power, so much hesitation
The debate about the frozen Russian funds is a pure waste of time, writes Ukrainian MP Mykola Kniazhytskyi on Facebook:
“It is difficult to understand why we are spending so much time and energy on the question of frozen assets. It is obvious that the European Union is an economic superpower, capable of financing Ukraine for decades without even noticing it. ... However, the long lack of progress once again underscores how urgently the EU must adapt to the reality of today's Europe.”