Only hours after the European Union approved a €90 billion interest-free loan for Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a sharp counteroffensive not with missiles, but with language, law, and macroeconomics.
Speaking at his annual “Results of the Year” press conference on December 19, 2025, Putin framed the EU’s decision as something far more dangerous than sanctions or aid. In his telling, Europe has crossed a red line that threatens the foundations of global finance. The fact that Brussels stopped short of directly seizing Russian assets, he argued, was not restraint but fear.
“This is not stealing,” Putin said. “Stealing is done secretly. This is done openly. This is robbery.”
Behind the rhetoric lies a calculated message aimed not just at European voters, but at the Global South, oil-producing states, and any country that stores its reserves in Western financial systems.
Redefining the Conflict: From War to “Robbery”
Putin’s core argument rests on a linguistic and legal distinction. By labeling the EU’s actions “robbery” rather than “theft,” he is asserting that Europe is openly abandoning its own legal norms. In his framing, the EU’s pivot away from directly seizing Russian assets is proof that Western leaders understand the legal consequences and are afraid of them.
According to Putin, the EU did not choose a loan structure because it was prudent, but because outright seizure would have triggered catastrophic legal retaliation. The compromise, he argued, exposes weakness rather than unity.
This interpretation directly targets the narrative promoted in Brussels: that the loan ensures Ukraine’s stability while preserving international law. Putin instead casts it as an admission that law still matters just enough to stop Europe from going further.
The Debt Comparison: Russia vs. France
To reinforce his argument, Putin turned to a familiar pressure point: public debt.
He contrasted Russia’s fiscal position with that of France, one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters. According to Putin, Russia’s public debt stands at 17 percent of GDP, compared with France’s “120 percent.” He also highlighted budget deficits Russia at 2.6 percent (projected to fall to 1.6 percent), France at roughly 6 percent.
While some of these figures are rhetorically inflated France’s debt is closer to 110–112 percent the broader point is not accidental. Putin is arguing that heavily indebted European states cannot absorb additional contingent liabilities tied to Ukraine, even indirectly.
In his version of events, the EU chose to borrow collectively on capital markets not to help Ukraine faster, but to keep the liability off national balance sheets and avoid domestic political backlash.
Whether this is accurate or not, the argument is designed to resonate with European taxpayers already wary of inflation, deficits, and long-term war commitments.
Why Belgium Became the Center of Gravity
Putin devoted particular attention to Belgium, not as a political actor, but as a legal choke point.
Roughly 64 percent of Russia’s frozen Central Bank reserves about $217 billion are held at Euroclear, a Brussels-based securities depository. Because Euroclear is a Belgian company, Belgium faces disproportionate exposure if those assets are seized.
Putin pointed to this reality as evidence that Europe understands the danger. Russia has already filed a $230 billion lawsuit against Euroclear in Moscow courts. More importantly, Euroclear still holds approximately €16 billion of its own assets inside Russia assets that could be seized immediately in retaliation.
From Putin’s perspective, Belgium’s resistance is not moral caution but self-preservation. He portrayed the Belgian government and Euroclear leadership as guardians of a fragile financial ecosystem that could collapse under legal and retaliatory pressure.
This interpretation aligns uncomfortably well with reality: Belgium was indeed the main obstacle to direct seizure, forcing the EU to settle for a loan backed by its common budget instead.
The “Slippery Slope” Warning to the Global South
The most strategically significant part of Putin’s speech was not about Europe but about everyone else.
He warned that many non-Western and oil-producing countries store their foreign reserves in the Eurozone precisely because it has long been viewed as legally predictable and politically neutral. If those assets can be frozen indefinitely or used as collateral for another country’s war then no reserve is truly safe.
Putin argued that today’s justification is Ukraine, but tomorrow’s could be anything: political disagreement, sanctions pressure, or moral condemnation. Once the precedent is set, replication becomes inevitable.
This message is not aimed at Paris or Berlin. It is aimed at Riyadh, Beijing, Abu Dhabi, and the wider Global South countries quietly reassessing where they keep their money.
Lawfare, Not Capitulation
Putin insisted that “no matter what they steal, sooner or later they will have to give it back.” He made clear that Russia will pursue legal action in what he called “independent jurisdictions,” bypassing Western courts he views as politically compromised.
This signals a long-term strategy of legal attrition rather than immediate retaliation. While the EU continues to use the interest generated by frozen assets to fund Ukraine, Russia will challenge the legitimacy of the freeze itself year after year, court by court.
In response, the EU has already hardened its position. On December 12, 2025, it quietly passed a regulation removing the requirement to renew asset freezes every six months, effectively making them indefinite. This legal adjustment was the final piece that allowed the €90 billion loan to move forward without touching the principal.
Two Narratives, One Financial Battlefield
From Brussels’ perspective, the loan is a triumph of unity and pragmatism. Ukraine is funded through 2027, Russian assets remain frozen, and legal risks are contained.
From Moscow’s perspective, the compromise proves that Europe knows it is walking on thin ice.
The truth lies somewhere in between. The EU avoided immediate legal collapse, but it also confirmed that frozen Russian assets are no longer just leverage they are a latent payment mechanism waiting for political and legal cover.
As the war grinds on, the battlefield is no longer only in Ukraine. It runs through balance sheets, courtrooms, and the credibility of the global financial system itself.
0 Comments