Guest post by Drieu Godefridi
While Brussels was preparing yet another moralistic coup against reality, Belgium pulled the emergency brake.
Against the will of Berlin, against the ideological intoxication of the European Commission, and against the growing temptation to trample international law in the name of “virtue,” the European Union has abandoned the outright seizure of Russian sovereign assets. Instead, it has opted for a €90 billion “joint loan” for Ukraine—a loan in name only, a gift in substance.
This is not a technical adjustment.
It is a political defeat for Germany, a strategic victory for Belgium, and a rare moment of lucidity in a Union drifting toward legal nihilism.
The German Plan Collapses
For months, Berlin pushed a dangerous idea: confiscate Russian sovereign assets frozen in Europe and rebrand the theft as “reparations.” The logic was crude, emotional, and legally suicidal. No court ruling. No peace treaty. No settlement. Just brute force dressed up as righteousness.
Germany wanted to force this plan through—on the back of others.
Why? Because Belgium holds the bomb.
The bulk of Russian assets are immobilized at Euroclear in Brussels. Which means that if Russia—or any future claimant—wins in court, Belgium alone would face catastrophic financial liability.
Belgium’s Moment of Truth
Prime Minister Bart De Wever asked a simple, devastating question:
If you want us to confiscate these assets, will you guarantee Belgium against all legal and financial consequences—without limit?
Silence.
The so-called “partners” demanded unlimited risk from Belgium, while refusing any unlimited guarantee in return.
That was the end of the fantasy.
No sovereign state—especially a small one—can accept infinite liability to satisfy Berlin’s moral exhibitionism. At that moment, the German plan collapsed.
Italy and Hungary Break the Spell
Italy quietly but decisively contributed to burying the confiscation scheme. Hungary, meanwhile, helped design the alternative: a joint EU loan.
Let’s be clear: this “loan” is not a loan. It is a transfer, disguised for political convenience. €90 billion that will never realistically be repaid.
But legally, it matters.
No theft. No precedent. No demolition of property rights.
De Wever vs. Merz: David Beats Goliath
Bart De Wever enters European history as the leader who stood firm under EU pressure and refused to open a legal Pandora’s box whose consequences would have echoed far beyond Ukraine.
Friedrich Merz, by contrast, leaves empty-handed. Like Jacques Chirac once scolding Central Europe, Merz attempted to bully a smaller nation into submission. He failed.
A country of 12 million people put Germany in its place.
And it did so not by grandstanding, but by defending international law, financial prudence, and strategic restraint.
Why This Matters Globally
Had the EU crossed this line, the consequences would have been global:
- No sovereign assets would ever again be safe in Europe
- Central banks worldwide would flee EU jurisdictions
- The euro’s credibility as a reserve currency would collapse
- The West would legitimize asset seizure by pure political will
Belgium understood this. Berlin did not—or did not care.
A Rare Victory for Law Over Ideology
For once, caution prevailed.
For once, a small country said no.
For once, Brussels blinked.
And for that, Bart De Wever deserves credit.
Drieu Godefridi is a PhD from the Sorbonne and a leading voice on European lost sovereignty.
Follow Drieu on X.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/12/no-theft-russian-sovereign-assets-belgium-orban-stop/
No comments:
Post a Comment