Mercifully, late last night, a minority of law-abiding EU member states managed to fend off the criminal conspiracy (characterized as an "ambitious frozen-asset plan" in the NEW YORK TIMES report transmitted below) promoted by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Macron, Merz, Starmer and von der Leyen) in order to finance their war for at least another two years, compromising on a war-funding alternative that introduces a truly ambitious new definition of the word "loan" -- a transfer of money on a non-interest-bearing basis, repayable only when elephants fly.
An excellent assessment of the likely consequences if this criminal conspiracy had succeeded can be accessed at https://asiatimes.com/2025/12/the-eus-great-frozen-russian-asset-holdup.
It is noteworthy that, this week, TV news coverage of this issue by the BBC and FRANCE TELEVISIONS has focused exclusively on how to prolong the war, emphasizing that effectively stealing the property of a country with which EU states are not, at least formally, at war was necessary to European "credibility" and never mentioning the ongoing negotiations seeking to truly support Ukraine by ending the war.
While stealing Russian property would probably have brought these negotiations to a definitive halt, it may be assumed that these European "leaders" will continue their efforts to prolong their war by supporting President Zelensky (or even being more obstructive than the Ukrainian president) in insisting that any "peace plan" must contain elements that they are confident would be unacceptable to Russia. One may hope that these "leaders" will be disappointed again.
Having moved to Europe almost 50 years ago, I have long hoped that Europe could eventually liberate itself from American domination and control and, thereby, play a more constructive and admirable role in world affairs.
It is therefore personally disappointing that European "leaders" have finally chosen to assert some degree of independence only on an issue and occasion on which, in my view, an American foreign policy objective (ending the NATO/Russia proxy war on the best terms ever likely to be available to the Ukrainian people) is genuinely laudable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/18/world/europe/russia-eu-ukraine-frozen-assets.html
Europe to Lend $105 Billion to Ukraine, Without Touching Russian Funds
European Union officials wanted to use Russia’s frozen assets to back a major loan to Ukraine. Facing opposition in their own camp, they settled on another way.
Reporting from Brussels
European leaders agreed early on Friday morning to keep Ukraine funded for two years with a loan of 90 billion euros, or about $105 billion, though they failed to agree on their first-choice option of using Russian state assets frozen on the continent as backing for the loan.
That ambitious frozen-asset plan was killed at the 11th hour as European heads of state and government met in Brussels — a show of division that risked making the European Union appear indecisive at a key moment.
Instead, European leaders announced that they will funnel money to Ukraine with a loan backed by the E.U. budget. Because the plan does not leverage the large stash of Russian savings immobilized in Europe, it is likely to cost more and could prove more difficult to quickly scale up than the original idea.
But because it will still get needed cash to Kyiv, officials celebrated it as a win.
“This will address the urgent financial needs of Ukraine,” Antonio Costa, the president of the European Council, said at an early morning news conference in Brussels.
He added that the European Union would reserve its option to eventually use Russia’s immobilized assets. European nations took action last week to freeze those savings indefinitely.
The funding plan comes at a crucial moment, as Ukraine negotiates potential peace terms with the United States. And timing was important, with Ukraine expected to begin running out of money early in 2026.
European officials had painted the funding as an opportunity to show that they are powerful actors on the global stage — and strong partners for President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, who welcomed the decision in a social media post on Friday.
“This is significant support that truly strengthens our resilience,” he wrote on X. “It is important that Russian assets remain immobilized and that Ukraine has received a financial security guarantee for the coming years.”
For months, European leaders had hoped to overcome Belgian concerns to clinch a deal on using the 210 billion euros of frozen Russian assets held in Europe to back the massive loan to Ukraine. The setup was supposed to fund much of Ukraine’s governing and war expenses in 2026 and 2027.
But the idea of such a loan was always risky: Russia is already taking legal action over what it paints as the unlawful seizure of its assets. After weeks of back-and-forth, Belgium — where most of the assets frozen in Europe are held — remained unconvinced headed into Thursday’s meeting, worried that it could be on the hook for Russian retaliation.
The guarantees that Belgium demanded to protect against that threat, however, proved too much for some other European countries to quickly accept.
Europeans want a voice in determining how to end the biggest war on their continent in 80 years and secure peace afterward. But President Trump and the Kremlin have frequently left Europe out of discussions over Ukraine’s future.
In fact, the Trump administration has recently made it clear how negatively it views the European Union. The administration warned in a national security strategy that Europe faces “civilizational erasure,” charging that the bloc and other transnational bodies “undermine political liberty” and national sovereignty, allow uncontrolled immigration and place the continent on a path that will leave it “unrecognizable in 20 years or less.”
The weeks spent wrangling over the frozen asset plan that ultimately failed may suggest to the world that the European Union’s clunky structure and diverse voices remain barriers to rapid action — even at urgent moments.
The collapse of the frozen asset loan plan was a political stumble for both Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, and Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm. Both had championed it.
Still, leaders argued that the agreed-upon alternative would serve its purpose. They emphasized that Ukraine will still not be asked to pay back the loan unless Russia pays reparations.
“This is a decisive message for an end to the war,” Mr. Merz said in a statement. “Putin will only make concessions once he realizes his war will not pay off.”