August 8, 2026
Kyiv could soon run out of money. Politicians from America, Germany, and France are therefore seeking access to Putin’s accounts – among them Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer.
It was a simple calculation: On the one hand, Russia owes Ukraine a lot of money. Every missile that destroys a hospital in Kyiv increases that amount. The World Bank, the United Nations, and the EU recently calculated reconstruction costs at 509 billion euros .
On the other hand, a lot of Russian money is in Europe: about 210 billion euros from the central bank, mostly invested with the financial institution Euroclear in Belgium, frozen in 2022.
So why not give this money to Kyiv? After all, the UN General Assembly decided in 2022 that Russia owes the invaded country reparations. The money wouldn’t even have to be taken from Moscow. Instead, the Europeans could lend it to Ukraine until Russia pays, and then Moscow would get its money back.
The proposal was presented to the European Council at the end of 2025. Germany was in favor, as were many other countries, but then fear set in. Belgium had received threats. According to the Guardian, they came from the Russian GRU, and the head of Euroclear had to be provided with bodyguards . Prime Minister Bart De Wever said that Moscow had made him aware of what could happen if anyone touched the funds: his country and he himself would feel the consequences “for eternity.”
Three drivers give the spurs
So Belgium said no, and instead of the Russian assets, the EU granted Ukraine a loan of 90 billion euros for 2026 and 2027. The interest is financed by EU citizens.
But now two women and a man have joined forces to overcome this refusal. All seasoned political veterans, well-connected and respected: Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer , former CDU leader and German Defense Minister; Nathalie Loiseau, a former French Minister for European Affairs; and Daleep Singh, who served as US Deputy National Security Advisor and was President Joe Biden’s sanctions expert. In a statement obtained by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAS), the three demand that Belgium’s fears be addressed: “The European Union should immediately transfer custody of the frozen Russian central bank accounts (…) to a new EU administrator.” Then Belgium would no longer have to fear “Russian coercion.”
But why are three such experienced professionals suddenly pushing forward now, when many believed the horse was dead? They cite several reasons. First, they see a “window of opportunity” at the moment: Vladimir Putin’s war is stalled, Russia’s refineries are burning, and Viktor Orbán, Moscow’s Trojan horse in the EU, is history.
Secondly, they believe that new funds would “strengthen Ukraine’s negotiating position.” Kramp-Karrenbauer puts it this way: If the EU transfers the Russian assets to Kyiv now, Putin will see “that it is hopeless to simply continue until Ukraine and its allies run out of money. This could increase his willingness to agree to a ceasefire.”
Thirdly: If nothing is done, Ukraine will face serious difficulties. “The latest 90 billion euro bond will be exhausted next year,” the statement reads. Then Putin would be in the stronger position.
Fourth, the three fear the presidential election in France. They write that the “window of opportunity” could close again if important elections next year “produce leaders who are less supportive of Ukraine.”
The person in question is Marine Le Pen. She could replace Emmanuel Macron as president in May. Le Pen has sometimes been close to Putin over the years, and nobody knows whether she will agree to further aid once the current 90 billion euros are gone. “There is a danger that France could cease to be one of Ukraine’s most important allies after Macron,” says Kramp-Karrenbauer.
But it’s not just about France. These billions must also be secured because it’s likely that not only Vladimir Putin wants them, but also Donald Trump. In the unofficial 28-point “peace plan ,” which his negotiators apparently hammered out in the fall of 2025, point 14 states that 100 billion from this fund should be invested in the reconstruction of Ukraine, but under American leadership, and in such a way that “50 percent of the profits” would go to the USA. Another portion should flow into Russian-American “projects.”
“Some say that Trump wants to use this money to finance deals between America and Russia,” says Kramp-Karrenbauer. If, on the other hand, the EU were to take control of it now, it would be “protected from Putin’s or Trump’s access.” Then Europeans and Ukrainians would be in a stronger position in future peace negotiations, because Russia and America would no longer be able to finance deals for a “false peace” behind their backs.
Fifthly, it concerns Germany. While this isn’t explicitly stated in the declaration by the three, Kramp-Karrenbauer also had her own country in mind when she signed the document. If Europe secures the defense of Ukraine with Russian money instead of its own resources, this could “remove the AfD’s malicious argument that German taxpayers have to finance a war that supposedly doesn’t concern them.”
But how did the three of them come together? – The story begins in the winter of 2023/24. Biden was still in power in America, but Trump’s Republicans had blocked all financial aid to Ukraine in Congress. Two men joined forces at that time: Lee Buchheit and Hugo Dixon. Buchheit was already a legend. The Guardian once called the American lawyer the “fairy godmother of all desperate finance ministers,” because whenever a country faced bankruptcy in recent years, Buchheit was there. The governments of countries as diverse as Iraq, Greece, and Mexico hired him to negotiate with their creditors; in Iceland, he was named “Man of the Year.”
Dixon, on the other hand, describes himself as a “political entrepreneur”. As the great-grandson of Winston Churchill, he attended the elite school Eton together with the future Prime Minister Boris Johnson (with whom he often has heated political disputes), and today, as “Commentator-at-Large” at Reuters, he embodies the type of sharp-tongued intellectual who, like his school friend Boris, takes the liberty of constantly using the most elitist Oxford English, but never a comb.
Buchheit and Dixon joined forces to find allies for their project of a “reparations loan” financed by Russian assets. They approached Daleep Singh because he was coordinating America’s sanctions against Russia under Biden. Dixon took a chance and emailed him, securing him as a co-author of an article titled “The Ukrainian Reparations Loan – How It Could Work .” Shortly thereafter, at the 2024 G7 summit, Singh became a key architect of a $50 billion international loan to Ukraine.
Russia’s money, however, remained unused in Belgium, and one of the obstacles to its use was the government of Olaf Scholz, whose policy of “prudence” avoided anything that might upset Russia too much. But when the coalition government in Berlin went out at the end of 2024, Dixon and his associates saw a new opportunity.
It was around this time that Kramp-Karrenbauer entered the picture, having maintained her interest in Ukraine even after her time as Defense Minister. Dixon had met her at a conference in 2023. They stayed in touch, and when it became clear that the next Chancellor might come from the CDU, he enlisted her as a co-author for the journal “Internationale Politik” (International Politics). The title of their joint article : “How Merz can provide Ukraine with a $300 billion war chest.”
The text was published on May 5, 2025, and the following day Merz was elected Chancellor. Nevertheless, the obstacle of “Berlin” remained. Mixed signals came from the Chancellor’s Office. Some heard no, others maybe. Clearly, much needed to be clarified. Would other states still invest their money in Europe if it could be seized there? Would the European Central Bank’s foreign reserves also be at risk? And what does international law say?
Von der Leyen forges ahead, Merz follows.
To counter the legal concerns, the small group of activists cited a precedent: in 2003, after the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein, the foreign funds of the Iraqi central bank had been seized by a UN resolution. How important this was in the Chancellor’s Office is difficult to assess, but at some point, Kramp-Karrenbauer and Dixon secured an appointment with the Chancellor’s foreign policy advisor, Günter Sautter.
Meanwhile, phone calls took place between Berlin and Brussels, and on September 10, 2025, the moment arrived: In her State of the Union address , Commission President Ursula von der Leyen demanded that Ukraine’s defense be financed “on the basis of frozen Russian assets.” These assets should be provided to Kyiv as “reparations loans,” and Ukraine would only have to return them “once Russia pays reparations.”
Two days later, Berlin followed suit. At a conference in Kyiv, Sautter said this proposal was “a step in the right direction,” and on September 25, Merz made his position clear: Moscow would only come to the negotiating table “when it understands that Ukraine has more staying power,” he wrote in the Financial Times. Therefore, Kyiv had to receive a loan of 140 billion euros—to be repaid only when Russia paid reparations. “Until then, Russian assets will remain frozen.”
The group had already done preparatory work in France. They had won over Macron’s former European Affairs Minister, Nathalie Loiseau, a hard-nosed diplomat who, during the grueling negotiations over Britain’s exit from the EU, had once said she now called her cat “Brexit” because it constantly meowed to be let out, but then refused to go when the door was opened. In July 2025, Loiseau, along with Buchheit and Dixon, had first advocated for the reparations loan in an article entitled “How to Use Russia’s Money Against Russia. “
Now, Kramp-Karrenbauer, Loiseau, and Singh are appearing on stage for the first time as a German-French-American trio. Their proposal sets a new tone: it’s no longer just about lending Russia’s money to Ukraine. The central issue is that Belgium must be persuaded to change its mind.
But Bart De Wever, who knows the word “no” by heart, still governs there. Why should he change his mind? – Dixon believes he might relent if Belgium no longer had to fear Putin’s revenge. After all, De Wever has always insisted that the risk must be shared, and that would be precisely the case if the assets went to the EU, or more precisely, to an EU financial institution of the kind that was created during the financial crisis and the pandemic.
Belgium makes some great beer, but they are a nation of chickens.