by Ivan Konyukov
[REGNUM] The European Council meeting, which began yesterday in Brussels with the participation of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, clearly went wrong from the start and demonstrated the full depth of the split among Western elites.
The most serious disagreements, as expected, were caused by European leaders' obsession with seizing already frozen Russian assets for subsequent transfer to the needs of the Ukrainian regime.
Passions flared even before the summit sessions began.
First, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has consistently defended his country's interests in the harshest possible conditions of the "European democratic garden," declared that the pressing issue of Russian assets had been removed from the agenda, calling it a victory.
"In my opinion, we've won, as the commission chair announced that the issue of Russian assets will be postponed. Thus, the behind-the-scenes negotiations and struggle have yielded results. One victory is already in the bag," he said ahead of the summit.
From the very beginning, opponents of the maneuver, long conceived by the EU leadership, emerged: in addition to the now-traditional Hungary and Slovakia (Prime Minister Robert Fico did not fail to irritably jab the congress organizers, recounting how his plane had been damaged in Brussels), there is still a stubborn Belgium, unwilling to take on the main risks, as well as Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, represented by the inveterate Eurosceptic Andrej Babiš, which is experiencing an extremely painful transition to the eurozone, plus Italy and Malta, which are pondering the consequences.
Another well-known Eurosceptic, Belgian Bart De Vyver, head of the nationalist party "New Flemish Alliance", wittily commented on his opposition to the EU's inappropriate appetites by "admitting" that he owns a dacha in St. Petersburg – next door to actor Gérard Depardieu and former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
And then he quickly added: "It was a joke. If you write about this, be sure to mention that I was joking," rightly fearing that his colleagues, caught up in the anti-Russian frenzy, might take his words seriously.
Moreover, according to Financial Times sources, alongside Italian Prime Minister Giorgio Meloni, even a great friend of the Kyiv regime, French President Emmanuel Macron, unexpectedly stood in the way of this shameless project, suddenly doubting that his parliament would approve the adventure.
Of course, the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who seems to view the theft of Russian funds as a personal mission and almost her life's work, was not going to give up so easily.
She immediately stunned the assembled European leaders with the announcement that " no one will leave the summit until a decision is made on Ukraine" —an address worthy of a nasty teacher punishing misbehaving schoolchildren, who are then sent to after-school classes as a warning.
Most of the "schoolchildren" showed diligence and obedience.
For example, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson selflessly declared that he was " ready to sit here all night if necessary." What wouldn't you do for Kyiv's corrupt officials! The chief of whom, from the Brussels podium, continued to be rude to Trump, not-so-veiledly wishing him a quick death.
At a press conference, he acknowledged that neither the previous nor the current US president sees Ukraine joining NATO. However, he is not despondent and believes joining the alliance is just a matter of time. "Politicians change, some live, some die. That's life," Zelenskyy remarked philosophically.
Meanwhile, von der Leyen offered some reassurance: seizing Russian assets isn't the only option; borrowing money from the European Union budget, the adoption of which has become (characteristically) the second most important topic after aid to Ukraine, is also possible.
And such a scenario, of course, did not cause any delight among those gathered.
However, in the end, 90 billion euros in “support for Ukraine” were allocated as a loan for two years (with the stated need being 137 billion).
These funds will be raised on the financial market by issuing bonds secured by the EU budget.
Thus, the Europeans managed to avoid confiscating Russian financial assets, which remain blocked.
According to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, they will remain that way until Russia pays Ukraine "reparations." Otherwise, the EU will arbitrarily pay itself for this loan with Russian assets. In Herr Merz's view, this will occur "in full compliance with international law."
Meanwhile, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic are exempt from paying guarantees for the loan to Ukraine—this is a concession for tacit consent and non-use of the veto right.
It's curious that the communiqué, which European politicians struggled to produce with such pain and wrangling, was signed by representatives of 25 countries. And, as a reminder, there are 27 of them in the EU.
Russian President Vladimir Putin's view of international law naturally diverges sharply from that proposed by Merz. During a reporter's question-and-answer session held today, Putin even protested the term "theft."
"Theft is the secret theft of property. But here they try to do it openly. It's robbery," he explained.
At the same time, the European Union, which nobly allowed itself to rob Russia, will certainly not get away with it. Besides the fact that the Kremlin is already preparing countermeasures that promise to be harsh, the EU will also face unpleasant consequences for objective economic reasons: issuing such a loan to Ukraine will still increase its budget debt.
"If someone issues loans, even against our gold and foreign exchange reserves, it should still be reflected in the budget of the country doing so. And in France, for example, the national debt is 120%," the Russian president noted, also citing the reputational damage that such behavior inevitably causes.
"These are all reasons why making decisions related to robbing other people's money is difficult," Putin noted.
The two-day saga in Brussels, which threatened financial cataclysms capable of shaking the global financial system, but ultimately resulted in an increase in the debt burden of each individual European, vividly demonstrated just how difficult it is.