How about them assets — making Russia pay for Ukraine

Summary

EU Confidential – Episode Summary

Episode Title: How about them assets — making Russia pay for Ukraine
Date: October 24, 2025
Host: Sarah Wheaton (POLITICO)
Guests: Gregorio Sorghi (Financial Services Reporter), Gabriel Gavin (Reporter), Zia Weiss (Climate Correspondent), Tim Ross (Senior Correspondent), Nick Vinoker (Senior Correspondent)
Timeframe Summarized: [03:03]–[33:14]

---

Overview:

This episode covers the high-stakes EU summit in Brussels, where leaders grappled with using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine, adopted a landmark 19th package of sanctions, and confronted internal tensions on climate and competitiveness policies. The ongoing threat of the far right, legal complexities of asset seizures, and struggles to keep the green transition on track all converged during a marathon session, revealing fault lines and a striking new unity at the political center.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The EU’s “First Real Anti-Far Right Summit”

• Context: The majority of EU leaders now hail from the political center, intent on showing voters the “establishment” can deliver amid populist challenges ([03:02]).
• Core Pressures: Keeping homes affordable, borders secure, industries competitive, and commitments to climate action—all at once.
• Underlying Tensions: Efforts to neutralize the appeal of the far right inform almost every agenda item.

---

2. Making Russia Pay: The Frozen Assets Debate

What Are Russia’s Frozen Assets?

• Definition: Mainly Russian state-owned bonds and foreign currency reserves, held in Western banks—not oligarchs' yachts or villas ([04:40]).
• Held At: Euroclear, a private Belgian-based custodian. Euroclear invests the assets and accumulates profit ([05:31]).
• Total Value: $250–$300 billion globally; €170 billion (now matured into cash) mainly in Euroclear ([06:06]).

“No, Sarah, we’re not talking about any of that because the private assets cannot be expropriated or used… we’re talking about the Russian state assets. They’re mainly bonds that belong to Russian public institutions.”
— Gregorio Sorghi, [04:40]

The Legal Controversy

• Past Approach: Using only the profits generated (legally safer, less money).
• Current Proposal: Using the principal cash (much bigger, legally riskier), for a €140 billion loan to Ukraine ([07:27]).
• Loan Structure: Keep €30 billion as a safety net and service an earlier G7 loan.
• Belgium’s Hesitation: As Euroclear host, Belgium fears liability if Russia ever reclaims the money ([08:23]).
• EU’s Assurances: The risk is shared by all member nations; legal structures would keep assets frozen until Russia pays war compensations ([09:13]).

“They’re saying that they’re not confiscating the assets, but they are only targeting the cash reserves.”
— Gregorio Sorghi, [07:06]

• Risk Factors: Any one country can block sanction renewals every 6 months (e.g., Hungary’s Viktor Orban), threatening the whole scheme ([13:00]).

"This is the Damocles sword that is hanging over the loan."
— Gregorio Sorghi, [13:59]

Use of Funds & Conditions

• Ukraine’s Use: Largely for military, but also budget support.
• Supplier Tensions: France/Germany push for buying European weapons; Baltic states want Ukraine’s autonomy to buy where needed ([12:10]).
• Repayment? Ukraine only repays if Russia pays reparations—seen as unlikely.

---

3. Political and Procedural Drama: Belgium’s Reluctance, Diplomatic Wrangling

Outcome at the Summit

• Instead of a concrete plan, summit conclusions called for more “options” and further work, after Belgium (Prime Minister De Wever) blocked immediate progress ([15:12], [27:44]).

"Nobody really thought that the Belgian Prime Minister was going to be such an obstacle... he was very clear... I will block this and I will do everything in my power."
— Tim Ross, [27:44]

• Belgium’s Discontent: Felt “steamrolled” and not properly consulted by the Commission ([28:26]).
• Timeline: Possible deal still targeted for December, but uncertainty remains.

---

4. Sanctions: The 19th Package and US Alignment

• Key Features: New measures not only on Russia, but on third-country entities suspected of sanctions evasion (Central Asia, China), and first-ever crackdown on crypto exchanges ([16:29]).
• Unanimity Tactic: Slovakia previously blocked the package—not over content, but to leverage unrelated energy issues ([17:16]).
• US Angle: Near-simultaneous US penalties on Rosneft and Lukoil added awkward pressure on pro-Trump, pro-Russian EU leaders ([18:39]).

"People say, oh, we can't possibly do anything more, and then actually they go away, realize there is political will to go further, and then suddenly hatch a whole load of new options."
— Gabriel Gavin, [16:29]

---

5. Climate: The Return of the 2040 Target Debate

Summit Dynamics

• Agenda Item: “Competitive Green Transition” — a tug-of-war between green ambition and economic caution ([19:54]).
• New Target: Cut emissions by 90% by 2040, ahead of net zero in 2050 ([21:36]).
• Outcome: Vague language welcomed by both skeptics and supporters—not a tangible agreement, but not a defeat either ([22:34]).

“A bit of a fudge really... everyone's a bit of equally unhappy and that's the balance they struck essentially.”
— Zia Weiss, [23:13]

• Domestic & EU-level Tension: Some states need more safeguards for industry competitiveness; southern members feel climate urgency acutely.
• Procedural Hangover: Unanimity still required; possible replay of deadlock in November.

---

6. Final Impressions: Surprises, Lessons, and Broader Political Shifts

Unexpected Outcomes:

• Frozen Assets: Assumed to be easy, proved intractable due to Belgium’s stance ([27:44]).
• Sanctions: Expected trouble from Hungary/Slovakia, but both ultimately relented, allowing the 19th package to pass ([29:56]).

Far Right and Center Positioning

• Mainstream’s Challenge: Addressing far-right issues (housing, migration, red tape) to hold the political center ([30:38]).
• Parliamentary Jitters: Fragmentation of the center-left/center-right alliance may open the door for a right-wing majority ([31:45]).

“Centrist coalition that supports Von der Leyen is no longer really working as dependably as before... she didn’t go as far as saying, well, now we have to look at a right wing majority... but she did open the door to that.”
— Nick Vinoker, [31:45]

• Conclusions: Many big decisions deferred; language kept vague for unity, but underlying divisions remain.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Belgium’s Role:

  “Brussels felt dissed by Brussels, basically.” — Sarah Wheaton, [29:36]

• On the legal maze:

  “This is the Damocles sword that is hanging over the loan.” — Gregorio Sorghi, [13:59]

• On summit exhaustion:

  “Journalists were experiencing something of a drought in the press room... only one water fountain... that kind of spits out, you know, warm machine water that nobody really wants." — Gabriel Gavin, [19:36]

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 03:03 – 04:40: Summit scene-setting; main issues
• 04:40 – 15:14: Deep dive on frozen Russian assets (Sarah Wheaton & Gregorio Sorghi)
• 15:17 – 16:29: Summit outcome; Belgium’s block; pivot to sanctions
• 16:29 – 19:54: Details of the 19th sanctions package; US involvement; journalistic “hardships”
• 19:54 – 25:03: Climate agenda and the 2040 emissions target debate with Zia Weiss
• 27:44 – 31:45: Senior correspondents discuss summit surprises, far right politics, and lost unity

---

Recap & Takeaways

• Main Theme: Leveraging frozen Russian state assets for Ukraine is a legal, political, and diplomatic breakthrough—if it works. The EU’s centrist core is under pressure to outmaneuver the far right and deliver results on defense, competitiveness, and climate, all while keeping unity.
• Biggest Surprise: Belgium, not Hungary or Slovakia, emerged as the chief spoiler on the asset plan.
• Climate Politics: Still turbulent; consensus elusive, but Europe aims to stay a global leader despite internal splits.
• Broader Mood: Exhaustion, improvisation, and an uneasy hope that enough political will survives to close deals—eventually.

---

This summary was crafted to capture key details, prominent voices, and the spirit of the debates for listeners and non-listeners alike.

Transcript

[Sarah Wheaton]

The holidays have arrived at the Home.

[Gabriel Gavin]

Depot and we're here to help bring the excitement with decor for every part of your home.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Check out our wide assortment of easy to assemble pre lit trees so you can spend less time setting up and more time celebrating. And bring your holiday spirit outdoors with unique decor like one of our Santa inflatables. Whatever your style, find the right pieces.

[Gabriel Gavin]

At the right prices this holiday season at the Home Depot.

[Nick Vinoker]

Well, I was down on my last.

[Gabriel Gavin]

Dollar and then I started saving because.

[Nick Vinoker]

The bank said fiscal restraint is what you're craving.

[Zia Weiss]

So I put my earnings in a.

[Gabriel Gavin]

High yield account let the savings compound and the interest mount. I'm optimizing cash flow putting debt in check now time is my friend and not a pain in the neck and we've got a little cash to rebuild the old debt.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Boring money moves make kind of lame songs but they sound pretty sweet to your wallet.

[Gabriel Gavin]

BNC bank brilliantly boring since 1860.

[Sarah Wheaton]

I'm at the Justus Licius Building in Brussels where the lobby has once again been transformed into a huge press room. And it's packed. The number of reporters from all over Europe who are sprawled out here is only a little bit larger than the number of issues on the agenda in the private meeting room. It's another AU summit and leaders are debating everything from defense and support for Ukraine to migration and the Middle east, climate, competitiveness and housing. And of course, we were on the ground getting the important details from behind closed doors.

[Gabriel Gavin]

Politico has always prided itself on getting the menu that the leaders are eating first, beating our competition by hours. In today's case, you get to see that they're eating langoustines, fillet of veal. We've had to survive on tea, biscuits and lukewarm water.

[Sarah Wheaton]

So you heard me spouting off a long list of issues that they're discussing here. And of course, you know, some of them are in the news. Ukraine, the Middle East. But there's another thing that really ties so much of it together that's unusual. And some people are calling it the EU's first real anti far right European Council. Why? Because most leaders around the table come from the political center and they're desperate to convince voters that the establishment can still deliver, that Europe can keep homes affordable, borders secure, industries competitive and still stay true to its climate promises. That's a lot to juggle in a single day. Can they do it? Sarah Wheaton, I'm Sarah Wheaton, host of EU Confidential, and today we're covering a lot of ground the summit was off to a good start. Before the leaders arrived, Slovakia dropped its veto on the latest round of Russia sanctions, clearing the way for the EU's 19th package since the invasion. Almost at the same time, US President Donald Trump imposed his first sanctions on Russian oil giants Rosneft and Lukoil. That rare moment of alignment across the Atlantic was hailed by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Indeed, this morning we adopted the 19th sanctions package. It is a wide ranging and extensive package that hits at the heart of the Russian war economy. And with Volodymyr Zelenskyy here in Brussels for face to face talks, Ukraine was once again at the center of it all. This time over a controversial 140 billion euro loan back backed by frozen Russian assets. It's seen as crucial to keep Ukraine afloat for the next two years. This idea has been around for a while, but it's only recently that Belgium, the top skeptic, seemed to be coming around for reasons we'll discuss in a second. Our home based country has a lot at stake and Prime Minister Barto Wever kept us guessing up until the very end about whether he'd be willing to let the process move forward. It's a complicated issue, so to make sense of it, I sat down with my colleague Gregorio Sorghi, our financial services reporter. So, Gregorio, we've been hearing this phrase, Russia's frozen assets, like a gazillion times, but what exactly are these assets? I mean, it makes me think of these villas and the Cote d' Azur or the oligarch super yachts. Are these what we're talking about?

[Gregorio Sorghi]

No, Sarah, we're not talking about any of that because the private assets cannot be expropriated or used. So we're not talking about villas and yachts and fancy cars, but we're talking about the Russian state assets. They're mainly bonds that belong to Russian public institutions.

[Sarah Wheaton]

So these were bonds, you know, maybe also foreign currency reserves like euros, dollars and pounds that were held in Western banks.

[Zia Weiss]

Exactly.

[Sarah Wheaton]

And so what happened to these things? When the war started, these assets were.

[Gregorio Sorghi]

Frozen, which means that Russia couldn't claim them back and the profits that were generated could not be appropriated by the Russians or by Euroclear because they were used to finance Ukraine.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Euroclear, what is that? Is that like an EU institution?

[Zia Weiss]

Who is that?

[Gregorio Sorghi]

No, Euroclear is not an EU institution. It's a private institution that is based in Belgium and it is essentially a custodian. So it keeps, it guards those assets and it invests them, and it generates profits out of them.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Okay, so a bit like, you know, I had to put down a security deposit when I rented my apartment, and, like, somebody was just holding onto that money and earning the interest on it. Exactly. Okay, and how much money are we talking about here?

[Gregorio Sorghi]

The value of the Russian assets that is held worldwide is somewhere in the region of 250 or $300 billion. The bulk of these assets is held in Europe, and it's held by Euroclear. What's interesting for our purposes is that 170 billion was invested into government bonds, and that has matured into cash. You know, that bonds have a maturity, and when they reach their maturity, they become cash. So normally that cash, if the war hadn't started and if the assets hadn't been frozen, the Russians could have either claimed back or reinvested the cash. But EU wants to use that cash to give a loan to Ukraine. And this difference between the assets and the cash, it might sound unimportant, but it's actually crucial to understand why the EU thinks and says that this operation is legal. Because they're saying that they're not confiscating the assets, but they are only targeting the cash reserves.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Okay. Yeah. So we're talking about leaving the principal, but using this cash that has become available and giving a loan to Ukraine from that money. And the EU has done this before, right?

[Gregorio Sorghi]

No, they've never done this before. And that's the reason why this plan is so controversial. So what the EU has done before, together with other G7 countries, was to use not the cash reserves, but the profits generated by those investments, which are way fewer, and using that for Ukraine, but legally, that was much safer because they were arguing that the profits weren't belonging to the Russian government, but rather to Euroclear, so it was easier to use that money for Ukraine. Now they're targeting the cash reserves, which are much, much bigger, but also more legally risky. And that's what makes the operation controversial.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Got it, got it. So, yeah, indeed, this debate has been going on now for at least a year, but there seems to be this momentum now to actually do it. But Belgium is really resisting.

[Gregorio Sorghi]

Yeah, Belgium is obviously very worried because the Euroclear, as I said, is registered in Belgium. So they have more skin in the game, and they fear that if anything goes wrong, they would then have to pay. That's what they're worried about. And they've said this many, many times. But what the EU is saying, on the other hand, is that this won't first because the chances of a court ruling compelling the EU to give the money back to Russia is very, very slim because Russian court rulings wouldn't be enforceable in the eu. And then maybe more importantly, they're saying that if something goes wrong, then it wouldn't be Belgium alone giving back the money to Russia, but it would be EU countries as a whole that share this risk jointly. Chipping in.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Yeah, I mean, the something that goes wrong is that, like, Russia wins the war and like, hey, you know, maybe they, like, also start invading the Baltics or something like that. And so the EU is going to be like, yeah, okay, we're all just going to pay back.

[Gregorio Sorghi]

Also, Russia for this doesn't necessarily have to be so drastic or categorical. Say that the war ends in a year's time, and then many EU countries would somehow feel pressured to hand that money back to Russia. So if this happens, then who pays? This is very much an open question. But the way the EU and the Commission would say that this is unlikely to happen because they have a legal clause that says that the money will remain immobilized until Russia pays back the war compensations. So the idea is that when the war will end, Russia will either pay back war compensations to Ukraine and those war compensations will be used to pay back the loan, or otherwise, if Russia doesn't pay, Ukraine won't have to return the loan and no one will give back the money to Russia. Many of the advocates who argued for this loan when the idea was still considered far fetched, they called it a reparations loan. Because the whole idea is that this is an advance payment on the reparations that Russia will never pay to Ukraine.

[Sarah Wheaton]

And if the EU goes through with this plan, what would it mean for Euroclear, this kind of private company that's supposed to be this sort of neutral middleman?

[Gregorio Sorghi]

What the Belgians say when it comes to Euroclear is that they're worried that this whole operation and the media clamor around it will affect negatively Euroclear's operations because the foreign investors might withdraw their currencies because they're worried that the same thing will happen to them. So, for instance, if you're a Chinese investor, you might be worried that the same thing will happen if China invades Taiwan. That's the classic example that is used by Belgium. What the Commission is saying in response is that Euroclear's position is safe because the loan is being issued by the EU itself. And so Euroclear would never have to pay back Anything.

[Sarah Wheaton]

So you mentioned that there's this around 170 billion or so available in this cash. Would the loan be for that whole amount?

[Gregorio Sorghi]

No, the loan would be only 140 because they would be setting aside around 30 billion as a safety net. And this money would also repay a previous G7 loan to Ukraine.

[Sarah Wheaton]

What would Ukraine be using this money for?

[Gregorio Sorghi]

Well, that's a very good question. What we know is that the EU wants the propose to use the money for military purposes, so to buy weapons. And a part of it would also be used for ordinary budget support. But when it comes to the military side, this is a very sensitive question because you have France and Germany who want to compel Ukraine to use that money to buy European weapons. And then you have other countries, for instance, since in the Baltics we're saying, well, let Ukraine spend it according to its needs and if it needs to buy American weapons, then so be it.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Okay, so stepping back, this is about making Russia pay indirectly for the war that it started and ideally without breaking international law. But you know, does Ukraine really have to repay this loan someday?

[Gregorio Sorghi]

That's really the bottom line, that Ukraine having to pay back the loan is linked to it receiving post war compensations by Russia. And if you ask anyone in Brussels, they all think that Russia will not pay back poor compensation. So we're fine with that. But as this is a very complicated story, I will have to introduce another layer of complexity which is that the renewal of the sanctions, what continues to keep Russia's assets frozen, has to be renewed unanimously every six months. So for instance, if a single country decides not to renewal the sanctions, this would compel the European Union to give back the frozen money to Russia. And this would destroy the whole idea behind the operation. And this is something that's worrying because among the U27 leaders there is Viktor Orban, who's very close to the Kremlin. So potentially Orban could hand back the money to Russia every six months. This would wreak havoc for the loan and for euro countries who would have to pay back a lot of money. So the EU tried to change these UNANIMITY rules, but this is proving to be very tricky for legal issues. So this is the Damocles sword that is hanging over the loan.

[Sarah Wheaton]

So what does that mean for this whole process?

[Gregorio Sorghi]

This is not being used by countries to reject the idea. But Belgium is obviously very worried because if something goes wrong, then they will be on the hook. But so far we have Hungary and Slovakia, who are the most pro Russian countries, who are against this operation. Everyone else is in favor, even though some might have some concerns, but overall they're in favor. And then you have Belgium, which is very concerned, not because it doesn't care about giving money to Ukraine, but because of all the reasons that we've talked about. So I think that overall, it's a question of time and legal work and trying to work out the fine print, but I think that the operation will go ahead. That's only the beginning. It's not the end of the story.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Gregorio, thank you for walking us through all that.

[Gregorio Sorghi]

Thank you, Sarah.

[Sarah Wheaton]

So Gregorio wasn't kidding when he said this would just be the beginning. It turns out that De Waver's concerns were a lot farther from being met than people really realized. EU leaders ended up adopting much more vague language than they'd hoped. And instead of tasking the commission with delivering a legal proposal for the loan, instead, their statement just asked for some, quote, options to use the frozen assets for Ukraine. And this is one of those situations where the little shades of language make a big difference. December is still the target for wrapping all this up, but the road is much steeper. On the other hand, some things did go more smoothly than we had been expecting. When I first spoke to Gregorio a few hours after my chat with him, Slovakia lifted its Veto on the 19th package of sanctions against Russia. I caught up with my colleague Gabriel Gavin here at the summit to get more details. Okay, Gabriel, so, I mean, we were kind of hearing that the EU was running out of sanctions. That increase could apply to Russia, but they've. They put through a 19th package. What are the highlights?

[Gabriel Gavin]

Well, I think one of the really interesting things about the 19th package is that they put a whole lot of new options on the table that previously just wouldn't have been considered. So not only are they looking at targeting companies in third countries, you've got companies in Central Asia, you've got company, it's reportedly in China, that have been aiding the Russian war effort. Not just kind of energy traders and companies that are shipping potentially sanctions busting goods, but also things like crypto exchanges for the first time. So it's a classic issue in the EU where people say, oh, we can't possibly do anything more, and then actually they go away, realize there is political will to go further, and then suddenly hatch a whole load of new options. And I think actually this is a deeply significant package that will drain Russia's war economy. I think the real question was, for a very long time, would it be allowed to pass?

[Sarah Wheaton]

Well, so how did they end up getting this one through in the end?

[Gabriel Gavin]

Well, for weeks now, Slovakia had been blocking the 19th package because of an entirely unrelated set of measures designed to phase out the shipment of gas from Russia into the eu. And Slovakia has resisted that tooth and claw. That set of measures could repower eu, could be passed just by qualified majority vote, whether Hungary and Slovakia liked it or not. So effectively, what they did was use the little leverage they had, which was on the 19th sanctions package, where you require unanimity of all 27 member states. Nobody really disagreed with the substance of the 19th package. For much of its development, it was being held hostage because of an entirely unrelated set of proposals. And what we saw was late on Wednesday night, Slovakia finally gave in. It was the final country to kind of give the green light and said, actually, do you know what, at this European Council summit this week, we have sufficient focus and interest on how to lower energy prices, how to bolster European competitiveness, how to strengthen industries like carmaking that are of strategic importance. So we will stop blocking that package. And we've spoken to the Danish foreign minister, who basically credits this to, unsurprisingly, Denmark's presidency of the Council of the European Union. However, I think most people would say, reading between the lines, Robert Fitzo, Slovakia's populist prime minister, just couldn't stand the pressure of all other 26 member states, having already agreed to this for as long as he did.

[Sarah Wheaton]

And was US President Donald Trump's announcement of his own sanctions on Russian fossil fuel companies, was that a factor or just a happy coincidence?

[Gabriel Gavin]

Well, I think it's really hard to say, but it certainly puts Slovakia's Fitso and Hungary's Orban into a really uncomfortable position where both of them have been cheerleaders for President Donald Trump. They, in both cases have actually supported his campaign and really hoped that he would see the world their way when it came to Ukraine and European foreign policy. And actually, what's become increasingly clear is that the mainstream in the European leadership, you know, the bulk of kind of centrist center right, center left leaders, they're doing victory laps saying, we've convinced Trump to see things our way, to support Ukraine, not to turn off the taps on military aid, not to turn off the taps on intelligence. And actually, it's Orban and Fitzo who have kind of been left by the wayside wondering whether Donald Trump, Trump is still their friend.

[Sarah Wheaton]

And Gabriel, you've, as we're talking to you, you've already been here for hours. What's, what's the secret to surviving an 18 hour yuko. I heard there was like a water crisis.

[Gabriel Gavin]

While leaders were talking about climate, journalists were experiencing something of a drought in the press room. Not only are all of the vending machines in the building broken, but there's a queue around the block for the cafeteria. There's one water fountain that kind of spits out, you know, warm machine water that nobody really wants. I think it's been a really rough day for journalists.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Us in the conflict correspondence really just suffering for democracy. Thank you, Gabriel. Now, Ukraine wasn't the only high stakes issue on the table tonight. There was also a quieter fight over Europe's climate future and whether leaders are starting to backtrack on the green deal. Officially, the agenda item is called a competitive Green transition. In practice, it's a tug of war between those who want to keep Europe's green goals ambitious and those warning that the costs are getting too high and could trigger a backlash with voters at home. I caught up with our climate correspondent Zia Weiss. Okay, Zia. So climate played a big role at this summit and it felt almost like a throwback, you know, to back when we were talking about the Green deal. Whereas these days it's been more about, you know, competitiveness and defense and all that sort of thing. And so, you know, why was climate back on the agenda today?

[Zia Weiss]

It's funny how you phrase that, because in a way what's happened here is that precisely because of this new focus on competitiveness, it's basically become a topic in a sense that these economic concerns have sort of sharpened a lot of countries worries about the green transition. And because there's a new climate target coming up for the year 2040 that the Commission has recently proposed, they've sort of wanted to spell out what conditions need to be in place for them to agree to this target. And so that's why we had this discussion today, which, yeah, I mean, there hasn't been a substantial climate debate at leaders level in quite some time.

[Sarah Wheaton]

What is this 2040 climate target? Like, who's setting it? Where does it, where does it come from?

[Zia Weiss]

Okay, so the, the target for 2040 is essentially a figure. It's meant to reduce the EU's emissions by 90% below 1990 levels by 2040, just before the 100% or net zero in 2050. That figure wasn't actually discussed today, and that was very much the intention of Council President Costa, because there's basically no unanimity on this figure. So in instead what leaders discussed that, all the little conditions and policy Changes that some of them want to see that could sort of help them to support a target or, you know, make it easier for them to sort of at least get domestic political support to approve that target. So that was the discussion today. The thing is that if you go too deep into the details, you can't find consensus on that either. So what they ended up with was a bit of a fudge really.

[Sarah Wheaton]

How did that fudge play out?

[Zia Weiss]

Right, so we ended up with a text that sort of very broadly spells out the things leaders want to see. You know, like a pragmatic approach to climate legislation and things like that they didn't like, drill down deep into, oh, this is exactly how we should achieve it. And that was broadly welcomed by. So countries that are a bit more skeptical sort of claimed us as a win because, oh, here's our concerns being addressed. And countries that are very much in favor of the target were quite relieved that this didn't end up in an agreement to substantially weaken or call into question the EU's broader green agenda.

[Sarah Wheaton]

I mean, you had a quote from a diplomat in your article that just really summed it up.

[Zia Weiss]

Oh yeah, it's something we've heard a lot actually, that everyone's a of equally unhappy and that's the balance they struck essentially.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Okay, so we ended up in this kind of blah, whatever mush kind of normal. But why, why even bother talking about climate in this moment, given the so called green backlash and the general paranoia? Just why even invite the discussion right now?

[Zia Weiss]

It's really the 2040 target. So ministers, because ministers have to approve this. We're supposed to do this in September and just vote on it. But then a handful of countries that were like enough to block that said, no, no, we want our leaders to have a say on this first and give guidance for ministers to approve it and maybe tweak things here and there. And they're meant to vote now, the ministers, in less than two weeks time. So that's why this happened. Now the question is really if this vague out context today is enough to qualify as guidance. And on that I've heard really different things. I mean, one diplomat said, you know, November 4th could just be Groundhog Day. As in they will just replay exactly the same uncertain discussion that they had in September. And some others say, oh no, maybe this is enough to reassure some of the big countries at least that their concerns have been heard and then it's fine. I think that needs to be really worked out. The Danes, the Danish presidency which is chairing these discussions, kind of has their work cut out for them now in the next week or so to really figure out how they can get that across the line.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Big picture, what does it say about climate politics in Europe and kind of the discussion globally, given Europe's historic kind of leadership on climate issues in the eu?

[Zia Weiss]

I think think what we're seeing is that the discussion has obviously changed massively in the last four or five years or so. So it's become a lot harder for the commission to just say, oh, we're doing this climate target because it's the right thing to do. Now it's very much about economy and like the. Yeah, the economic story around it. But the thing is, that economic story isn't the same for everyone, right? So some countries say, okay, if it's all about competitiveness, then we really need to beat China on electric vehicles or wind turbines or things like that. And then some other countries that are big producers of combustion engines might say, oh no, you know, actually let's, let's find an alternative path. So I think the EU is in the middle of an unfinished debate about what the green transition really looks like for each country and how they can make it sort of work as a, as a union as well. Because then you have countries as well, like Spain, who say, hey, we really are feeling the impact of climate change. We really should get a move on. I think this debate is far from over. And on the international level, I mean, the EU is now in this strange place where, you know, everyone's still looking to them for leadership. You have sort of the US withdrawing, so everyone's even more like, hey, Europe, what are you doing? And you can still say that Europe's climate targets are very ambitious compared to the rest of the world. But those divisions are being noticed abroad as well. I mean, part of the reason we have a bit of this urgency with the 2040 target is that there's a linked target that is required under the Paris Agreement, or rather was required in September and the EU missed the deadline because of all these divisions. So that's something that they will also have to figure out on November 4th. And that actually requires you to unanimity as well. So there's lots of open questions and this debate is really far from over.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Okay, well, procrastination wins the day. Zia, thank you for helping us win the evening.

[Zia Weiss]

Thanks so much for having me.

[Sarah Wheaton]

In. All the leaders haggled for 13 hours. They dished out 21 pages of council conclusions, and at 2:30 in the morning, security is going to kick us out of this lobby. So we tour two of my most senior colleagues, Tim Ross and Nick Vinoker, away from filing their summit articles to get their final impressions. So, yeah, the summit has been bonkers because the thing that we thought was going to be easy turned out to be hard. And some of the stuff that we thought would be hard ended up going pretty smoothly. The thing that ended up being hard was the frozen assets. Tim, we thought this was in the bag. What happened?

[Tim Ross]

What happened is the question everybody right now is asking themselves, including some people who really should know better. And I'm thinking there about the people who are organizing this summit, because nobody really thought that the Belgian Prime Minister was going to be such an obstacle. But he's come here and he was very clear when he walked in. He said, if I don't get the guarantees that I need and if the burden sharing among member states is not enough, I will block this and I will do everything I can in my power, he said, to block this from going forward. And he did.

[Sarah Wheaton]

I mean, Nick, people kind of thought that they had built in enough protections for Belgium, but apparently not enough for the Prime Minister. So where did they land on frozen assets?

[Nick Vinoker]

The conclusion said that they would attend to Ukraine's pressing needs and return to this issue in the coming weeks. And the diplomats are saying that this could be even before the December council, they could get together and try to piece together alone. But just to, you know, give a sense of the expectations, we had the President of the European Council saying, standing next to Zelensky as the summit was starting, that there would be a political decision about this today. So obviously something was sort of of lost in translation. And what we're kind of hearing from people is that Belgium felt a little bit steamrolled, not sufficiently consulted or taken seriously by the Commission. There was a proposal for the sort of design of the loan that apparently was circulated to Capitals before it was sent to Belgium. And there's a little bit of small country syndrome where they just kind of didn't feel respected in this process and use their ability to, you know, blow it up. And I was looking up a quote from Julius Caesar about the Belgians saying that they're the strongest of all the Gauls. Well, they showed us today Brussels felt.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Dissed by Brussels, basically. That's the other thing. The person we usually expect to hear railing about Brussels at a European Council is Viktor Orban, maybe a little bit of Robert Fico. We talked about how they kind of dealt with Fico earlier with, with our colleague Gabriel Gavin. But why wasn't Viktor Orban such a problem this time around?

[Nick Vinoker]

Viktor Orban actually wasn't here for the whole start of the summit and apparently he was attending celebrations for one of Hungary's three independence days. That was something I learned today. But, you know, we had sort of, we had written a piece ahead of this about the bad boys of the council and we named Orban and Robert Fitzo. And in the end, they weren't the spoil sports. They actually allowed the 19 sanctions package to go through. And we had Belgium kind of taking center stage and Devour even referenced our reporting kind of tongue in cheek saying a bad boy, me. They said on frozen assets, we are the very, very best. So that's credit to us.

[Sarah Wheaton]

The kind of mix of issues at this. Yuko, you know, the leaders also signed off on new simplification. They talked about migration. Politico kind of called this the anti far right. Yuko, Tim, can you help us kind of understand how the center was confronting the far right?

[Tim Ross]

Well, I think in one sense, if you look at some of the measures that they were, as you say, engaging in on housing and on the green issues, all of these are, if you like, they're very relevant. If you've got concerns around immigration and particularly around the far right, I think when it comes to Trump's influence as well, you can see that's one theme that's really helped shape some of these decisions that are being made. I mean, in one sense, Europe doesn't have a great deal of money at the moment to spend, mainly because Trump's pulling out of defense in Europe. And so it's got to fund its own defence. And that means that some of the green stuff has to go, if you listen to some of these arguments. So there's that there's the far right threat electorally, obviously, too. But don't forget the Belgian prime minister is a Flemish nationalist, right? And he's the one guy they didn't really pay attention to. And there's not a great excuse for that because his office is only 2 minutes drive away from this building.

[Nick Vinoker]

Another thing, you know, I think the far right in a way, has kind of taken a central role here. One of the big expectations was that the Parliament was going to approve these big simplification packages this week. And we've been told it's definitely going to happen on Wednesday. And that fell apart because these dissident socialist lawmakers sort of didn't get on board. And we had the president of the Parliament acknowledging that the centrist coalition that supports Von der Leyen is no longer really working as dependably as before. And she didn't go as far as saying, well, now we have to look at a right wing majority in parliament, but she did open the door to that. So, yeah, I think it was partly about addressing the far right. Housing, migration, green and simplification and cutting away red tape. Those are all ways of addressing kind of bread and butter issues for EU citizens and people who are suspicious of the eu.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Yeah. And indeed, as we discussed with Zia before, the discussion about the 2040 climate goals ended up going pretty smoothly, but it's basically because they kind of said, okay, countries will give you as many flexibilities as you can possibly ask for in order to get there. So kind of as we're seeing, concrete decision making was not really a strong suit of this, of this. Yuko, Nick, Tim, thanks so much for joining us.

[Nick Vinoker]

Thanks for having us.

[Tim Ross]

Thanks, Sarah.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Okay, so when Council President Antonio Costa said that what are usually two day summits, he was just gonna shrink down to one day. Like that seemed a good idea. But now it's super late and I don't know, maybe I would have rather have just gone home, but we're done. And we are done for this week. So if you haven't already, as we always say, please follow EU Confidential on your favorite podcast app. Rate us and leave a comment or send us an [e-mail] thanks to Diana Sturris, our senior audio producer, and to Abigail Frison, our trainee who's learning what it's like to stay up late at these crazy summits. And to Ann McAvoy, POLITICO's head of audio, I'm Sarah Wheaton. See you next week.

[Nick Vinoker]

And Doug, here we have the Limu.

[Gabriel Gavin]

IMU in its natural habitat, helping people customize their car insurance and save hundreds with Liberty Mutual.

[Zia Weiss]

Fascinating.

[Gabriel Gavin]

It's accompanied by his natural ally, Doug Limu. Is that guy with the binoculars watching us? Cut the camera. They see us.

[Nick Vinoker]

Only pay for what you [e-mail] Liberty, Liberty, Liberty.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Liberty Savings. Very underwritten by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company affiliates, excludes Massachusetts.

[Nick Vinoker]

You're a guy who just wants to look nice.

[Gabriel Gavin]

The kind of nice where you might get a nice compliment on the niceness of your nice new outfit. Good thing Men's Wearhouse has everything from polos to jeans and yes, suits.

[Sarah Wheaton]

Plus a team to help you find.

[Nick Vinoker]

The perfect fit to make sure you look nice.

[Gabriel Gavin]

Nice. Love the way you look. Men's Warehouse.