EU Confidential: "Peace plan panic: Does the EU still have a say in Ukraine’s future?"

POLITICO Europe | Nov 28, 2025 | Guest Host: Nick Vinicour

Episode Overview

This episode dives into mounting EU anxieties as the US and Russia advance a peace plan for Ukraine—largely without European or Ukrainian input. POLITICO’s Nick Vinicour, stepping in for Sarah Wheaton, unpacks the latest developments: the shrinking US-led peace plan, Europe’s sidelined status, and battles over Russian frozen assets—potentially EU’s last true bargaining chip. The show includes an on-the-ground perspective from Kyiv, followed by a Brussels debrief on Belgium’s pivotal role in blocking a Ukrainian reparations loan tied to those assets.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Shrinking Peace Plan and European Exclusion

• US and Russia spearhead negotiations: Original 28-point US peace proposal, formed “with no European or Ukrainian input” ([01:02]), called for dramatic Ukrainian concessions, such as ceding Donbas/Luhansk, slashing army size, and using Russian assets (partly for US gain, with Europe expected to provide $100bn more).

  “Ukraine would give up Donbass and Luhansk, reduce the size of its armies… Washington taking a hefty cut and Europe having to cough up $100 billion on top of the Russian assets. For Brussels, it wasn’t just provocative, it was scandalous.” —Nick Vinicour ([01:32])

• European leaders try regaining influence: EU present, but marginalized, at subsequent Geneva talks; plan “shrunk from 28 points to 19 points” after objections, with some harshest terms removed.
• But still not in the driver’s seat:

  “Europe was not in the driver’s seat in this negotiation. And now it’s trying to claw back influence in these talks that could shape its own security for decades to come.” —Nick Vinicour ([03:49])

2. Kyiv’s View: Under Bombardment Amid “Peace”

• Life under fire:

  "I need to basically plan my day according to the schedule... we have limited energy and power supply because of Russian shelling... you have to sleep in the corridor, on the floor or in a shelter. That's my life now.” —Veronika Melkozyrova, Kyiv correspondent ([04:48])

• Disillusionment over US conduct:

  “Donald Trump protected Vit, didn’t seem to see anything wrong, and the American citizen he gave this crucial role to end the war in our country, actively helping the attacking side…” —Veronika Melkozyrova ([06:26])

• Red lines imposed by Ukraine:
  • No territorial concessions: “Giving any territory to Russia… is a red line for Ukraine.” —Veronika ([08:12])
  • No army size limits: “Limiting our almost 1 million army to 600,000 troops is another red line."
  • Preserve alliance choices: “[No] letting Russia decide any of our political alliances such as European Union or NATO.”
• Europe and Ukraine sidelined:

  “It seems for us that both Ukraine and Europe have been sidelined from the negotiations that are basically deciding the fate of Ukraine and Europe, which makes Europe… the same kind of object, not subject of negotiations as of now.” —Veronika ([09:48])

• Frustration with EU’s sluggish pace and reliance on bureaucracy/hung states:

  “We really still want to become part of Europe as we see that they don’t have war there yet. But it seems to us that it’s very convenient sometimes for European Union to hide behind this rogue states like Hungary… to wait and see what happens instead of creating a real strategy. But in Ukraine we’re here paying the highest price.” —Veronika ([11:20])

3. Russian Frozen Assets: Europe’s Leverage or Last Stand?

a. How the Reparations Loan Would Work

• Assets involved: About €140bn in Russian state assets, mostly matured bonds now in cash, frozen at Euroclear in Belgium.
• Mechanism: Euroclear would loan these funds to the EU (not outright seize). EU passes proceeds to Ukraine; assets remain frozen but are the loan’s collateral.

  “Because we’re talking… a loan from Euroclear to the EU, then the assets are not seized. And that’s a very important distinction…” —Bjarka Smith Meyer ([18:43])

b. Why Belgium Is Blocking It

• Legal exposure: Belgium fears lawsuits from Russia under a bilateral investment treaty, risking Belgian assets and international investor confidence.

  “Belgium... is very worried about the exposure legally and obviously at the end, financially... The assumption of the loan and the repayment by Ukraine is… that Russia… will do installments as compensation. But this is an assumption the Belgians are saying you can't take for granted.” —Wouter Vershelden ([20:27])

• Other EU states hesitant: Belgium asks for legally binding guarantees (insurance) from fellow EU states, in case they lose in court or face reprisals—so far, no definitive legal agreement.

  “You can always accuse countries of lip service... At the end of the day, we don’t have a legal text in order to stand on.” —Bjarka ([25:05])

• Belgium’s economic interests: Belgium profits from taxing the frozen assets’ returns (€1.2–€1.5bn/year), a significant budget contributor during fiscal strain.

  “If the money somehow goes away, you can’t obviously tax it anymore… Belgium has been profiting from the whole Euroclear situation up till now… it’s the goose with the golden axe that we’re gonna slaughter now. But the goose has so far delivered, really, for Belgium.” —Wouter ([27:44])

c. European Credibility and the Assets Debate

• US-led peace plan provisions angered EU: US plan would see 50% of asset proceeds flow to US-controlled rebuild efforts, plus demand EU add another €100bn—perceived as unfair ([30:51]):

  "... 50% of those proceeds would go straight back into US pockets... not only are the Russian assets being taken out of their hands and making Americans richer, but the Europeans are poor at the end of the day as well by 100 billion." —Bjarka ([30:51])

• Peace plan as pressure: Some argue this US proposal pushes the EU to act faster on its own asset plan, others say it weakens their negotiating position.

4. What’s Next? Crossroads—Legal Text, Guarantees, and Real Solidarity

• Awaiting legal framework: Everyone is “waiting for a text to drop”—a European Commission legal proposal that could assure Belgium, prompt action.

  “Even the Belgians are sitting there and saying like, look, whatever you do, just put forward a legal text and we’ll kick the tires... That’s where we are.” —Bjarka ([33:17])

• Ideal Belgian wishlist: Legally binding guarantees from every EU state to back Belgium and cover immediate payouts, rapid process if the “shit hits the fan”; backup options (the Commission pays out in advance); international involvement (US, Japan) for greater stability ([33:33]).
• Bridge financing risk: The longer it takes, the more likely EU taxpayers will have to front money for Ukraine themselves, raising debt and domestic opposition ([36:04]).
• Spotlight on Belgian politics: Domestic pressure means Belgium unlikely to cave quickly without a clear, face-saving legal guarantee structure ([37:04]).
• EU credibility at stake:

  "The old trope is that if you’re not at the table, then you’re on the menu. … The Europeans have made it abundantly clear to the Americans that you can’t have a peace deal signed without the Europeans and the Ukrainians there to negotiate the terms as well. … For the time being they’ve managed to get themselves into the discussion, but… we have to see after Thanksgiving whether it actually proved to be useful or not.” —Bjarka ([38:13])

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “What Donald Trump taught us all is that when you’re a Russian, you can do everything and he will still tolerate you. But when a Ukrainian... he might cut all aid.”
  —Veronika Melkozyrova ([06:26])
• “It seems for us that both Ukraine and Europe have been sidelined… which makes Europe… the same kind of object, not subject of negotiations as of now.”
  —Veronika Melkozyrova ([09:48])
• “If you’re not at the table, then you’re on the menu… Point 14 [shows]… all the money’s going to go into American hands and the Europeans are going to be €100bn poorer.”
  —Bjarka Smith Meyer ([38:13], [31:47])

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:02] – Opening rundown: Europe reacting to new, US-led peace plan (Nick Vinicour)
• [04:48] – Life in Kyiv under bombardment and initial Ukrainian reactions (Veronika Melkozyrova)
• [06:26] – Kyiv’s reaction to Trump’s envoy’s controversial leaked call (Veronika)
• [08:12] – Ukraine’s “red lines” in the negotiations (Veronika)
• [09:48] – Europe and Ukraine sidelined from negotiations (Veronika)
• [13:36] – Kyiv’s view on Belgium’s refusal to release frozen assets (Veronika)
• [17:35] – The financial nuts and bolts of the reparations loan (Bjarka Smith Meyer)
• [20:27] – Belgian legal worries explained (Wouter Vershelden)
• [24:55] – Have other EU states actually pledged to back Belgium? (Bjarka)
• [27:38] – Belgian fiscal interests in frozen asset tax revenue (Wouter)
• [29:40] – Even a peace deal wouldn’t negate Ukraine’s need for asset funds (Bjarka)
• [32:33] – The stalemate: Awaiting a legal framework, Belgian demands (Bjarka)
• [36:04] – EU governments’ alternatives: grants, eurobonds, or bridging loans (Bjarka)
• [37:55] – Big picture: European credibility and being “on the menu” (Bjarka)

Final Thoughts

This episode paints a picture of frustration, urgency, and tactical maneuvering—both at the diplomatic table and in the corridors of national finance ministries. The core question resonates throughout: will Europe secure a real say in Ukraine’s future, or is it destined to pay, and pay dearly, for decisions made elsewhere?