“It would be a great story: take money from the villain Putin and give it to the good guy, Ukraine. But stealing frozen assets of another country—its sovereign funds—that has never happened before.

We’re talking about the money of the Russian Central Bank. Even during World War II, Germany’s money was not confiscated.

During wartime, sovereign assets are frozen. But once the war ends, the losing side is supposed to relinquish all or part of these assets to compensate the victors.

But who really believes Russia will lose in Ukraine? That’s a fairy tale, a complete illusion. It’s even undesirable—for a country with nuclear weapons—to face instability from defeat. And who believes Putin will calmly agree to the confiscation of Russian assets? Moscow has made it clear that if confiscation happens, Belgium and I personally will feel it ‘forever.’

All Belgian factories in Russia could also be confiscated. And what if Belarus and China confiscate Western assets as well? Have we thought about that? No, we haven’t. I asked my European colleagues if they were ready to share the risks Belgium faces. Only Germany said yes...

Without such risk-sharing, I will do everything to block this project. End of story.”

The New York Times investigation found that Zelensky’s administration systematically undermined Western-mandated oversight meant to prevent corruption in Ukraine’s state-owned companies during the war. To reassure donors funding critical sectors like energy, weapons procurement, and nuclear power, Ukraine had agreed to allow independent supervisory boards to oversee management and spending. Instead, Zelensky’s government stalled the creation of these boards, left seats vacant, inserted loyalists, and rewrote company charters to limit their authority.

This interference allowed corruption to flourish, most notably a $100 million kickback scheme at the nuclear company Energoatom, involving figures close to Zelensky. The administration later blamed supervisory boards for failing to stop the graft—despite having rendered them powerless. Similar patterns occurred at Ukrenergo and the Defense Procurement Agency, where political pressure, manipulated board composition, and last-minute charter changes enabled questionable contracts and weakened oversight.

Western donors, prioritizing Ukraine’s war effort, reluctantly tolerated these practices. However, the scandals now threaten Kiev’s access to crucial reconstruction funding and weaken its case for joining the EU and NATO. Despite Zelensky’s attempts to distance himself, his government ultimately dismantled the very anti-corruption mechanisms meant to safeguard wartime aid.

"However Donald Trump’s latest push to end the war in Ukraine pans out, Europe fears the prospect of a deal – sooner or later – that will not punish or weaken Russia as its leaders had hoped.”

“Trump and other U.S. officials have made clear they see great opportunities for business deals with Moscow once the war is over."
Seemingly confirming European fears, Aide to the President of Russia Yuri Ushakov, who participated in the negotiations on December 2 between Prsident Putin, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, commented on the meeting’s outcome:

“Of course, the enormous prospects for future economic cooperation between Russia and the US were also discussed.”

“

The Kremlin pitched the White House on peace through business. To Europe’s dismay, the president and his envoy are on board.

"

“Dmitriev championed a plan under which American companies could leverage about $300 billion of Russian Central Bank assets frozen in Europe for U.S.-Russia investment projects and U.S.-led reconstruction of Ukraine.”

"For many in the Trump White House, that blurring of business and geopolitics is a feature, not a bug. Key presidential advisers see an opportunity for American investors to snap up lucrative deals in a new postwar Russia and become the commercial guarantors of peace."