EU leaders agree on $160b loan to Ukraine after plan to use frozen Russian assets unravels

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned early on Thursday that it would be a case of sending “either money today or blood tomorrow” to help Ukraine.

19 December 25, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-19/eu-leaders-agree-on-90-billion-euro-loan-to-ukraine/106163816

In short:

The EU has approved a $160 billion interest-free loan to Ukraine as the country verges on bankruptcy amid its war with Russia.

Europe had planned to use frozen Russian assets — mostly in Belgium — to fund its ally, but failed to bridge differences with Belgium, which deemed it legally risky.

What’s next?

The EU says it reserves the right to use the frozen assets to repay the loan if Russia fails to pay reparations.

European Union leaders have agreed to provide a massive interest-free loan to Ukraine to meet its military and economic needs for the next two years, but they failed to agree to use frozen Russian assets to raise the funds.

After almost four years of war, the International Monetary Fund estimates Ukraine will need 137 billion euros ($242 billion) in 2026 and 2027. 

Kyiv is on the verge of bankruptcy and desperately needs the money by the Northern Hemisphere spring.

The plan had been to use some of the $372 billion worth of Russian assets that are frozen in Europe, mostly in Belgium. 

However, the EU failed to bridge differences with Belgium that would have allowed it to use the assets.

The decision came after EU leaders worked deep into Thursday night to reassure Belgium they would provide guarantees to protect it from Russian retaliation if it backed the “reparations loan” plan for Ukraine.

But in the end, the leaders did not use that option, and as the talks bogged down, they eventually opted to borrow the money on capital markets.

“We have a deal. Decision to provide 90 billion euros ($159 billion) of support to Ukraine for 2026–27 approved. We committed, we delivered,” EU Council president Antonio Costa said in a post on social media on Friday.

“The money would be borrowed by the EU on capital markets and underwritten by the 27-nation bloc’s seven-year budget.”

French President Emmanuel Macron described the deal agreed to as a major advance, saying this option “was the most realistic and practical way” to fund Ukraine and its war efforts. 

He added that the deal included a mechanism to protect three countries — Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic — from any financial fallout.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz hailed the announcement.

“The financial package for Ukraine has been finalised,” he said in a statement, noting that “Ukraine is granted a zero-interest loan.”

“These funds are sufficient to cover the military and budgetary needs of Ukraine for the two years to come.”

Mr Merz said the frozen assets would remain blocked until Russia paid war reparations to Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that would cost more than $1.06 trillion.

“If Russia does not pay reparations, we will — in full accordance with international law — make use of Russian immobilised assets for paying back the loan,” Merz said.

Not all countries agreed to the loan package. 

Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic refused to support Ukraine and opposed it, but a deal was reached in which they did not block the package and were promised protection from any financial fallout.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest ally in Europe and who describes himself as a peacemaker, said: “I would not like a European Union in war.”

“To give money means war,” he said. 

Mr Orbán also described the rejected plan to use the frozen Russian assets as a “dead end”.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned early on Thursday that it would be a case of sending “either money today or blood tomorrow” to help Ukraine.

Russia seeks to block mobilisation of assets

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had appealed for a quick decision to keep Ukraine afloat in the new year. 

Some $372 billion worth of Russian assets are frozen in Europe, most of them in the Belgian financial clearing house Euroclear. 

Belgium had objected to the loan plan, calling it legally risky and warning that it could harm Euroclear’s business.

The plan to use frozen Russian assets got bogged down as Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever rejected the scheme as legally risky, and warned that it could harm the business of Euroclear.

Brussels was rattled last Friday when Russia’s Central Bank launched a lawsuit against Euroclear to prevent any loan being provided to Ukraine with frozen Russian funds.

“For me, the reparations loan was not a good idea,” De Wever told reporters after the meeting. 

“When we explained the text again, there were so many questions that I said, I told you so, I told you so. There are a lot of loose ends. And if you start pulling at the loose ends in the strings, the thing collapses.

“We avoided stepping into a precedent that risks undermining legal certainty worldwide. We safeguarded the principle that Europe respects law, even when it is hard, even when we are under pressure,” he said, adding that the EU “delivered a strong political signal. Europe stands behind Ukraine.”

But the EU Council president said: “The union reserves its right to make use of the immobilised assets to repay this loan.”

December 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Trump’s Empire of Hubris and Thuggery

The president’s latest National Security Strategy memorandum treats the freedom to coerce others as the essence of US sovereignty. It is an ominous document that will—if allowed to stand—come back to haunt the United States.

Jeffrey D. Sachs, December 13, 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-national-security-strategy-memo

The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) recently released by President Donald Trump presents itself as a blueprint for renewed American strength. It is dangerously misconceived in four ways.

First, the NSS is anchored in grandiosity: the belief that the United States enjoys unmatched supremacy in every key dimension of power. Second, it is based on a starkly Machiavellian view of the world, treating other nations as instruments to be manipulated for American advantage. Third, it rests on a naïve nationalism that dismisses international law and institutions as encumbrances on US sovereignty rather than as frameworks that enhance US and global security together.

Fourth, it signals a thuggery in Trump’s use of the CIA and military. Within days of the NSS’s publication, the US brazenly seized a tanker carrying Venezuelan oil on the high seas—on the flimsy grounds that the vessel had previously violated US sanctions against Iran.

The seizure was not a defensive measure to avert an imminent threat. Nor is it remotely legal to seize vessels on the high seas because of unilateral US sanctions. Only the UN Security Council has such authority. Instead, the seizure is an illegal act designed to force regime change in Venezuela. It follows Trump’s declaration that he has directed the CIA to carry out covert operations inside Venezuela to destabilize the regime.

American security will not be strengthened by acting like a bully. It will be weakened—structurally, morally, and strategically. A great power that frightens its allies, coerces its neighbors, and disregards international rules ultimately isolates itself.

The NSS, in other words, is not just an exercise in hubris on paper. It is rapidly being translated into brazen practice.

A Glimmer of Realism, Then a Lurch into Hubris

To be fair, the NSS contains moments of long-overdue realism. It implicitly concedes that the United States cannot and should not attempt to dominate the entire world, and it correctly recognizes that some allies have dragged Washington into costly wars of choice that were not in America’s true interests. It also steps back—at least rhetorically—from an all-consuming great-power crusade. The strategy rejects the fantasy that the United States can or should impose a universal political order.

But the modesty is short-lived. The NSS quickly reasserts that America possesses the “world’s single largest and most innovative economy,” “the world’s leading financial system,” and “the world’s most advanced and most profitable technology sector,” all backed by “the world’s most powerful and capable military.” These claims serve not simply as patriotic affirmations, but as a justification for using American dominance to impose terms on others. Smaller countries, it seems, will bear the brunt of this hubris, since the US cannot defeat the other great powers, not least because they are nuclear-armed.

Naked Machiavellianism in Doctrine

The NSS’s grandiosity is welded to a naked Machiavellianism. The question it asks is not how the United States and other countries can cooperate for mutual benefit, but how American leverage—over markets, finance, technology, and security—can be applied to extract maximal concessions from other countries.

This is most pronounced in the NSS discussion of the Western Hemisphere section, which declares a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The United States, the NSS declares, will ensure that Latin America “remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets,” and alliances and aid will be conditioned on “winding down adversarial outside influence.” That “influence” clearly refers to Chinese investment, infrastructure, and lending.

The NSS is explicit: US agreements with countries “that depend on us most and therefore over which we have the most leverage” must result in sole-source contracts for American firms. US policy should “make every effort to push out foreign companies” that build infrastructure in the region, and the US should reshape multilateral development institutions, such as the World Bank, so that they “serve American interests.”

Latin American governments, many of whom trade extensively with both the United States and China, are effectively being told: you must deal with us, not China—or face the consequences.

Such a strategy is strategically naive. China is the main trading partner for most of the world, including many countries in the Western hemisphere. The US will be unable to compel Latin American nations to expel Chinese firms, but will gravely damage US diplomacy in the attempt.

Thuggery So Brazen Even Close Allies Are Alarmed

The NSS proclaims a doctrine of “sovereignty and respect,” yet its behavior has already reduced that principle to sovereignty for the US, vulnerability for the rest. What makes the emerging doctrine even more extraordinary is that it is now frightening not only small states in Latin America, but even the United States’ closest allies in Europe.

In a remarkable development, Denmark—one of America’s most loyal NATO partners—has openly declared the United States a potential threat to Danish national security. Danish defense planners have stated publicly that Washington under Trump cannot be assumed to respect the Kingdom of Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, and that a coercive US attempt to seize the island is a contingency for which Denmark must now plan.

This is astonishing on several levels. Greenland is already host to the US Thule Air Base and firmly within the Western security system. Denmark is not anti-American, nor is it seeking to provoke Washington. It is simply responding rationally to a world in which the United States has begun to behave unpredictably—even toward its supposed friends.

That Copenhagen feels compelled to contemplate defensive measures against Washington speaks volumes. It suggests that the legitimacy of the US-led security architecture is eroding from within. If even Denmark believes it must hedge against the United States, the problem is no longer one of Latin America’s vulnerability. It is a systemic crisis of confidence among nations that once saw the US as the guarantor of stability but now view it as a possible or likely aggressor.

In short, the NSS seems to channel the energy previously devoted to great-power confrontation into bullying of smaller states. If America seems to be a bit less inclined to launch trillion-dollar wars abroad, it is more inclined to weaponize sanctions, financial coercion, asset seizures, and theft on the high seas.

The Missing Pillar: Law, Reciprocity, and Decency

Perhaps the deepest flaw of the NSS is what it omits: a commitment to international law, reciprocity, and basic decency as foundations of American security.

The NSS regards global governance structures as obstacles to US action. It dismisses climate cooperation as “ideology,” and indeed a “hoax” according to Trump’s recent speech at the UN. It downplays the UN Charter and envisions international institutions primarily as instruments to be bent toward American preferences. Yet it is precisely legal frameworks, treaties, and predictable rules that have historically protected American interests.

The founders of the United States understood this clearly. Following the American War of Independence, thirteen newly sovereign states soon adopted a constitution to pool key powers—over taxation, defense, and diplomacy—not to weaken the states’ sovereignty, but to secure it by creating the US Federal Government. The post-WWII foreign policy of the United States government did the same through the UN, the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organization, and arms-control agreements.

The Trump NSS now reverses that logic. It treats the freedom to coerce others as the essence of sovereignty. From that perspective, the Venezuelan tanker seizure and Denmark’s anxieties are manifestations of the new policy.

Athens, Melos, and Washington

Such hubris will come back to haunt the United States. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides records that when imperial Athens confronted the small island of Melos in 416 BC, the Athenians declared that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Yet Athens’ hubris was also its undoing. Twelve years later, in 404 BC, Athens fell to Sparta. Athenian arrogance, overreach, and contempt for smaller states helped galvanize the alliance that ultimately brought it down.

The 2025 NSS speaks in a similar arrogant register. It is a doctrine of power over law, coercion over consent, and dominance over diplomacy. American security will not be strengthened by acting like a bully. It will be weakened—structurally, morally, and strategically. A great power that frightens its allies, coerces its neighbors, and disregards international rules ultimately isolates itself.

America’s national security strategy should be based on wholly different premises: acceptance of a plural world; recognition that sovereignty is strengthened, not diminished, through international law; acknowledgment that global cooperation on climate, health, and technology is indispensable; and understanding that America’s global influence depends more on persuasion than coercion.

December 17, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

A New UN Secretary-General Needs the Blessings of the US–or Get Vetoed.

“The new SG will need to be someone Trump allows, as he has a veto,”

By Thalif Deen, https://www.ipsnews.net/2025/12/a-new-un-secretary-general-needs-the-blessings-of-the-us-or-get-vetoed/?utm_source=email_marketing&utm_admin=146128&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=A_New_UN_SecretaryGeneral_Needs_the_Blessings_of_the_US_or_Get_Vetoed_Sindh_Peoples_Housing_Redefine

UNITED NATIONS, Dec 11 2025 (IPS) – When there was widespread speculation that a UN Under-Secretary-General (USG), a product of two prestigious universities—Oxford and Cambridge—was planning to run for the post of Secretary-General back in the 1980s, I pointedly asked him to confirm or deny the rumor during an interview in the UN delegate’s lounge.

“I don’t think”, he declared, “anyone in his right mind will ever want that job”.

Fast forward to 2026.

As a financially stricken UN is looking for a new Secretary-General, who will take office beginning January 2027, the USG’s remark in a bygone era was a reflection of a disaster waiting to happen.

The current Secretary-General is facing a daunting task battling for the very survival of the UN, with a hostile White House forcing the world body to sharply reduce its staff, slash funding and relocate several UN agencies, moving them out of New York.

The bottom line: the incoming Secretary-General will inherit a virtually devastated United Nations.

Addressing the General Assembly last September, President Trump remarked, “What is the purpose of the United Nations? It’s not even coming close to living up to [its] potential.”

Dismissing the U.N. as an outdated, ineffective organization, he boasted, “I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never a phone call from the United Nations offering to help in finalizing the deal.”

Whoever is elected, the new UN chief will have to faithfully abide by the ground rules of the Trump administration virtually abandoning what the UN stands for, including racial equality and gender empowerment (DEI)

“Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies that were adopted to address historical and structural injustices are being vilified as unjust,” says Volker Turk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

In his 345-page book titled “Unvanquished: A US-UN Saga,” released in 1999, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a former Secretary-General, points out that although he was accused by Washington of being “too independent” of the US, he eventually did everything in his power to please the Americans.

But when he ran for a second term, the US, which preaches the Western concept of majority rule, exercised its veto even though Boutros-Ghali received 14 of the 15 votes in the Security Council, including the votes of the other four permanent members of the Council, namely the UK, France, Russia and China.

In such circumstances, tradition would demand the dissenting US abstain on the vote and respect the wishes of the overwhelming majority in the Security Council. But the US did not.

Unlike most of his predecessors and successors, Boutros-Ghali refused to blindly play ball with the US despite the fact that he occasionally caved into US pressure at a time when Washington had gained a notoriety for trying to manipulate the world body to protect its own national interests.

Jesselina Rana, UN Advisor at CIVICUS’ UN Hub in New York and the steering committee of the 1 for 8 Billion campaign, told IPS when key international norms are being openly flouted by certain member states and the veto is used to undermine the very principles the UN was built on, will structural reforms alone be enough to restore trust in the institution?”

Can the UN80 process genuinely rebuild trust in multilateralism, she asked, when the process itself has been opaque and has lacked meaningful civil society participation?

“An accountable and transparent Secretary-General selection process requires stronger and more explicit support from member states.”

A process that is open and inclusive of civil society and grounded in feminist leadership will strengthen the UN’s ability to navigate today’s difficult geopolitical conditions and help rebuild trust in multilateralism, she argued.

After 80 years of male leadership, the next Secretary-General should be a woman with a proven record on gender equality, human rights, peace, sustainable development, and multilateralism, declared Rana.

Felix Dodds, Adjunct Professor at the Water Institute, University of North Carolina and Associate Fellow, the Tellus Institute, Boston, who has written extensively on the UN, told IPS the UN is experiencing challenging times, living through what are probably the most difficult times since the Cold War.

It may not be a bad idea to move some UN bodies. UNDP did a lot of that under Helen Clarke—being closer to the people you are working to help, maybe it is a cost-cutting issue, but it may also be something that should have been considered before.

“The new SG will need to be someone Trump allows, as he has a veto,” he pointed out.

“Of the candidates we looked at before, the only one that is realistic is Rebeca Grynspan from UNCTAD. She has shown herself to be a good bureaucrat and has led UNCTAD well, as she did for Costa Rica when she was the Deputy President, said Dodds, City of Bonn International Ambassador.

“We may be looking at a man again,” he said.

Clearly, the new secretary-general taking over in 2027 has a daunting task ahead. Whoever it is will have had to make concessions to the P5 on the size and reach of the UN. The present cuts may be just the first set to come down.

“A UN with a clearer mandate on what it will do may be a result. Stakeholders need to, of course, defend the UN as a critical body for multilateral affairs BUT they must at the same time be putting forward reforms that are simple and strengthen the area they are working on.”

There is no way we can get security reform through—it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be proposed, but what is realistic in the areas being reformed is that stakeholders and governments can work together on it.

Ultimately, the driving force should be a more effective UN delivering on the ground. Do reform proposals do that? he asked.

“The organization has always worked in a world of political pressures. I agree the body should be a place for dialogue and protection of the most vulnerable. UN80 offers an opportunity for dialogue on realistic proposals. The question is, what are they in the different areas?” he said.

Dr. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, where he serves as coordinator of the program in Middle Eastern Studies, told IPS following the Napoleonic Wars, the Council of Europe largely kept the peace until the Central Powers decided it no longer worked for them. The result was World War I.

The League of Nations then set up a framework to keep the peace until the Axis powers decided it no longer worked for them. The result of World War II, he said.

“We are now at a similar crossroads, where the United Nations system is being challenged by both Russia and the United States which–as demonstrated through the invasions of Iraq and Ukraine—no longer feel constrained by the prohibition against aggressive war.”

December 13, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment