EU summit compromise: a pragmatic step toward re-engaging Russia

Whatever one thinks of the overnight compromise at the Brussels summit – victory for fiscal prudence or capitulation on holding Russia accountable – the €90 billion joint borrowing package for Ukraine’s 2026-2027 needs may prove more strategically astute than it first appears.

By shelving, at least temporarily, the contentious plan to leverage profits from frozen Russian central bank assets, the EU has removed a major irritant that Moscow consistently branded as “theft” and “illegal seizure.”

Russian officials wasted no time celebrating the pivot. Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), posted on X that the decision represents a “major win for LAW + common sense—and for the voices of reason in Europe.”

While his triumphalism should be taken with caution, the substance is clear: abandoning the asset-based loan lowers the temperature and eliminates what the Kremlin viewed as a direct economic assault on its sovereign reserves.

Since the full-scale invasion in 2022, direct high-level contact between EU leaders and Vladimir Putin has effectively ceased. The diplomatic channel has been monopolised by the United States – first under Biden, now accelerating under President Trump, who has signalled an urgent push for a negotiated settlement. Whether Europeans like it or not, peace talks are advancing, and they risk unfolding largely without Brussels at the table.

Against this backdrop, French President Emmanuel Macron’s remarks during the night of the summit take on particular significance. “I think i twill become again useful to speak to Vladimir Putin,” he said, adding that in the coming weeks Europe must “find the ways and the means… so that Europeans… restart a complete dialogue with Russia in full transparency.”

Macron, long the most vocal advocate for “strategic autonomy” and avoiding total rupture with Moscow, is explicitly calling for structured re-engagement.

The summit’s Plan B – joint borrowing exempting reluctant members like Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic – clears diplomatic underbrush. It secures vital funding for Ukraine without the legal and political minefield of asset confiscation that would have hardened Russian intransigence. Good or bad in moral terms, the compromise buys time and, crucially, creates space for Europe to reclaim a seat in the emerging peace architecture.

If a settlement materialises – with or without full European involvement – the EU will need channels to Moscow for guarantees, reconstruction, and long-term stability. By stepping back from the most provocative financing option, Brussels has, perhaps inadvertently, given itself a chance to speak to Putin again. In the unpredictable diplomacy ahead, that may prove more valuable than any symbolic victory over frozen billions.

Caption: French President Emmanuel Macron speaks to the media at the end of the first day of the EU Council Summit in Brussels, Belgium, 19 December 2025. EU leaders met to discuss the latest developments in Ukraine, the EU’s next multiannual financial framework, the EU enlargement process, and the geoeconomic situation in the European Union. EPA/OLIVIER MATTHYS