In a recent meeting of the European Union's 27 ambassadors, several governments expressed opposition to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's plan to utilize profits from frozen Russian assets to purchase weapons for Ukraine. Hungary, Slovakia, Malta, and Luxembourg raised concerns about the proposal, indicating potential challenges ahead during the upcoming EU summit set to determine the allocation of these immobilized assets, which have been in Europe since Russia's invasion of Ukraine two years ago.

The debate primarily revolves around the question of whether the funds, totaling over €4 billion in 2024, should be used to support Ukraine's budget or controversially, to procure ammunition for the war-torn country. It should be noted that this discussion is separate from the ongoing U.S. push for the EU to utilize funds from the wholesale confiscation of Russian assets, which are currently frozen in the West and valued at over €250 billion.

While European capitals have mostly avoided weighing in on the latter debate due to legal and financial risks, European leaders had agreed earlier that the frozen asset profits should be channeled towards non-military spending. Nevertheless, von der Leyen's unexpected proposal in February has complicated negotiations within the bloc.

Following the EU summit in October, a statement from European leaders mentioned utilizing the funds for Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction but did not explicitly refer to military needs. The Commission is expected to formally present its preferred option shortly before the summit next Thursday. Germany and other countries are waiting for this proposal before expressing their positions.

Opposing the purchase of weapons, Hungary and Slovakia, often seen as having closer ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, expressed concerns about potential military escalation in Ukraine. Other countries are aligned with the goal of supporting Kyiv but are frustrated with von der Leyen's inclination to propose radical ideas without prior consultation with national capitals. The lack of consultation has sparked discontent against von der Leyen, particularly among smaller member states, according to an EU diplomat.

In the case of Malta, purchasing ammunition for Ukraine clashes with the country's longstanding neutrality policy, preventing it from buying lethal weapons for foreign nations. Legal concerns further complicate matters, with doubts that Malta, and others in a similar position, could secure opt-outs for purchasing deadly arms.

Interestingly, Ukraine itself has reservations about von der Leyen's plan, fearing that earmarking the profits from frozen assets for military use could delay the allocation of crucial funds to the battlefield. Kyiv's deputy justice minister, Iryna Mudra, expressed concerns about potential delays when Europe procures from European companies before transferring the resources to Ukraine. These delays could negatively impact Ukraine's ongoing conflict.

However, the proposal may find favor with countries such as France, which has been supportive of purchasing EU-made equipment to boost the bloc's arms industry. Additionally, EU countries recently backed a €5 billion fund for military aid to Ukraine under the European Peace Facility (EPF). The EPF aims to partially reimburse governments for the weapons they provide to Kyiv.

As the EU summit approaches, it remains to be seen how the various concerns and opposing positions can be reconciled to ensure successful decision-making on the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine.