Zéroclear

Depuis la réélection de Donald Trump à la présidence des États-Unis, l'Europe sait qu'elle doit soit soutenir l'Ukraine seule ou l'abandonner à son sort. Il faut héberger le cocon bruxellois pour considérer la confiscation de facto d'avoirs russes auprès d'une société de courtage internationale basée en Belgique comme une démonstration de force européenne.

European diplomacy is nearing its boiling point. While Donald Trump's America wants to force a quick peace in Ukraine, while Putin's Russia refuses to budge, while a war-weary Ukraine is approaching a financial cliff, European countries are arguing over the use of parked Russian assets for a bridge loan. The final EU-summit of the year hangs in the balance, but it seems increasingly doomed to end with a zero-sum outcome: either the European Union’s Ukraine strategy capsizes, or the Union effectively splits into two camps. Euroclear, the clearinghouse harbouring the coveted Russian billions, risks becoming "zeroclear": Europe can only lose, even if it wins Ukraine a reprieve.

How on earth did we get here? Ever since Donald Trump's re-election as US president, Europe has known that it must either support Ukraine alone or abandon it to its fate. It takes the comfort of the Brussels EU bubble to see a de facto confiscation of Russian assets from an international securities house that happens to be located in Belgium as a demonstration of European strength. The rest of the world sees some of the world's richest countries exploiting another country's sovereign wealth for loans they themselves are quite able but wholly unwilling to fund. So much for European solidarity and resolve.

The European Union itself, its 27 member states, the eurozone countries, a coalition of European countries, an alliance with third countries, or a variation of the above: in any configuration there is more than enough fiscal margin, creditworthiness, financial market capacity or tax space for some form of war financing to support the courageous Ukrainian people in their existential struggle for Europe’s collective safety. None of this has been seriously attempted because it is deemed politically impossible due to a collective lack of historical leadership. This is a sign of the political and moral weakness that convinces both America and Russia of Europe’s decline and of Ukraine’s inevitable defeat.

Euroclear was intended to become the proverbial "deus ex machina" that would make Europe forget its own feebleness. More than enough Russian billions parked for two years of war financing for Ukraine, a significant European trump card amidst the ongoing peace talks. But this is assuming that Russia would never see its money back by virtue of defeat on the front lines or concession at the negotiating table. Otherwise, the bill will boomerang back to the sender, possibly with interest and compensation on top. Meanwhile, president Trump is eyeing the same Euroclear billions to fund a for profit reconstruction of Ukraine after the war. Does Europe think it can outwit both Russia’s belligerence and America’s greed?

That tiny Belgium had to burst this EU bubble to protect itself against all kinds of potential Russian retaliations that could also balloon its national debt is particularly painful. Belgium seeks guarantees that are effectively impossible because they amount to precisely what makes the Euroclear design necessary in the first place: ​​direct financial responsibility for EU countries. It will take some diplomatic and legal hocus-pocus, aided by a suspension of disbelief on the eventual settlement of the war, to square this circle. Belgium may still cave in for a face-saving compromise reflecting its own penchant for political surrealism.

But in the meantime, much damage has been done. A founding member of the Union, the cradle of the EU institutions, as pro-European as can be this day and age, is forced to carry the torch of euroscepticism in its own capital. Either Belgium is forced to give in, or the entire Euroclear structure fails. In both cases, the European Union emerges more divided, weakened, and embittered. The Euroclear saga could actually become the moment when anti-EU politics spills over from populism into the mainstream. Talk about a boomerang.

Lest we forget: Europe is seeking strength and autonomy in challenging geopolitical times. The euro and the eurozone are supposed to be strategic assets in this geopolitical quest. Euroclear supports the global role of the euro as long as everyone can rely on it, in peace as in war. Strengthening the euro as leverage for a European war loan or undermining the euro as collateral for a seizure of Russian assets: that really shouldn't be a choice at all. Europe can and must do better, the future of Europe and Ukraine deserves better.