Latvia says EU credibility at stake in Ukraine funding debate

Latvia’s Prime Minister Evika Siliņa has said that a so-called “reparations loan” is not the only financial instrument available to support Ukraine within the European Union, while stressing that reaching a concrete decision is now critically important.

According to European Pravda, Siliņa underlined that for Ukraine, for European countries, and for the ongoing negotiations involving the United States and Russia, it is essential that Europe act as a full-fledged and credible partner.

“This is not the last chance for Ukraine, but we really must find a solution. Frozen assets are not the only option. A loan could be provided, which Europe as a whole could decide on, but that requires unanimous agreement. We still do not have the support of Hungary,” she said.

Siliņa emphasised that although peace talks are continuing, an early end to the war should not be expected, making sustained assistance to Ukraine indispensable. “First, to show that this is indeed a good financial option. Second, there are many legal aspects that have already been resolved. Third, we must show our partners that we are capable of making decisions, and through these steps send a signal to Russia about Europe’s determination,” the Latvian prime minister explained.

She added that the issue is not limited to legal or financial considerations, but also concerns political decisions that would allow the European Union to act cohesively and demonstrate firmness in its support for Ukraine.

At the same time, Estonia’s Prime Minister Kristen Michal said the EU has at least two fundamental reasons to use frozen Russian assets in Ukraine’s favour. Michal made the remarks upon arriving at an EU summit in Brussels.

“The first is the principle that the aggressor must pay for the damage caused. Not European taxpayers, not everyone else, but the aggressor must pay. The second is that Ukraine must know that Europe is ready to fulfil its task and stands by Ukraine at any moment,” Michal stated.

He stressed that a decision on the frozen assets would serve as a powerful political signal of the EU’s seriousness. In his words, it would be a “moment of truth” for Europe, as the entire world is watching how Brussels chooses to handle Russian funds.

Michal also noted that the debate goes beyond finances alone. While alternatives such as loans, individual national contributions, or other mechanisms remain possible, he said that the use of Russian assets carries a key symbolic meaning — demonstrating that Russia bears direct responsibility for the damage inflicted.

At the same time, he cautioned that even frozen assets may ultimately prove insufficient, and that the EU may need to consider additional measures in the future, including the possible introduction of tariffs on Russian goods.