Winners
and losers of EU’s make-or-break Ukraine summit
Ukraine
finally got its money after a 16-hour meeting of EU leaders, but not everyone
was victorious.
December
19, 2025 12:15 pm CET
By
Gerardo Fortuna
BRUSSELS
— Europe is used to last-minute plot twists at summits, but this one raised the
bar.
After a
marathon summit, leaders agreed on a plan to provide funding for Ukraine based
on EU joint debt, although three countries refused to sign up. That wasn’t the
plan most EU countries had been pushing for, which was to use frozen Russian
assets to help Kyiv’s war effort.
Here’s
who won, and who lost, at this crunch summit for Europe.
Bart De Wever
The
Belgian prime minister delivered a masterclass in stoic resistance against
using Russian assets, a plan he had opposed since its inception. For most of
the time, he was the lone holdout to the plan, until Italy and a few others
voiced doubts late in the day.
His key
tactic? After weeks of resistance to using frozen assets, which he said would
have massively exposed his country to potential Russian retaliation, De Wever’s
team showed up willing to negotiate all day with European Commission officials,
only to put forward a demand calling for “uncapped” support from other EU
countries.
That
proved too much to stomach and made Plan B — joint borrowing — the only option
(one that few wanted but most could live with).
Giorgia
Meloni
The real
kingmaker of the summit, the Italian prime minister dictated the pace on the
EU-Mercosur trade deal and also timed her intervention on Ukraine funding
perfectly.
After
weeks of staying in the shadows — with Belgium fighting the battle against
using frozen Russian assets — Meloni let others exhaust their options before
stepping in with a gentle nudge late at night, once the reparation loan plan
was already dead.
EU
diplomats told POLITICO that Meloni didn’t even take the floor to speak during
the first part of the summit, but she closed the deal.
António
Costa
If
finding a deal was hard, finding one in a single day bordered on the
inconceivable.
Yet that
has always been Costa’s goal: keeping EU summits down to just one day. While
most leaders were already assuming a second day — or even going into the
weekend — Costa got it wrapped up.
He never
fully committed to any single option (contrary to his counterpart at the
Berlaymont), floated above the fray, and still got a deal.
Everyone
involved in the war
As
strange as it sounds — since war, and this one in particular, produces no real
winners — every major actor involved in the Ukraine war walked away with
something.
Volodymyr
Zelenskyy got the money he needed, which is what mattered most. Europe
delivered on its promise to support Ukraine. Vladimir Putin’s frozen assets
won’t be used against him. And Donald Trump still has the option of using those
assets as leverage in a future peace deal.
Losers
Friedrich
Merz
It’s hard
to recall a more unsuccessful EU summit for a German chancellor.
Within
hours, Merz suffered two major defeats: the postponement of the Mercosur deal
and, more decisively, the torpedoing of the frozen-assets plan that he had
aggressively pushed.
For
weeks, Germany and its Nordic allies had insisted that frozen assets were the
only game in town, arguing that joint debt was impossible due to it needing
unanimity requirements and Hungary’s veto.
The
outcome proved otherwise: joint debt and three countries opting out. A reminder
that in Brussels, impossible often just means there’s not yet any political
will.
Merz put
his neck on the line, traveling to Brussels to help Ursula von der Leyen lobby
De Wever, as well as writing several op-eds on how good it would be to use
frozen assets. The fact that reparation loans haven’t been formally ruled out —
technical work will continue — is cold comfort.
Ursula
von der Leyen
The
Commission president went down alongside Merz in the effort to keep joint
borrowing off the table, even though her own team had prepared alternative
options.
She
eventually opened the door to joint debt in a speech in Strasbourg on Wednesday
— but it was far too late to claim credit for the deal that was eventually
struck. By then, the momentum had already shifted, and others were steering the
outcome.
Mette
Frederiksen (and the Nordics)
Denmark’s
prime minister stayed largely out of what was framed as a German-led fight, but
Frederiksen, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the
EU — and the broader Nordic bloc — quietly backed the “only game in town”
narrative.
What
resurfaced was a familiar fault line: frugals versus joint debt, this time
refracted through a dispute over how to use frozen Russian assets.
In the
end, one camp clearly prevailed. Leaders agreed to move toward joint borrowing
to cover Ukraine’s financial needs for the next two years, sidelining
alternative schemes that had dominated the debate for weeks.
Hungary,
Slovakia and Czechia
The trio
secured a short-term — and largely financial — win by avoiding direct
obligations to send money to Ukraine.
But the
victory may prove costly. The money will flow regardless — and a move like this
pushes them closer to pariah status inside the EU. Will there be repercussions
from the rest of the EU? Time will tell.

Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário