US plan to control frozen Russian assets for peace push meets firm European resistance
US envoys have floated a proposal for European states to unfreeze a slice of Russia’s €260 billion in sovereign assets and move them into a Washington‑controlled fund to help revive Ukraine peace talks. European officials pushed back, resisting both a loss of control and any move that could return money to Moscow.
Washington is testing how far its allies will go in re‑engineering the financial pressure on Moscow, with a proposal that would shift control of some frozen Russian sovereign assets from European capitals to a US‑run fund in the name of jump‑starting peace talks on Ukraine.
The idea was presented in Miami last week by Trump‑aligned negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to officials from Ukraine, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Union and NATO, according to people briefed on the talks. It would see part of the roughly €260 billion in Russian central bank assets immobilized in Western jurisdictions unfrozen and transferred into a vehicle under Washington’s control.
The stated goal, according to those familiar with the plan, is to use the fund to help revive negotiations to end the war. The details of how that leverage would work, or under what conditions assets might be released, have not been spelled out publicly.
European officials pushed back firmly. Delegates from EU countries rejected the proposal, opposing both the idea of surrendering control over assets currently held under their laws and the possibility that any portion might ultimately be returned to Moscow as part of a deal they did not design. For governments facing their own legal constraints and domestic debates over using frozen Russian money, handing the keys to Washington is a hard sell.
The dispute cuts to the heart of how the West uses financial power in wartime. The frozen assets are one of the largest single pools of leverage the US and Europe hold over the Kremlin that does not involve missiles or troops. Who controls them — and for whose priorities they are ultimately deployed — is a question with direct consequences for Ukraine, Russia and Western unity.
For Kyiv, the assets represent potential funding for reconstruction and a tangible signal that Russia will pay a price for invasion. Ukrainian officials have repeatedly argued they should be confiscated outright, not used as bargaining chips over their heads. A US‑controlled fund that is only loosely tied to Ukrainian preferences could dilute that leverage.
For European treasuries and central banks, the issue is also legal and systemic. Much of the money is parked in EU jurisdictions. Moving it into a new US‑run structure could raise fresh questions about property rights, sovereign immunity and the stability of Europe as a place to hold reserves, even for friendly states. European resistance reflects not just political skepticism of Trump‑world envoys, but institutional caution about setting precedents that might one day be used against them.
The proposal also exposes an emerging divide between Washington’s appetite to centralize tools of economic coercion and Europe’s desire to keep its hands on the levers it already controls. If Trump returns to the White House, allies will be weighing not only American power but also American discretion in wielding it.
Sanctions and asset freezes have become core instruments of 21st‑century conflict, creating a second front where lawyers and finance ministries can shape battle outcomes months or years down the line. Who writes the rules of that front — and who keeps custody of the most valuable chips — will heavily influence how any eventual settlement with Moscow is structured.
Signals to watch include whether EU institutions accelerate their own plans to use Russian assets for Ukraine without US intermediaries, whether the Trump camp refines or drops the Miami proposal, and how Moscow reacts publicly to signs that its frozen reserves are being carved up as bargaining collateral.
Sources
- OSINT