Ukraine's Zelenskyy turns to Brussels as US support falters

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is meeting EU leaders to keep Ukraine’s military and financial needs high on Europe’s agenda. The visit follows another difficult week in relations with US President Donald Trump. Uncertainty about future American support has increased pressure on European countries to provide alternatives.

Zelenskyy is asking for further military assistance, stronger air-defence systems, and protection for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. His deputy chief of staff, Ihor Zhovkva, also called for European alternatives to US anti-ballistic missile defences and Starlink satellite communications. These systems are important because Ukraine relies on defence and communications capabilities during the war.

His participation is expected to be brief. He is due to meet Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar and discuss Ukraine’s financing needs with EU leaders, including a projected $78 billion gap for 2027. Europe may need to provide tens of billions, but tighter budgets and weaker voter support make that difficult.

Ukraine’s government estimates that it will face a $78 billion financing gap in 2027. That figure represents the funding Kyiv says it will need but cannot currently cover. EU leaders are expected to discuss the gap, while an EU diplomat said the bloc may be asked to provide tens of billions.

The EU holds €210 billion in immobilised Russian state assets. Comparing the figures directly is imperfect because they use different currencies and describe different things. Still, €210 billion is substantially larger than $78 billion in headline size. The proposed idea is to use the assets as the basis for a loan, rather than simply handing them over.

The comparison explains why the assets debate has returned. If legally and financially workable, they could help address a large part of Ukraine’s projected shortfall. Belgium remains cautious, and EU governments still disagree about the risks and method.

Immobilised Russian state assets are Russian government funds held in EU countries but blocked from normal use or transfer. They remain immobilised rather than being immediately confiscated. The distinction matters because governments face legal and financial questions about taking ownership of another state’s property.

The proposal revived in Brussels is to channel the assets into a loan for Ukraine. In practical terms, the blocked assets could support or secure financing while remaining formally immobilised. The article does not specify the final legal structure. It reports only that EU diplomats want the option firmly back on the table.

The idea is politically contested. The assets total €210 billion, with most held in Belgium. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz rejected a US proposal to place them in a Washington-controlled financial vehicle. Belgium is still cautious because of legal and financial risks, so no final arrangement has been agreed.

Uncertainty over continued US military support could leave Ukraine less protected and less connected. The immediate concerns identified in the article are air defence, energy infrastructure, and satellite communications. These capabilities help Ukraine defend important sites and maintain communications during the conflict.

Ukraine is asking European countries to strengthen its air defences and protect energy infrastructure. Ihor Zhovkva also urged Europe to develop alternatives to US anti-ballistic missile defence capabilities and Starlink satellite communications. The mechanism is straightforward: if American systems or support become unavailable, European substitutes would reduce Ukraine’s dependence on them.

The article does not say that these capabilities have already been withdrawn. It says uncertainty has undermined confidence in continued US support. Zelenskyy’s Brussels visit is intended to secure more military assistance and push European leaders to treat these needs as urgent priorities.

Belgium is central because the bulk of the immobilised Russian state assets in the EU are held there. Any plan to use those assets for Ukraine would therefore expose Belgium to a particularly large share of the legal, financial, and political consequences. Its position can strongly affect whether the wider EU moves ahead.

The article identifies Belgium as the main holdout. The country is worried about legal and financial risks linked to reviving the assets debate. Prime Minister Bart de Wever discussed Ukraine’s financing needs with Zelenskyy but did not reveal whether he supports using the assets. He said only that he had a clear idea for covering Kyiv’s needs.

Other EU leaders are pushing to reconsider the option because Ukraine’s 2027 financing gap is estimated at $78 billion. Germany’s Friedrich Merz rejected a US proposal for Washington to control the assets. Belgium’s caution means the loan idea remains unresolved.

The EU’s seven-year budget sets the framework for major shared spending. Failing to agree would create uncertainty over how much money can support Ukraine and other common priorities. It would also make long-term planning harder, especially as Ukraine faces a projected $78 billion financing gap in 2027.

EU leaders failed to bridge their differences during marathon talks. Sweden’s caretaker Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said an agreement would not come this month or next month, and might not be possible before year-end. European Council President António Costa plans to present a new proposal in a few weeks, after the Irish “negobox” failed to produce a deal.

The negotiations could become more difficult if pivotal elections in major EU economies interfere next spring. The article highlights France, where Marine Le Pen is topping polls and has threatened to cut France’s budget contribution. Leaders have scheduled a special summit for 26 November.

EU accession is the process by which a European country applies to join the European Union, negotiates the membership conditions, and completes the required reforms. It matters because every stage must satisfy EU rules and receive support from existing member states. The article says disputes with Budapest have repeatedly complicated Ukraine’s accession process.

For example, if Croatia and Montenegro have a bilateral disagreement, Croatia could use its position as an EU member to block or delay consensus on parts of Montenegro’s accession negotiations. The dispute might concern borders, minority rights, or another unresolved issue. The key mechanism is political leverage: the member can withhold agreement until the issue is addressed.

The article does not discuss Croatia or Montenegro specifically. It does report that Kyiv and Budapest are seeking to reset relations after years of disputes, and that those tensions have repeatedly complicated Ukraine’s path toward EU membership.