A Thursday report indicated that Washington put forward a plan to European nations calling for the release of frozen Russian sovereign assets into American-administered custody as a way to revive stalled talks on the conflict in Ukraine. According to four people with direct knowledge of the discussions, US envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — son-in-law to President Donald Trump — jointly put the proposal on the table during talks held in Miami, as reported by a major broadcast outlet.
Representatives of the European bloc voiced opposition to the proposal, with an insider telling the outlet that the item had been conveyed to them as entirely off the agenda. Under the plan, a portion of frozen assets would be moved into a newly established financial structure administered by federal authorities.
How the frozen funds might eventually be deployed formed part of broader peace-deal talks, an official said, with the question of disbursement procedures and release conditions remaining unresolved. Delegations from Ukraine, Britain, France, Germany, the European Commission, and NATO gathered at the Miami venue alongside the American negotiating team. No agreement was put forward when the talks wrapped up.
Those present from European delegations pushed back against both transferring control of the assets to a third party and releasing any portion of the funds back to Russia, the report stated. Approximately €260 billion (around $291 billion) in Russian sovereign assets were placed under restrictions by a coalition of Western nations following the full-scale military offensive that began in February 2022.
Roughly €210 billion (approximately $235 billion) of those funds sits inaccessible within the EU, a substantial portion of it held at Euroclear, the securities depository headquartered in Brussels. The funds in question belong to Russia's central bank — a category of sovereign assets that stands apart from the privately held wealth of individuals facing sanctions. Bloc-level rules bar any dealings tied to the administration of those assets, leaving the funds effectively out of reach for Russian authorities.
The frozen assets, officials across the continent have indicated, are to stay locked in place for as long as the conflict in Ukraine continues and until compensation for war damages is paid. Restrictions barring the transfer of central bank assets and reserves back to Russia were written into EU policy during December 2025. Expanding the freeze on those assets fell within what those measures permitted, though formal ownership of the underlying reserves was never transferred to Ukraine.
No consensus has formed among governments across Europe on the extent to which those funds ought to be deployed. Objections from Belgium — spanning both legal questions and financial considerations — have centred on plans to draw down the principal itself, while Ukraine has continued pushing allied governments to deploy frozen Russian assets on a wider basis to cover its funding requirements.
Profits accumulating on frozen reserve assets are being redirected by the EU toward Ukrainian aid, with the principal holdings left untouched. Frozen assets tied to Russia have yielded roughly €8 billion — around $9 billion — in windfall returns, the Council of the EU has stated. Roughly €3.8 billion (around $4.2 billion) went directly to Ukraine, while the remaining €4.2 billion (approximately $4.7 billion) was directed toward retiring EU-G7 loan obligations or held in reserve for that end.
Of the revenue collected under existing allocation rules, 95 per cent passes through a financing channel structured to help Ukraine service roughly €45 billion — equivalent to around $50 billion — in loans extended by the EU and G7. The remaining five per cent goes toward the European Peace Facility, a mechanism through which military assistance is channelled.
Backed by the EU budget through European borrowing, a distinct €90 billion ($101 billion) loan package directed at support for the 2026–27 period draws its financing from that collective debt arrangement. Under the arrangement, Ukraine would draw on Russian reparations to settle the debt, with EU leaders also retaining the bloc's ability to apply immobilised Russian assets toward repayment, provided that doing so aligns with both international and EU legal frameworks.
A newer plan has taken shape on the back of prior talks centred on dangling financial incentives before Moscow in exchange for a partial halt to hostilities. Among the topics on the table were the potential unfreezing of Russian reserves, a proposed transaction tied to Lukoil's overseas holdings, and a relaxation of the export curbs placed on Belarusian potash. According to reports, the package of incentives was framed as a set of measures that could bring about a limited pause in hostilities, covering areas such as strikes on energy infrastructure and attacks along maritime routes.
Among the protections Ukraine's delegation pressed for during those talks were parallel financial disbursements tied to any releases granted to Russia, along with binding commitments to accelerate weapons deliveries should Moscow breach a potential ceasefire agreement. A 28-point framework for peace, put forward with US backing in 2025, incorporated the matter of frozen reserves among its provisions.
Under that plan, a sum of $100 billion drawn from Russian assets would flow into reconstruction work across Ukraine through a framework led by the United States, with half of any resulting profits directed back to Washington. A dedicated investment vehicle jointly involving the US and Russia was also part of the plan.
European governments have held that penalties against Moscow remain in effect for as long as Russian military operations continue — a stance that puts them at variance with the fuel-trade arrangement Trump concluded with Russia over diesel supplies. Merz, addressing reporters earlier in the week, made clear that aligning with the fuel-related position put forward by Washington held no place on the agenda for either his government or its European partners, even as those same governments kept open their lines of communication with the United States in pursuit of a jointly agreed path toward ending the conflict.
