In Paris, on December 7, 2024, Emmanuel Macron brought together Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump at the Élysée. The goal is to revive concerted support for Ukraine and outline a "just" peace. Meanwhile, in Brussels, the Twenty-Seven are testing a loan of about €140 billion backed by frozen Russian assets, and Belgium is calling for risk sharing. Paris positions itself as a mediator to maintain transatlantic alignment and anchor law to effectiveness.
Trilateral at the Élysée: Paris weaves the transatlantic thread and EU aid to Ukraine
On December 7, 2024, the air in Paris vibrated with an almost ceremonial anticipation. At the Élysée, under familiar gilding, a red carpet stretched out like a promise and a reminder. Emmanuel Macron stood at the balance point, face open, hand steady. To his right, Volodymyr Zelensky, in a dark coat and with a sharp gaze, carried the demands of a country under fire. To his left, Donald Trump, the elected president of the United States, returned to the world stage on the eve of the reopening of Notre-Dame. A few words, asides, brief smiles. The essential took place during a brief meeting, about twenty minutes long. This is reported by press dispatches published on December 7, 2024. This exchange sealed a common will: to continue aid and funding for Ukraine. Moreover, it allowed for outlining a so-called "just" peace, according to Paris and Kyiv. However, each keeps their intimate definition of this peace.
Macron had orchestrated this three-way step. Paris, a bridge city, aimed to be the interpreter of the transatlantic alignment at a time when lines seem to be shifting. The moment was not worth a treaty, it was worth a symbol. But the symbol commits, especially when it summons the crash of a war that seems never-ending.
Paris between Zelensky and Trump: towards a just peace
The promise of a "just" compromise is a thread stretched between contradictory demands. Zelensky reiterates the need for firm support and security guarantees. Moreover, he insists on a peace that does not reward aggression. Trump, who is to be sworn in in January 2025, emphasizes the burden borne by European allies. Furthermore, he insists on the idea of a negotiated settlement. Macron tries to assemble these voices. He proposes a method: maintaining the cohesion of the Western camp and EU aid to Ukraine. Moreover, it involves anchoring Washington and Kyiv to the same compass to avoid the weariness of wills.
Behind the speeches, red lines. For Kyiv, territorial integrity and justice for the crimes committed. For Washington, cost control and the absence of escalation. For Paris, the survival of a European order where force does not dictate law. The word "just" becomes the interface between these imperatives. It allows dialogue without masking the gaps. It opens a door, but not just any door.
Beyond the images, Paris sought a role. Not that of the high priest, but that of the intercessor. The French president bets on his ability to speak to everyone, to Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels, to Washington, to Kyiv, and sometimes to Moscow. In this role, he blurs the too-simple alternative between valor and caution. He assumes a balancing power, even if it means being reproached for ambiguity. The challenge is to prevent Ukraine from being confined to an unequal tête-à-tête with Russia. Moreover, it is necessary to preserve American attention when the focus shifts elsewhere.
EU loan backed by Russian assets: financing Ukraine
In Brussels, another scene, another drama. The Twenty-Seven have been exploring since autumn 2025 an unprecedented financial instrument. It is a loan of about 140 billion euros for Kyiv, backed by the revenues of frozen Russian assets. These are valued at about 210 billion euros in the Union, without confiscation. The difference is decisive. Confiscation breaks ownership. Backing mobilizes flows. The capital remains intact, but its financial products would serve as collateral and, ultimately, repayment. This architecture, defended by the European Commission, is inspired by a simple principle: to make the Russian sovereign wealth contribute without undermining European legal security.
In its pedagogy, Brussels insists on safeguards. Property rights would be preserved. The exceptional profits generated by these immobilized sums, already partially levied as an extraordinary contribution, have been supporting Ukraine since 2024–2025. The next step would be to back a massive credit to these future revenues. A safeguard mechanism would be provided if the flows were interrupted. However, this project requires the creation of a credible backstop, a risk-sharing among member states, to prevent the cost of a potential default from concentrating on just one. Without confiscation of the capital, the Union validated a guideline in spring 2024. This concerns the use of extraordinary revenues from immobilized assets.
The debate seems technical. In reality, it engages the coherence of a continent that wants to help without renouncing the law. Lawyers highlight the risks of litigation. In particular, they mention the immunity of central banks. Moreover, they insist on the protection of property. Economists measure the effect on the attractiveness of the European market. Diplomats assess Moscow’s reaction, quick to threaten retaliation. It is the quintessential European equation: reconciling principle and effectiveness in a world that reconciles nothing.
Euroclear at the heart of the issue: Belgium wants to mutualize
At the heart of this mechanism, a discreet actor becomes central: Belgium. Through Euroclear, a leading depository, a significant portion of the Bank of Russia’s assets are immobilized on its territory. Bart De Wever, appointed Prime Minister in 2025, does not just acquiesce. He demands guarantees. He highlights the asymmetric risk: legal, financial, security. What good is a great European idea if the bill for uncertainties falls on Brussels alone?
Belgium therefore demands explicit mutualization. It desires a framework that can cushion the shock of a legal challenge. Moreover, it must manage a Russian counterattack. Furthermore, it must adapt to a sudden change in rates. It emphasizes that the EU has committed to using the exceptional revenues from these assets to support Ukraine. However, this path risks encountering a backlash on Western interests in Russia. In this dialogue, Belgian caution is not an ideological brake; it is a reminder of the concrete consequences.
Euroclear, a technical institution suddenly thrust into the spotlight, symbolizes this delicacy. Its mission is to keep, settle, ensure the proper completion of securities. It is neither a chancellery nor a ministry. And yet, it is there that part of the tug-of-war is played out. Indeed, it is there that the assets lie dormant. Politics is sometimes conducted in settlement rooms, with numbers accumulating like snowdrifts.
France, balancing power: dividends and risks
This role of balancing power gives France diplomatic dividends. Paris speaks the language of European security and that of realism. It can claim to have maintained the transatlantic rope. Moreover, it hosted the trilateral meeting. Finally, it promoted a solution that combines law and firmness. This position holds influence in European capitals and credibility in Kyiv. It allows fulfilling an internal promise: to help without venturing into the unthought.
But influence has a cost. The budget is solicited, directly or through guarantee mechanisms. French companies exposed in Russia fear reprisals. The country is exposed to the dissonance of a long war, to questions that arise when fatigue grips public opinion. Above all, the promise of a "just" peace commits. It obliges the refusal of easy accommodations. It compels maintaining the effort, even when the international scene is saturated with other crises.
French diplomacy has long sought to combine the defense of Ukraine with a channel of dialogue towards Moscow. Time has done its work. The channel has not disappeared, but it no longer absorbs the illusions of yesterday. The Élysée now adheres to this line: support Ukraine, isolate aggression, prepare for the day when negotiation will not be a fool’s bargain. This choice exposes. It also clarifies.
Washington facing promises: Congress margins and signals
Donald Trump’s America loves strong images. First, his return to Paris as a distinguished guest fits this grammar. Moreover, it happens on the eve of Notre-Dame being returned to the faithful. But the image does not say everything. The Congress, the margins of the administration, the internal dynamics will make the difference between declarations and commitments. Republicans count their votes and budget priorities. Democrats defend long-term support. The executive will seek a trajectory where Europe will assume more visible burden, while Washington retains essential military levers.
The signals sent to Moscow and Kyiv are read on several levels. To Russia, the idea that the West does not confiscate, but does not yield either. To Ukraine, the assurance that flows will continue, even if the modalities change. To Europeans, the warning that the era of implicits is over. Everyone will have to write their share of effort in black and white.
There is, in the American attitude, a part of bargaining. A haggling over the burden, over trade tariffs, over strategic issues. Paris, by advancing as a mediator, consents to play on a tightrope. It is a long-term bet: if Europeans organize their own capacity, America will remain, out of well-understood interest, but it will no longer pull alone.
Diplomatic winter: the frost between Washington and Moscow
The cold falls quickly on diplomacies. One thinks it is chased away by a smile captured on a doorstep. However, it reappears around a summit in Brussels. Moreover, it is found during a declaration in Washington. Finally, it resurfaces during a vote in Strasbourg. Between Washington and Moscow, an old frost has settled, which nothing really erases. Gestures of appeasement are ephemeral torches in a frozen landscape. The important thing is not to believe that winter will cease. The important thing is to have dry wood and maps, to monitor compasses and fires.
In this climate, Paris has chosen to hold firm. It is necessary to talk to Ukraine relentlessly to maintain a constant dialogue. Moreover, it is essential to contain Russia through law and aid. Finally, one must maintain the thread with the United States so that support does not unravel. The European bet, meanwhile, is to invent a financial arrangement that combines principle and energy, prudence and audacity. If successful, the loan backed by frozen assets will neither resolve the war nor the peace. It will simply say that Europe knows how to transform its rules into instruments. That is not nothing.
The coming months will decide. October 2025 has delivered a political confirmation: the course is to explore this path. The Belgian hand demands assurances. The Commission is seeking the formula. Capitals are talking, looking for the balance. Meanwhile, in Kyiv, the clock of war does not slow down. Negotiations are not conducted on red carpets; they take place in the shadow of shelters. A "just" peace will not be a formula. It will be born from a balance patiently constructed between support, deterrence, and law.