U.S.-China Relations
NextFin News - The European Union is being pushed back toward the one financing tool its most fiscally conservative members have long resisted: joint borrowing. With the plan to tap Russia's frozen central-bank assets stalled by Belgium, the European Commission and a group of member states are rallying support for a new market-funded loan for Ukraine - a move that would add tens of billions more to a joint debt stock that has already swollen to roughly €700 billion. Kyiv's budget gap for the coming period could reach about €70 billion ($78.5 billion), and officials now see a loan mechanism modeled on last year's €90 billion package as the most workable path. Germany still opposes joint borrowing in principle, but would accept the current workaround. The immediate question is not whether the money can be raised - the EU can borrow cheaply and easily. It is whether a series of emergency workarounds is quietly building a permanent fiscal capacity that no one ever formally voted to create.
The Situation: A €70 Billion Gap and a Blocked Shortcut
Ukraine's financing need is large, recurring, and only partly covered. The European Union's €90 billion support loan, agreed by leaders in December 2025, funds defence and budgetary needs over two years - but it does not cover everything. President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Kyiv faces a budget hole of roughly $27 billion for 2026 alone, and third countries have yet to step in for the remaining third of what Ukraine requires beyond the EU's package. The cumulative gap that now confronts Brussels is about €70 billion.
The preferred solution was never going to be the politically hardest one. For more than a year, the bloc explored using the windfall proceeds - and in some proposals the principal - of Russia's immobilized sovereign assets, roughly €210 billion of which sit frozen in Europe, about €185 billion at the Euroclear depository in Belgium. That route is now bogged down. Belgium has refused to move without legally binding guarantees that it, as the host of Euroclear, will not absorb Russian retaliation alone. The European Commission dismissed that objection during the legislative process; the legal architecture is now being stress-tested in court.
So the fallback has become the front door. A loan financed in the capital markets, structured like the December 2025 facility, is now the most likely option - and with it comes the thing Brussels has spent a decade avoiding: more common debt. Germany, the traditional guardian of that red line, has not softened its doctrinal opposition to joint borrowing. But it would back the current solution, according to people familiar with the matter. That reluctant acquiescence is the whole story in miniature: the emergency keeps winning, one facility at a time.
The Frozen-Asset Shortcut That Collapsed
Why did the seemingly elegant solution - make Russia pay, using its own money - fail? Because the legal risk did not sit in Brussels; it sat in one capital. The original scheme would have lent Ukraine up to €165 billion backed directly by windfall proceeds from the frozen reserves. Belgium, home to Euroclear, refused to support it without guarantees that the retaliation risk would be shared across the bloc rather than concentrated on Belgian soil and its clearing house.
The compromise that emerged in December 2025 left the assets frozen until Moscow pays war reparations, and used EU borrowing instead. Even that compromise is under attack. On May 22, the Bank of Russia filed a claim with the General Court of the European Union challenging Regulation (EU) 2026/467, the legal instrument adopted on February 24 that ties the €90 billion interest-free loan to the roughly €210 billion in frozen assets. Moscow calls the structure "an illegal and concealed form of the use of assets as loan collateral and/or further legalization of the expropriation of sovereign assets." Separately, Russia has pursued a $232 billion lawsuit against Euroclear in a Moscow arbitration court.
The deeper worry, voiced by central bankers and investors alike, is precedent. Seizing a belligerent's sovereign assets during an ongoing war to fund a third country would be unprecedented; Sweden's Riksbank flagged exactly that in a 2024 paper. Fitch Ratings placed Euroclear on watch negative. ECB President Christine Lagarde warned that a legally contentious move could discourage investors from holding euro-denominated assets - a direct threat to the bloc's ambition to elevate the euro's reserve-currency status. The risk calculus is asymmetric: the upside of using the assets is one large loan; the downside is a lasting chill on the euro's role as a safe store of value for non-aligned central banks.
"The chosen solution is the better way in terms of burden sharing," said Carsten Brzeski, head of global macro at ING.
Brzeski's point cuts to the heart of the matter. Burden sharing is what joint debt does - it socializes risk across 27 balance sheets instead of leaving it with the member state that happens to host the depository. Every time the bloc faces a choice between a legally aggressive shortcut and common borrowing, common borrowing wins, because it is the option that keeps the single market's legal order intact.
From Emergency Tool to Default Architecture
This is where the story stops being about Ukraine and becomes about the EU itself. Joint borrowing was supposed to be temporary. It arrived in force during the COVID-19 pandemic with the €750 billion NextGenerationEU recovery fund and the SURE unemployment scheme. It was sold as a one-off. It did not leave.
Outstanding EU joint debt has ballooned from roughly €50 billion in 2019 to an estimated €700 billion by 2025 - a fourteen-fold increase in six years. The bloc is now the fifth-largest sovereign or supranational borrower in Europe, trailing only Italy, France, Germany and Spain, and ahead of Belgium and 22 member states. Much of the pandemic-era debt will remain on the EU balance sheet until at least 2058, and longer still if the Commission refinances maturing bonds rather than repaying them outright.
The pipeline keeps growing. Earlier in 2025, the EU decided to borrow €150 billion in coming years to finance defence loans for member states. Add the €90 billion Ukraine facility and a potential new Ukraine loan of up to about €70 billion, and the trajectory is clear: joint borrowing is no longer the exception - it is the toolbox.
"The nice thing about the current solution is that it establishes this idea that, well, we're not allowed to call it a eurobond, but we're getting very close," Brzeski said.
The label matters less than the mechanics. Whether called a eurobond or not, the EU is becoming a permanent borrower in global capital markets, issuing across the curve from short-term bills to 30-year bonds, and underpinning a benchmark yield curve that other euro-denominated securities reference. The European Central Bank has promoted EU debt to its highest tier of eligible collateral, treating it on the same terms as the debt of a single member state.
Moody's has affirmed the European Union's Aaa long-term issuer rating with a stable outlook, citing unwavering political and financial backing from member states. The agency highlighted the bloc's weighted average shareholder rating of "a1," driven by high-rated contributors such as Germany, which accounts for nearly 22% of budget inputs. Any future pressure, Moody's noted, would come from a material credit deterioration among major net contributors or an unexpected weakening of joint support. In other words: the rating rests on political cohesion, not paid-in capital.
The Market's Quiet Calculus
Investors did not panic when joint borrowing returned for Ukraine. When leaders agreed on the €90 billion loan in December 2025, the euro was little changed and euro-zone bond yields rose modestly - a supply reaction, not a confidence shock. Many investors actually welcomed the choice of borrowing over asset seizure, precisely because it preserved the legal order that makes euro assets safe.
"I think it's very important, from a signalling perspective, that they continue to move in that direction," said Chris Jeffery, head of macro strategy at Legal & General. "It would reassure markets that the bloc is willing to borrow jointly in the event of future shocks."
But there is a limit to the appetite. The near-term problem is absorption: markets must take more EU supply at a moment when Germany itself is expanding spending, and when funding needs across the developed world are already at record levels.
"I don't know if it's the best solution from the markets perspective, to pile some more supply onto markets when they already have concerns about debt sustainability," said Craig Inches, head of rates and cash at Royal London Asset Management.
The tension is real but manageable. EU debt trades at a tight spread to the best national sovereigns, backed by callable capital commitments from member states and an Aaa rating. The bigger structural question is crowding: as the EU becomes Europe's fifth-largest borrower, its issuance competes with the highest-quality national paper for the same pool of safe-asset demand. That can nudge member-state yields higher, particularly for heavily indebted governments already carrying large borrowing programmes.
Cyclical or Structural? This Is the Structural Shift
Is this a cyclical spike in crisis borrowing that will revert when the war ends, or a structural regime change in European public finance? The evidence points to structural - and the distinction determines everything about what comes next.
A cyclical reading would say: the war ends, Ukraine is rebuilt, the emergency facilities mature, and the EU returns to its pre-pandemic role as a small borrower funding a narrow budget. That view requires three things to be true: that joint debt is repaid rather than refinanced, that no new common borrowing programmes are created, and that member states reassert the no-bailout discipline that defined the post-crisis era. None of those is holding.
First, repayment is not happening. Pandemic debt stays on the books until at least 2058, with refinancing the likely path. Second, new programmes keep arriving: the €150 billion defence borrowing decision, the Ukraine facilities, and repeated calls from the Commission and several capitals for common debt to fund defence procurement and energy infrastructure. Third, the politics have shifted. Germany's opposition is now expressed as reluctant acceptance of each individual facility rather than a veto on the instrument itself. That is how red lines erode - not with a bang, but with a series of "this time is different" exceptions.
The mechanism is straightforward: crisis borrowing creates a constituency. Once the Commission has a funding machine, a dealer network, a yield curve, and an investor base, it has the capacity to borrow for the next crisis before the political argument for it is even made. Capacity precedes mandate. That is the structural shift - not any single loan, but the institutionalization of the ability to issue common debt on demand.
The second-order implication is what the market is not fully pricing. Joint borrowing does more than fund Ukraine; it quietly reallocates fiscal sovereignty. Every common bond issued transfers a slice of borrowing authority from national treasuries to the Commission, without a treaty change and without the democratic debate a treaty change would force. Over time, that changes the EU from a transfer union that requires unanimity into a capital-markets-funded fiscal actor that can move first and argue later. For bond investors, that is mildly positive - a larger, more liquid safe asset with a credible backstop. For fiscal hawks in Berlin and The Hague, it is the integration-by-stealth they warned about.
There is also a cross-asset dimension. If the EU's borrowing expands while the ECB normalizes its balance sheet, the bloc's debt could increasingly function as the euro area's benchmark risk-free curve - a role German Bunds have long played. That would deepen European capital markets, a stated policy goal, but it would also make EU-level fiscal decisions more directly consequential for euro-denominated asset prices everywhere.
The Counter-Case: Germany's Red Line Still Holds
The strongest argument against the structural reading is also the simplest: Germany has not changed its mind. Berlin still opposes joint borrowing as a matter of principle, and every facility to date has been structured as loans, not grants, with the legal form carefully ring-fenced so it cannot be cited as a precedent for a permanent fiscal capacity. The €150 billion defence package finances loans to member states, not transfers. The Ukraine facilities are loans to a non-member. Nothing here creates a standing borrowing authority beyond the existing budgetary ceilings.
This view has institutional backing. The Commission itself insists its diversified funding strategy is tied to specific policy programmes, and fiscally cautious states retain the ultimate check through the multiannual budget negotiations. If net contributors refuse to replenish the callable-capital backing, the borrowing machine stops. The legal architecture is deliberately brittle - by design.
The counter-case is serious, but it mistakes form for substance. A borrowing capacity that is renewed every crisis is functionally permanent even if legally temporary. The market does not price the legal theory; it prices the outstanding stock, the issuance calendar, and the demonstrated willingness to issue again. And the willingness has been demonstrated repeatedly.
The falsifying signal is concrete: if the EU issues common debt to fund grants rather than loans, or creates a standing borrowing capacity outside the existing programme-based ceilings, the structural thesis is confirmed beyond doubt. Conversely, if the next major shock - a recession, an energy spike, a new security crisis - is met with national-only responses and the joint debt stock begins to amortize without refinancing, the cyclical reading wins. Watch the issuance calendar and the legal form of the next facility. That is where the regime reveals itself.
What Comes Next: Scenarios and Signals
Base case. The EU launches a new market-funded loan for Ukraine of up to about €70 billion, structured like the December 2025 facility, with Germany acquiescing and Hungary and other skeptics isolated or bought off with side arrangements. Issuance is absorbed without a meaningful spread widening, and joint debt moves toward €800 billion. The frozen assets stay immobilized, the windfall proceeds continue to flow to Kyiv in smaller tranches, and the legal cases grind on without a decisive ruling.
Upside case. A broader political bargain emerges: Ukraine financing is bundled with progress on EU own-resources reform and defence integration, giving the borrowing a cleaner budgetary anchor. That would lower the risk premium on EU debt and accelerate the bloc's evolution into a genuine fiscal actor - positive for euro-denominated safe-asset depth, uncomfortable for national fiscal sovereignty.
Downside case. Germany hardens its position, Belgium's legal concerns spread to other creditor states, and the frozen-assets route collapses entirely without a joint-borrowing replacement. Ukraine faces a funding cliff, and the political fracture shows up in wider spreads between core and periphery sovereigns as investors reprice the cohesion premium embedded in EU joint debt.
Short-term, the market signal to watch is the spread on the next EU syndication and the euro's reaction to announcement headlines - tight spreads and a stable currency signal absorption capacity. Medium-term, watch the issuance calendar: a steady, programme-driven pipeline confirms the structural shift. Long-term, the decisive variable is political - whether the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework embeds debt-servicing costs as a permanent budget line, which would make common borrowing a structural feature rather than a crisis footnote.
The war in Ukraine may end. The financing architecture being built to pay for it probably will not. Europe is discovering, one emergency at a time, that it has become a borrower - and that the hardest part was not the first bond, but the second, and the tenth, and the one after that.
Data as of November 10, 2026. Figures sourced from European Commission and member-state officials, EU legal instruments, rating-agency statements, and market commentary.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
