The trip had been leaked earlier in the week, and the logistics of the visit unfolded this Thursday. Volodymyr Zelensky’s Brussels schedule was organized with strict secrecy for security reasons. After the initial surprise, a stop in London was planned to meet the British Prime Minister this Wednesday. The Ukrainian president was set to address the British Parliament and the King during that moment. Zelensky’s fourth international journey since Russia’s invasion on February 24 is expected to include a briefing in the European community capital before an extraordinary plenary gathering this Thursday. The European Parliament and an extraordinary summit of European leaders would follow.
Diplomatic sources emphasized the symbolic value of the trip, noting the commitment across all European Union member states. The plan included stops in London and Paris before the arrival in Brussels. The sources described a belief that the visit would be advantageous for Ukraine and that it seemed natural to include the United Kingdom in this sequence. European leaders would gain from a meeting with the Ukrainian president, who has participated in multiple European leader summits and where the EU recently hosted a bilateral summit in Kyiv. The volume of aid provided to Ukraine remains substantial, with estimates reaching into the tens of billions of euros.
Two main topics were highlighted in the council agenda. First, the meeting with President Zelensky would occur in person, enabling discussions on continued support for Ukraine to counter Russian aggression and on the broader European outlook for the country. The Ukrainian leader was expected to reiterate calls for Western partners to maintain arms supplies, including military aircraft, to help deter a possible Russian spring offensive, an emphasis he also made during the London stop.
European sources also indicated a concerted effort to address frozen Russian assets. Twenty-seven countries aimed to accelerate asset immobilization at the G7 level, with a plan to map bank assets and assess obstacles. The ultimate objective was to ensure that frozen assets support Ukraine’s reconstruction. The estimated value of frozen assets was reported as a substantial figure by the sources.
American Doping
Beyond the Ukraine situation, the Twenty-Seven discussed two additional pivotal debates. One focuses on restoring European competitiveness through a plan drafted in Brussels, while also considering protection of third countries like the United States and China. The other concerns asylum and immigration policy. The Twenty-Sevens would urge Brussels to outline a strategy for managing doping aid from third countries such as the United States and China. There is broad agreement that state aid rules should be more flexible and faster to accelerate investments while keeping the system controlled.
Officials suggested an intermediate stance on state aid, arguing for greater flexibility and higher notification thresholds, but with timing and sector limits. There is a push to prioritize green issues in the coming years, with flexibility confined to specific sectors. A summer timetable was discussed for legislative texts to help many companies move decisions forward within Europe. Delegations from Spain defended a measured approach and the need for balanced funding sources, while noting potential developments around a sovereign wealth framework. The summit would signal Brussels’ intention to present proposals before the summer.
Returns and Border Control
The immigration debate remains divisive, yet there is a broad consensus on strengthening the European response to external border management. The Twenty-Seven agreed that illegal return procedures should be accelerated and that cooperation with third countries should expand border control efforts. There is strong support for the Frontex agency. European funds were discussed as a potential source to bolster member states’ control capacities, enhance surveillance tools, and upgrade infrastructure. Some delegations favored financing border fencing with European funds, though the community leadership has previously resisted this approach. Several countries, notably Austria, pressed for tighter border control measures financed at the European level.
In the council discussions, Spain called for an approach that prioritizes engagement with third countries and the benefits of cooperative prevention. Spanish officials argued for positive incentives rather than punitive measures when dealing with third countries. They stressed the value of conditioning visa policies in a measured way that supports returns without undermining cooperation. The overarching goal was to reinforce a constructive, regionally aware strategy that makes irregular migration management more effective.