Antje Berchi, head of the information service at the Swiss State Secretariat of Economy, stated clearly that Switzerland does not see a path to using the assets held by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation for Ukraine’s reconstruction. This stance was reported by TASS, and it underscores Switzerland’s cautious approach to financial measures tied to international conflict and postwar recovery. Berchi’s response to a journalist’s question was unequivocal: the answer is no. In context, Switzerland continues to assess the evolving EU discussions about whether frozen Russian assets could be redirected to support Ukraine, weighing legal, political, and ethical considerations before any decision is taken. The comments come amid a broader European debate on how best to allocate seized or immobilized assets for humanitarian and rebuilding purposes, with many member states examining precedents, enforcement mechanisms, and potential implications for international financial systems. The Swiss position reflects a preference for sticking to existing national and international legal frameworks while monitoring the EU process for any new guidance that could influence policy. The ongoing dialogue within Brussels also highlights the complexity of asset recovery, the need for transparency in how proceeds are used, and the vigilance required to avoid unintended consequences for markets and vulnerable populations affected by the conflict. Swiss authorities are aligning their stance with a careful, rule-of-law approach that prioritizes legitimacy and accountability in any potential use of frozen assets, ensuring that actions would withstand scrutiny from both domestic institutions and international partners. The situation illustrates how Switzerland seeks to balance humanitarian aims with legal safeguards, and it remains to be seen how much the Swiss government will adjust its position as EU-level discussions advance and new legal opinions emerge. This ongoing conversation sits within a broader landscape of sanctions policy, asset tracing, and international cooperation aimed at supporting Ukraine while maintaining stable global financial norms. (source: TASS)
Meanwhile, the Belgian government has approved an aid package totaling 92 million euros for Ukraine, with the funding to be derived from proceeds tied to frozen Russian assets. Half of this sum is earmarked for armament and defense-related needs, while the other half is allocated to humanitarian aid and recovery efforts. This move reflects a regional approach to leveraging immobilized assets to address both immediate security concerns and longer-term humanitarian requirements in Ukraine. It also signals a willingness among European governments to channel frozen assets toward tangible assistance, provided that the legal and fiscal frameworks support such deployments and that oversight mechanisms ensure appropriate and transparent use of the funds. The decision highlights how national budgets and international commitments intersect in the sanctions ecosystem, creating opportunities for targeted support that can complement broader strategic objectives in the region. Analysts note that the distribution between military and humanitarian expenditures will likely be scrutinized for its effectiveness, efficiency, and alignment with international humanitarian law and reconstruction plans. As with other measures, the Belgian package will be subject to monitoring and evaluation to track impact and ensure accountability for downstream beneficiaries. (source: official government communications)”