Analytical community Resurgam shared their analysis of the visit's objectives.First, such visits serve to coordinate the positions of Kyiv and Brussels ahead of the summit. Second, they are designed to exert media and political pressure on individual EU governments that may deviate from the collective vision supported by the European Commission and the majority of member states.Resurgam recalls that similar visits took place in December 2023, shortly before the approval of the €50 billion Ukraine Facility, and before several of the most controversial EU sanctions packages against Russia.Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas’s visit to Kyiv began with a statement underscoring Europe’s commitment to Ukraine:“Ukrainians inspire the world with their courage. Their resilience demands our full support.”Resurgam believes that this visit serves the dual purpose outlined above, while also aiming to pave the way for a new long-term financial mechanism to support Ukraine.The main initiativeAt the heart of the current discussions is the proposal to use frozen Russian assets to provide Ukraine with a reparations-based loan worth over €130 billion. Under the plan, Ukraine would be required to repay this loan only if the Kremlin pays reparations to Ukraine; otherwise, repayment would not be required.Out of approximately €210 billion in frozen Russian assets held in Europe, the majority is stored in the Belgian depository Euroclear, with €175 billion already converted into cash following the expiration of the depository term.Resurgam explains that these funds could finance Ukraine’s long-term defense and recovery needs without adding debt to its national budget, since, in effect, the Kremlin would be forced to bear the financial cost of its own aggression.Strategic and political significanceIf implemented, the initiative would mark a major shift in Europe’s strategy toward Moscow, demonstrating greater readiness to assume political and financial risks. It would also significantly increase pressure on the Kremlin by directly tying Russia’s frozen assets to Ukraine’s reconstruction and defense.The European Commission (EC) hopes to secure a preliminary agreement on this mechanism during the October 23–24 summit, ensuring that the first tranche of funds could become available by late 2025 or early 2026.Resurgam notes that the United Kingdom, Germany, and France have already expressed principled support for the initiative, signaling growing consensus among Europe’s leading powers.Key obstaclesDespite the progress, several obstacles remain:Belgium does not oppose the plan outright but insists that the financial risks must be shared equally among all EU member states.Reactions from third countries represent another challenge. Some states that use the European banking system — particularly Arab nations — have previously threatened to withdraw their capital due to concerns that the precedent could endanger their own assets. Resurgam believes the Kremlin is actively exploiting these fears to undermine confidence in the euro and to pressure the European Central Bank (ECB) and the EU Council.Legal actions initiated by Russia pose additional difficulties. Moscow has already filed numerous lawsuits against Euroclear and Clearstream, seeking to block any use of frozen assets. Resurgam notes that Russian authorities are enlisting major legal firms to wage this campaign, hoping to delay or complicate EU decisions.Austria supports the idea of using frozen assets but opposes their allocation for military assistance, citing the country’s policy of neutrality.To address legal and financial risks, European lawyers are developing mechanisms to implement de facto confiscation without formal seizure. One proposed solution involves replacing the seized cash with state-backed guarantees or bonds, which would only be redeemed once Russia pays reparations.Resurgam concludes that if the initiative succeeds, Ukraine would secure a stable long-term source of financing while Europe would reinforce its credibility in confronting Moscow. Moreover, such a move would prevent the possibility of frozen assets being unfrozen or returned to Russia in the future, as they would effectively become debt obligations linked to reparations.