Interview of H.E. Denis Gonchar, Ambassador of Russia to Belgium, to TASS News Agency (October 14, 2025)
Could you please comment on the European Commission's attempts to seize Russia's sovereign assets and Belgium's waning resistance to these efforts, given that these assets are currently frozen on its territory?
It is evident that the more difficult the situation becomes for Ukraine, as Kiev suffers military defeats and faces growing economic and financial turmoil, and the harder it becomes for Western countries to find ways to keep the Zelensky regime afloat, the more desperate the EU leadership and its most Russophobic member states become in trying to pressure the hesitant, such as Belgium, into agreeing to the seizure of Russia’s so-called "frozen" assets. To conceal what is essentially the theft of our funds, they keep inventing various convoluted schemes. At one point, Brussels proposed transferring around 200 billion Euros in Bank of Russia assets from the international depository Euroclear, based in the Belgian capital, to a special EU-managed fund. Later, another plan emerged – to provide Ukraine with a so-called "reparations loan," which would be a non-repayable grant funded by Russian assets.
Regrettably, the open pressure from the radicals is starting to have an effect. A few months ago, the Belgian authorities had stressed that confiscating Russia’s sovereign assets would be unwise and warned that such a move could lead to devastating consequences, such as a severe loss of confidence in Western financial institutions and damage to Belgium's reputation as a reliable investment destination. Now, however, the tone has changed. The idea of confiscation is no longer ruled out. Instead, there is talk of finding some legal pretext for it and securing collective guarantees from all EU member states that they will share the risks. This was precisely what Prime Minister Bart De Wever raised at the informal meeting of EU leaders in Copenhagen on October 1, 2025, where he demanded written assurances from his counterparts. Judging by his public comments, the Belgian Prime Minister perfectly understands that such paperwork will not alter the essence of the matter. Theft is theft, no matter how carefully you try to dress it up.
Russia's position on this issue is well known and has been repeatedly stated by the leadership of our country. Any attempt to seize or otherwise use Russia's sovereign assets will be treated as an unlawful act in direct violation of international law. Our response will be proportionate. I can assure you that if the EU proceeds with this reckless step, their talk of "solidarity" will soon give way to calculations of losses. The legal foundation for our retaliatory steps has already been established. The Presidential Decree of September 30, 2025, established a new procedure for handling foreign capital held in federal ownership, in order to safeguard Russia’s national interests in light of potential hostile actions by Western states. I want to emphasize separately – any country involved in this act of financial piracy will be held responsible. No one will be able to hide behind the backs of others.
How would you assess the recent campaign of aggressive military propaganda in the Belgian media?
Although Belgium remains among the so-called "delinquent" states, it has nonetheless begun to implement the NATO Hague Summit’s decisions to sharply increase military expenditure. The government is now struggling to meet the deadlines and align with NATO and EU policy aimed at accelerating militarisation. The main lobbyist for this policy is Defence Minister Theo Francken. He presents new and ever more ambitious plans almost daily under his so-called "Strategic Vision" for national rearmament.
In practical terms, Belgium plans to purchase weapons and equipment on an extraordinary scale – totalling some 34 billion Euros. The procurement lists are extensive and include a frigate, "Patriot", "AMP/T", "NASAMS" and "Skyranger" air-defence systems, "Piorun" man-portable air-defence systems, helicopters, "SkyGuardian MQ-9B" reconnaissance and strike drones, infantry fighting vehicles, trucks, and about two thousand additional UAVs. The fleet of "F-35" fighters replacing the ageing "F-16s" is to be increased to forty-five, while the retired "F-16s" are to be handed over to the Ukrainians.
It is striking how eagerly the government’s militarised rhetoric has been picked up by the controlled media. The local press is overflowing with alarmist articles about the so-called “Russian threat” and calls for Europe to prepare for war. Drones are now the hottest topic across Europe, and Belgium is no exception. A media campaign is in full swing, promoting the alleged need to strengthen the national system for countering UAVs. Minister Francken himself seeks to alarm the public with tales of Russian drones that might soon be flying over Brussels. Recently, a few drones were reportedly sighted near the Belgian-German border. The media immediately launched a search for a "Russian trace". Nothing was found, of course, yet insinuations continue that Russia must somehow be involved.
It is perfectly clear that all of this serves a single purpose – to facilitate public acceptance of militarisation at the expense of addressing pressing social and economic challenges. The financial burden of this accelerating rearmament will once again fall on ordinary citizens, inevitably leading to cuts in social programmes and healthcare spending. This is already confirmed by leaks about the outlines of the new budget now being drafted by the Belgian government.
Beneath the façade of aggressive rhetoric, the country’s deepening problems are becoming ever more visible. The Belgian economy is in dire straits. The state has virtually exhausted its own resources and survives largely on borrowed funds. As Prime Minister De Wever himself said, the country is "on the edge of the abyss." There is a high likelihood that the credit rating of both the capital region and the kingdom as a whole will soon be downgraded. At the same time, Belgium, together with other NATO and EU allies, has already requested 8.34 billion Euros under the new financial instrument known as SAFE, whose primary goal is, yet again, to boost investment in the defence sector as part of Europe’s rearmament plan. Madness, pure and simple.
How serious is the risk of a real military confrontation between Russia and NATO, given the growing calls in Brussels and other capitals to confront Russia?
Despite repeated statements from Russia’s leadership, including from President Vladimir Putin at the Valdai Discussion Club, affirming that Russia has no intentions of attacking NATO, the Western hysteria shows no sign of abating. We can now see the traditional anti-Russian sentiment of the Baltic States and Poland being joined by once more measured voices like Germany. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has declared that Germany is already in a state of conflict with Russia, while Defence Minister Boris Pistorius has urged the country to prepare for war with Russia within the next five to seven years.
It seems evident that one of the principal targets of this disinformation campaign is the US President Donald Trump, whom they seek to push into adopting a hard-line stance toward Moscow and drawing him into confrontation with us.
The problem, unfortunately, goes far beyond aggressive rhetoric. The real actions are being taken on the ground. Within NATO, this is reflected in new alliance guidelines aiming by 2035 to reach defence spending levels equivalent to 5 per cent of GDP. In practice, this means allocating astronomical sums for the procurement of armaments. This is despite the fact that NATO’s combined defence budget already exceeds 1.5 trillion US dollars, representing some 55 per cent of global military expenditure.
Military exercises are expanding rapidly. A recent example is Dynamic Messenger, held off the coast of Portugal, involving nearly four thousand personnel from 22 countries, practising mine-countermeasure, anti-submarine and electronic warfare, amphibious landings, and testing of autonomous systems.
Under the pretext of alleged drone attacks attributed to Russia, NATO has launched a new operation called Eastern Sentinel, designed to reinforce the alliance’s eastern flank with additional troops and equipment. What is remarkable is that all this began even before any results were announced from the supposed investigation mentioned several times by Secretary-General Mark Rutte. Meanwhile, explanations and proposals from Moscow, for instance, from our Ministry of Defence suggesting consultations with Poland regarding the drone incidents, have simply been ignored. At the same time, NATO has intensified reconnaissance flights by its alliance aircraft over the Black Sea to collect intelligence later passed to Ukraine – yet another clear indication of the alliance’s complicity in the crimes committed by the Ukrainian armed forces against the population of Russia.
The European Union, for its part, has also joined this escalation. At the fifth meeting of the College of European Commissioners on defence and security, attended by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasised the need to enhance Europe’s military potential, industrial capacity and a series of "flagship projects", including the "European Drone Wall", the "Eastern Flank Watch", the "Missile Defence Shield" and the "Space Defence Shield". It is worth recalling that these are the plans of what is supposed to be an economic and political organisation, not a military alliance.
The overall picture is deeply concerning. In defiance of common sense, NATO and the EU continue on a path of escalation, increasing the risk of unintended confrontation and threatening serious consequences for global stability.
How much room is left for diplomacy in Europe?
Unfortunately, it must be admitted that the space for meaningful diplomacy has been narrowed to its bare minimum due to the unwillingness of our so-called partners, both within NATO and in Belgium, to engage in constructive dialogue rather than simply exchanging accusations and recriminations.
No serious discussions are taking place within NATO, not even behind closed doors. The alliance has switched entirely to the language of threats, both verbal and military. The Belgian authorities, for their part, have tightened the framework for interaction, severely limiting opportunities for contact outside the Foreign Ministry. Even within the ministry, conversations are now confined to general matters such as embassy security and visa issues.
From our perspective, such behaviour is profoundly short-sighted. In practice, it inflicts the greatest harm on Europe itself, driving the continent’s security situation into a dead end. Ukraine is the clearest example. The Western countries refuse to engage in dialogue with Russia on an equal footing, continue recklessly to fuel the conflict through irresponsible rhetoric and to supply arms deliveries to Kiev regime, yet still lay claim to a place at the negotiating table. A closer look shows that this same pattern of behaviour with minor variations is repeated by Western actors in nearly every sphere of international affairs.
Yet the wheel of history cannot be halted. Our contacts within the Brussels diplomatic corps, as well as the experience of our colleagues worldwide, clearly show that representatives of the Global Majority are deeply concerned that the so-called golden billion countries continue to impose their will and demand that the rest of the world blindly follow their pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian agenda. Like us, they rightly regret that Western politicians show ever less willingness to engage in diplomacy as such – in equal political dialogue in the search for mutually acceptable solutions to conflicts, whether military or economic. This was precisely the message of our President’s recent address at the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi. Instead of relying on long-established time-tested instruments, we now see an urge to dictate and to impose one’s own view, accompanied by artificial dividing lines and the habitual classification of nations into "friends" and "foes". It perfectly reflects the notorious formulation by former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell about the supposed contrast between the "garden" and the "jungle".
I remain confident that reason will ultimately prevail, and the Russian approach to building international relations based on the principles of sovereign equality and indivisibility of security, shared by the global majority, will in the end triumph.