Closed-door discussion: EU Talks at European HUB
Kyiv, European HUB · European HUB, with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation
A closed-door EU Talks session at European HUB on EU financial assistance to Ukraine, the future of Russian assets and the case for and against adopting the euro. I took part alongside Serhii Verlanov; the meeting was held under the Chatham House Rule.
EU Talks at European HUB brought together a small group for a closed conversation on how the EU finances Ukraine and what that means for accession. I took part alongside Serhii Verlanov. The meeting was held under the Chatham House Rule, so what follows is a set of general points rather than a record of who said what.
What was discussed
- EU macro-financial assistance to Ukraine and how its instruments and conditions have evolved.
- Russian assets and the Reparations Loan.
- The adoption of the euro as Ukraine's currency: the benefits and the risks.
My points
- The logic of EU instruments has changed: from classic macro-financial assistance (MFA) to the Ukraine Facility and the Ukraine Support Loan. Each generation has offered more predictability while shifting the weight of conditionality from macroeconomics to accession-type structural reforms.
- The main focus should now be the EU's next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which starts in 2028 and runs until 2034. It will be the principal instrument setting the terms of integration for the whole decade.
- Russian assets are far from a simple story. Many stakeholders have an interest in the assets staying where they are rather than working directly for Ukraine. That is why the debate on the Reparations Loan keeps running up against politics and financial interest, not law.
- On the euro, there are weighty advantages to switching, such as the credit rating, and equally weighty arguments for not rushing the decision, such as the ability to stabilise the economy in a crisis and to stimulate exports.