Almost one year ago, Ursula von der Leyen made one of her boldest moves as president of the European Commission: she proposed using the immobilised assets of the Russian Central Bank to support Ukraine's budgetary and financial needs.
By tapping the assets, she said, the bloc could raise up to €210 billion in fresh assistance for Kyiv without encumbering public coffers. European taxpayers would be spared. And the void left by the United States, under President Donald Trump, would be filled.
It was an idea, quite simply, without precedent in modern history: the aggressor's money would pay for the victim's resistance.
It was also extremely controversial. So much so that four months later, in a dramatic political showdown before the winter break, it fell apart. Standing on the brink of the unknown, the 27 leaders pulled back and resorted to a familiar yet expensive option: common borrowing to back a €90 billion loan.
The loan was hailed as a major milestone in the bloc's yearslong effort to stand by Ukraine "as long as it takes". The €90 billion was to cover two-thirds of Kyiv's needs until the end of 2027, with other allies contributing the remaining third.
