On 23 October, the leaders of the twenty-seven European Union countries will once again meet in Brussels to tackle a number of critical issues: Ukraine, the Middle East, European defence and security, competitiveness, the twin transition, housing, and migration. However, doubts, obstacles and uninvited guests loom large alongside an endless string of internal setbacks and uncertainties on the international stage.
Pledging to conclude the summit in a single day, the Portuguese President of the European Council, António Costa, wrote, among other things, in his long letter of invitation to heads of state and government: “Russia continues its relentless attacks against Ukraine’s civilians and civilian infrastructure. We will discuss how to step up our support to Ukraine, namely by reconfirming our commitment to provide financial support to the country for the coming years […] Both support for Ukraine and pressure on Russia remain the two necessary requirements to achieve a just and lasting peace.” But Europe, which is paying a high price for the conflict in Ukraine — including substantial defence spending — is being sidelined by Trump’s moves to hold direct talks with Putin in an attempt to end the war.
Not only does this dialogue exclude the EU, it also involves two figures with a questionable track record when it comes to keeping their word.
It also tends to grant a role to the Russian autocrat – subject to an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court – that he is not deserving of. On top of this, following the failure of the meeting with the Tsar in Greenland, Trump announced a new meeting in Budapest, a place where Putin would be unable to set foot, and the capital city of a prime minister who is both anti-EU and pro-Russian. The whole situation could not be more chaotic, and it is all happening while the Ukrainian people continue to suffer a bloody and destructive invasion with no end in sight. The 27 leaders are then expected to hold talks on the Middle East, focusing on the Israel-Hamas deal, trumpeted as a solution to the conflict but fraught with many unknowns. It is worth remembering that the EU played no real political role in this agreement.
Further questions emerge on other issues. For example, how much will the declared defense “readiness,” which has yet to be achieved, cost Europeans? “Hybrid attacks and drone sightings near our critical infrastructures and hostile incursions in Member States’ airspace are another demonstration of the urgency of accelerating work to achieve European common defence readiness by 2030,” Costa wrote. But who will be entrusted with the “direction” of European defense, knowing that it is a national policy, not covered by EU competences, and that there is no common foreign and defense policy?
In the past, European leaders occasionally managed to resolve major, pressing problems in novel and unexpected ways.
Courageous and decisive European Councils rose to historical challenges. It should be noted, however, that the composition of those councils has changed, and perhaps, at the time, the geopolitical circumstances were less tense. The “EU engine” has been inactive for some time: who knows if our government leaders, faced with a greater sense of responsibility and political convergence, will rise to the challenge once again?
