Blog EUISS Commentary,12.09.2025 Steven Everts, exdiplomático holandés del EEAS y director del EUISS
The idea that, in a world dominated by Putin, Trump, and Xi, Europe can only retain influence if it acts together is not only logical but also recognised by large majorities of Europeans. All opinion polls on this point are consistent. People understand very well that this is a world of power politics, where dangers emerge from every direction and threats are moving ever closer. It is not only Ukraine that is dealing with Russian drone attacks, but the EU itself. At times, Europe feels a bit like the village of Asterix and Obelix: the last bastion of democracy and the rule of law. While we often disagree among ourselves, the hostile outside world forces us to pull together.
The main question is: yes, but how? This debate about “Europe in the world” has been going on for decades. In Brussels, people work hard to keep the proverbial 27 frogs in a wheelbarrow together. Results are mixed. Sometimes it goes well, for example in the crucial case of Ukraine, where there is enough unity among member states to sustain support for Kyiv and increase pressure on the Kremlin. Gaza is the opposite example: deep divisions paralyse the EU, even when it is obvious that the Israeli government is not adhering to agreements it itself made.
Professionals working on EU foreign policy, whether as national diplomats or EU officials, are often inclined to highlight the positive: that it is a miracle that 27 proud and independent countries can agree on anything at all; that new EU strategies and plans are constantly being developed to improve performance. And besides, this group asks, what is the alternative? Every country acting alone — sovereign, yet powerless? Outsiders tend to be more critical: they emphasise that Europe is steadily losing ground and risks becoming a plaything of the great powers. They argue that intentions and processes matter less than results—and those are too often, too meagre.
In foreign policy, time is relative: if the world changes faster than our capacity to take decisions at the pace and scale at which others act, we fall behind. The price for that is a Europe that is weaker, less secure, and ultimately less free. Not a subject, but an object of the decisions of others.
The question of how to strengthen the EU’s capacity to act was the central theme of the EUISS annual conference Power and Purpose held in Brussels on 3 September. Alongside the session with HR/VP Kaja Kallas and the reality check from non-European speakers who held up a mirror to the audience, the results of a survey among conference participants were striking. Two things stood out.
First, how to deal with divisions among member-states? Everyone can see that disunity combined with the insistence on unanimity leads to delays and undermines decision-making. It is even the case that obstructionists are often ‘rewarded’ with concessions, exemptions, and, where necessary, financial ‘compensation’. The classic answer to this has been that smaller groups must increasingly join forces, even outside the EU framework. That is how Schengen began, and we now see the same with the 'coalition of the willing' tasked with shaping security guarantees for Ukraine.
What was interesting was that the participants did not favour this approach but instead chose the option of making greater use of EU power instruments that do not require unanimity. Think of trade policy, including the anti-coercion instrument designed to protect EU countries against pressure and blackmail from third countries. This tool was essentially designed with China in mind, but this summer it was notably not used against the US, despite Trump’s many threats of tariffs and his tirades against EU tech regulations. Among participants, 64 percent argued for using such instruments to maintain the EU-27’s capacity to act. Only 21 percent opted for forming coalitions outside the EU.
Second, the EU should be willing to take more risks. Politics is about making choices, and that includes the price you are prepared to pay to achieve your objectives. Relations with the US and China are good test cases. Europe is heavily dependent on the US for security (both its own and Ukraine’s), while China plays an increasingly pivotal role on a wide array of global issues. Beijing has repeatedly shown that it is able and willing to use relationships and dependencies as leverage. Think of how China has now restricted exports of critical rare earths and magnets to a minimum through stricter licensing requirements and export controls.
What stood out was that in both cases - the US and China - a majority of 61 and 67 percent respectively supported a more assertive stance, even if this might endanger American support for European and Ukrainian security. In the case of China, only 33 percent endorsed the view that Europe should avoid being more assertive with Beijing and steer clear of confrontation.
This vision of a Europe that should stand up and assert itself was also reflected when participants were asked to name the single most important factor by which Europe could gain more profile and influence. What is needed is not so much greater unity among member states (30 percent), more flexible coalitions (22 percent), or more money (4 percent). Rather, 44 percent said it is above all about daring to take more risks.
In short: Europe’s weakness lies not so much in a lack of resources or unity, but in a lack of courage.
