A split is brewing within the EU. What you need to know
Deep disagreements remain within the EU on key foreign policy issues, primarily the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, as well as the migration and energy crises. The aggravation of the EU's relations with the United States against the background of the situation with Greenland and Venezuela has shown that internal contradictions and dependence on Washington continue to prevent Europe from acting autonomously. What is the essence of the European differences — in the material of Izvestia.
Accumulated disagreements
• In recent years, there has been a lack of agreement among EU members on a number of issues. First of all, this concerns the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The idea of negotiations with Russia is most often supported by countries that are oriented towards a pragmatic foreign policy course. First of all, these are Hungary and Slovakia. More restrained and cautious positions are also periodically manifested in Austria, which has expressed its desire to host negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, Italy and Greece.
• The group of countries opposed to negotiations with Russia is formed mainly from the states of Eastern and Northeastern Europe. In particular, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are strongly opposed. They believe that negotiations are possible only if the situation on the battlefield changes in favor of Kiev and if its conditions are met.
• On the issue of aid, most EU countries supported continued financial support. However, corruption scandals in Ukraine and the unwillingness of its leadership to hold presidential elections cast doubt on the logic of such assistance (we wrote more about this here). Individual States, primarily Hungary and Slovakia, have expressed disagreement with the scale and forms of support. They note the burden on national budgets and the risks of prolonging the conflict.
• In addition, the migration crisis is causing a deep split in the EU due to countries' disagreement on the distribution of refugees. Southern countries (Italy, Greece) demand solidarity, while Eastern European countries (Poland, Hungary) oppose mandatory quotas. The situation weakens the Schengen area, forcing states to restore border controls.
• There are disagreements on energy security issues. The EU Council has finally approved a complete ban on Russian gas imports: LNG — from January 1, 2027, and pipeline — from September 30, 2027. Hungary and Slovakia opposed it, dubbing it "energy suicide." They have already stated that they will fight in court to change the decision.
New challenges
• In recent months, relations between the EU and the United States have sharply deteriorated due to threats by American leader Donald Trump to annex Greenland (you can read why Washington needed this island here). The situation could have led to a serious conflict within NATO, but after negotiations with the Secretary General of the alliance, Mark Rutte, Trump abandoned the idea of imposing tariffs against European countries (we wrote more about the split in NATO here).
Officially, this was explained by the success of diplomacy and the unity of Europe. However, in reality, the decisive factor was the threat of $93 billion in economic retaliation from the EU. Financial markets reacted negatively to the controversy, and that's what caused Trump to back down. This situation has shown that EU economic pressure can also be effective (we wrote in this article about what tools Brussels can use to protect itself).
• At the same time, there was no unity within the EU. If Trump had not backed down, it is far from certain that the European Union would have been able to gain a qualified majority to launch an "anti—coercive instrument" - a mechanism for retaliatory measures. It gives the European Commission the right to impose trade restrictions, tariffs and even sanctions without the unanimous approval of all countries.
The Greenland story has shown that Europe is able to put pressure on the United States economically, but it is hampered by internal disagreements and the habit of relying on Washington. Until the EU learns to act more confidently and coherently, its real capabilities will be lower than its economic weight.
Difficulties with approval
• The European Union also held an emergency summit amid an escalating dispute with the United States over Greenland, even though Donald Trump temporarily waived duties against a number of European countries. Brussels stressed that the very fact of pressure from Washington has already damaged transatlantic relations and forced the EU to reconsider previous ideas about the United States as an unconditional ally. In Europe, they are increasingly talking about the need to protect their interests and not succumb to coercion.
• Denmark recalled the inviolability of its sovereignty over Greenland, while France and Germany stated the need to remain vigilant and be ready to respond in case of new threats. At the same time, a number of countries, including Lithuania and Poland, confirmed their desire to keep the United States as a key ally, but noted that relations should be based on respect, not pressure.
• After a harsh EU response, including trade threats and political signals, the United States made a tactical retreat by announcing a framework agreement on Greenland. European leaders said the response had been effective, but remained wary. Trump continues to insist on expanding American influence on the island, and the EU fears that new demands from Washington are only a matter of time.
• The changes in relations between Europe and the United States are of a long-term nature. There is a growing understanding in the EU of the need for strategic autonomy, diversification of trade relations and strengthening its own economy. The policy of pressure from the United States has the opposite effect, pushing the allies to reduce their dependence on Washington and search for alternative centers of cooperation.
The difference in approaches to Venezuela
• After the detention of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US military, Europe showed disunity. The EU as a whole called for restraint and respect for international law. Spain and France condemned the US operation as a violation of international law, Germany and Austria also expressed concern about the legitimacy of the intervention, and Slovakia spoke of the collapse of the international order. At the same time, countries close to the United States focused on overthrowing Maduro. For example, Italy, Greece and Sweden supported the end of the dictatorship and the democratic transition in Venezuela, while recognizing the importance of respecting international law.
• Against the background of the World Economic Forum in Davos at the end of January, EU leaders were trying to understand whether it was possible to preserve at least the remnants of the former transatlantic interaction. Approaches within Europe have significantly diverged. Germany relied on negotiations, France talked about the need for tough economic measures, and small countries are anxiously watching whether the crisis will lead to the consolidation of the continent or, on the contrary, accelerate the internal rift.
• Increasingly, there is talk in Europe that the post-war system of unions is coming to an end. The United States is no longer perceived as a reliable partner, and the policy of pressure and threats is changing the usual rules of international relations. Some European politicians fear that in order to reduce tensions, ideas of dangerous concessions may appear that will weaken the common position of the continent.
• Against this background, criticism of American trade policy is intensifying and possible retaliatory measures are being discussed. At the same time, the EU does not understand why the United States should seek control over Greenland, given the existing agreements with Denmark. Many perceive what is happening as an increase in open hostility, and a possible military scenario is called a threat to NATO and stability in Europe.
Building relationships
• Despite the detente, European leaders remain cautious. EU Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Kaya Kallas pointed to the continued unpredictability of American policy and the need to prepare for different scenarios. French President Emmanuel Macron recalled that the EU still has the tools to respond harshly in case of new threats, stressing that the unity of Europe allows it to seek respect even in difficult relations with its allies.
• Europe remains deeply dependent on the United States. In the defense sector, a significant part of the weapons and military infrastructure of European NATO countries is supplied from the United States, and American intelligence and military support plays a key role, especially after the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine. Economically, Europe also relies on American technology, the financial system, and digital infrastructure. Dependence in the energy sector has also increased after the reduction in Russian gas supplies, as the United States has become the main supplier of liquefied natural gas to Europe.
A sharp break with Washington would be extremely painful for the EU, therefore, instead of direct confrontation, Europe is likely to gradually reduce vulnerability, in particular, diversify partners, develop its own production and defense capabilities, and strengthen strategic autonomy. This process can take years.
However, the unilateral actions of the United States against Greenland and Venezuela create a sense of a turning point in relations with Europe. If the EU does not protect its interests, it could jeopardize its autonomy and further increase its dependence on the United States.
When writing the material, Izvestia interviewed:
Sergey Fedorov, a leading researcher at the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
Alexey Mukhin, a political scientist and Director General of the Center for Political Information.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
