The EU is thinking about the reform of foreign policy departments. What does this mean?

The EU is discussing a large—scale reform of the EU's foreign policy system: among the proposals is the redistribution of powers of the European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kai Kallas, and the European External Relations Service (EEAS), which she heads. Some functions may be transferred to the European Commission and national governments. At the same time, the competition for control of the foreign policy agenda between the EEAS and the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, continues. Why there is a need for changes and what they mean is in the Izvestia article.

Overdue changes

• The European Union wants to carry out a large—scale reform of the European External Relations Service (EEAS), the EU's diplomatic agency, which has been operating as an independent structure since 2010 and for which a budget of about €1 billion is allocated annually. Member States are considering the possibility of eliminating or radically restructuring the service due to dissatisfaction with its effectiveness.

• Among the options discussed is the return of EEAS functions to the structure of the European Commission, which would effectively mean abandoning the current model of the diplomatic service. The creation of a full-fledged position of the EU Minister of Foreign Affairs is also being considered. Currently, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaya Kallas, remains the highest diplomatic post.

• Organizational changes are also being discussed: the network of foreign representative offices may be reduced from more than 140 offices to about 18 regional centers, and by 2027 it is planned to eliminate about 100 positions. The reason for the reforms were changes in the European security system after the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine in 2022, as well as the corruption scandal surrounding the leadership of the EEAS, which broke out in December 2025 and seriously undermined the credibility of the agency.

At its own risk: Europe buys 12 million tons of Russian LNG per year

How much will it cost the region to completely abandon liquefied natural gas from Russia in January and where will Moscow send it?

• Informal negotiations between EU diplomats have been going on since at least April 2026. Other possible innovations include raising the status of foreign policy discussions at meetings of COREPER (the Committee of Permanent Representatives of member states to the European Union), where permanent representatives of member states prepare key decisions of the EU Council.

The unfinished process

• The current crisis around the EEAS cannot be considered something new. Europe has been trying to build a unified foreign policy for several decades. First, there was European political cooperation since 1970, then a Common Foreign and Security Policy appeared in 1993, and after the Lisbon Treaty in 2010, the EEAS was launched. However, the same problem arose at each stage: the economy was coming together much faster than politics.

• Economic integration brings clear benefits to all participants. The EU single market unites about 450 million people and remains one of the largest in the world. Companies freely trade goods and services, citizens can work in other countries of the Union, and businesses operate according to uniform standards. Foreign policy is much more complicated: each country relies on its own history, geography, security, and domestic politics. Therefore, it is much more difficult to develop a common approach.

• These differences became apparent after the EU expanded eastward. For example, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia consider security issues to be a top priority and advocate the toughest possible course towards Russia. Also recently, the EU officially abandoned neutrality on the issue of Ukraine (we wrote more about Brussels' position on the conflict here). At the same time, Finnish President Alexander Stubb said that the European Union should start a dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Slovakia also takes a more neutral position towards the Ukrainian conflict.

It should be mentioned: Europe requires a billion euros a year from the UK

The United Kingdom is not ready for such generous contributions for access to the single market

• Disagreements exist in other areas: Italy, Spain and Greece pay more attention to migration and the problems of the Mediterranean, while France promotes the idea of greater European independence in matters of defense and security. At the same time, Germany strives to maintain a balance between different groups of countries within the EU.

• The situation is also complicated by the possible enlargement of the European Union. Ukraine and Moldova have already received candidate status, and negotiations are continuing with the countries of the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo). Each new state brings its own foreign policy priorities and historical experience.

• The question remains whether the EU will be able to strengthen its geopolitical position if the key countries of the union have different views on security, relations with Russia, the role of the United States and many international issues. This contradiction has accompanied European integration for several decades, and it is extremely difficult to overcome it.

Reasons for the changes

• The EEAS has been criticized for responding too slowly to key foreign policy challenges in recent years, including support for Ukraine, relations with Iran, and the consequences of Russia's policies. The European External Action Service has been operating as a diplomatic body of the European Union since the conclusion of the Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force in 2009, but foreign policy remains the responsibility of national governments. Because of this, there is a constant duplication of functions. Brussels tries to speak on behalf of all EU countries, and member states pursue their own foreign policy lines and often make decisions directly through their foreign ministries.

• Many countries believe that this structure repeats the work of national diplomatic agencies and creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Decisions go through several levels of coordination: the European Commission, the European Council and the governments of the countries. This slows down the process and complicates the development of a common position.

• Also, the dispute over EEAS is related to two approaches. Some countries, including France and Belgium, want to strengthen the role of Brussels and give it more powers. Others, such as Hungary, Slovakia, and right-wing parties in various EU countries, which are increasingly gaining popularity amid the accumulated problems in Europe, believe that foreign policy should remain at the level of national governments. Therefore, the discussion of the EEAS reform is actually related to the fundamental question: who should determine Europe's foreign policy — the common center or individual states.

Worsening of the crisis

• The duplication of functions in the EU became especially noticeable after 2022. There are several platforms in Europe at the same time on many key issues, in particular, for discussing the Ukrainian conflict, security issues and relations with Russia. These topics are regularly discussed at European Union summits, European Council meetings, meetings of EU foreign and defense ministers, NATO consultations, G7 negotiations, as well as at individual meetings of major European states.

• In addition to official institutions, there are informal associations, including the group of Great Britain, France and Germany, expanded formats with the participation of Poland and Italy, as well as the "coalition of the willing", which includes several dozen countries. As a result, many issues are being discussed simultaneously at several levels with the participation of the same politicians and diplomats.

• Such a system reduces the effectiveness of decision-making. Some States get access to private consultations and participate in the preparation of initiatives, while others join the process later. Due to the large number of negotiation platforms, situations arise when similar proposals are considered in parallel in different formats. To solve the problem, calls are increasingly being made to identify a single representative to participate in negotiations on the settlement of the conflict over Ukraine, who would receive the support of all EU states and could express a common European position.

Criticism of Callas

• In Brussels, criticism is increasingly being voiced specifically against the head of EU diplomacy, Kai Kallas. European officials and diplomats point to her penchant for harsh statements that do not always reflect the agreed position of all EU countries. Examples include her statements that there are allegedly no dead among the Russian civilian population, as well as controversial assessments of the role of Russia and China in World War II. Additional questions were raised by Callas' mistakes in public statements, including confusion when describing the EU's system of institutions.

• Callas' influence on key foreign policy decisions has now significantly decreased. Her participation in the preparation of strategic defense documents was limited, and her role in the discussion of the Ukrainian settlement became less significant. The EU also believes that the head of EU diplomacy often offers simplified approaches to complex international issues and does not sufficiently take into account differences in the positions of member states, which intensifies discussions about the need to reform the entire foreign policy system of the European Union.

What does this mean?

• The reform being discussed in the EU shows that many European countries are dissatisfied with the way the union's foreign policy system works today. The large number of structures, officials, and negotiation platforms makes decision-making too slow and confusing. In fact, the EU is trying to decide who should play the main role in foreign policy — pan-European institutions or individual states.

Stone in the bosom: Europe and Canada have conceived an alternative to NATO

Behind closed doors, officials from Brussels, London and Paris are discussing the possibility of an alliance without Washington.

When writing the material, Izvestia took into account the opinions of:

● Political scientist Dmitry Drobnitsky.