Klaus Dräger and Herman Michiel

November 2024

At their summit meeting at the end of June 2024, the European heads of state and government (the European Council) decided that Portugal’s former Prime Minister António Costa will succeed the Belgian Charles Michel as their President . Ursula von der Leyen ( UvdL) was confirmed for a second five-year term as President of the Commission. The Commission consists of one person from each of the 27 member states, and is sometimes considered as the EU’s executive body, although only the Commission has the right to make legislative proposals.  The summit of June also appointed Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas as the new “High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”, the head of EU diplomacy. She is taking over from Spanish Social Democrat Josep Borrell.

After the summit, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk tweeted: “Kaja, Ursula and António accepted. Defense proposals accepted. We can be satisfied. For Poland and for Europe.” This is a clear message from one of the most adamant supporters of further arms deliveries to Ukraine “until the final victory”. Tusk’s enthusiasm is perhaps premature, as the appointment of the entire Commission, including the High Representative, still needs to be confirmed by the European Parliament (EP). This is likely to happen in November 2024, after the Commissioners-designate have been questioned by the European Parliament’s committees. If there is strong opposition to certain proposed Commissioners, he or she will be replaced by another person.  As in the past, the EU Council wants to avoid that the EP finally will be using the only “nuclear” option it has: namely to reject the entire Commission.

It is very unlikely that the Parliament would do so, and certainly not because of an overly militaristic Commission. On the contrary, in the short time since the new parliamentary term, the majority of the new Parliament has already displayed an even more rabid militarism than some member states. In these columns  (see here) we have already mentioned that in its first session (July 2024), the new Parliament adopted a resolution calling for more and heavier weapons for Ukraine and for all restrictions on their use to be lifted, including for targets in Russia. In its second session (September 16-19, 2024), the EP adopted another resolution with the same objective and also demanded that the German government should deliver Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. It also called on the European Commission to launch a campaign to convince the public that a military victory for Ukraine is essential for “the peace and security of the entire EU”.

Last but not least, the EP recently voted with an overwhelming majority in favour of a loan of EUR 35 bln as part of a EUR 45 bln loan promised by the G7 and partners to  the Selensky government “to support Ukraine’s urgent budgetary, military and reconstruction needs”. Interests shall be paid by the revenues of some 200 billion euro Russian central bank assets blocked by Belgium. Concerning the EU, this is a clear message that the EU sticks to its commitment to continued support of Selensky’s war “until victory”.

As already mentioned, the traditional majority of the EU-Parliament (Conservatives, Social Democrats and Liberals, supported by the Greens) approved  in July the European Council’s proposal for UvdL’s reappointment as Commission President. Her announced political intentions (‘Europe’s Choice’ ) are in line with her first term of office in foreign and military policy. “Ukraine is fighting for Europe’s freedom, our democracy and our values. An investment in our security is an investment in Ukraine’s security.” Israel’s war in Gaza was not mentioned at all.

Nor is there any mention of peace diplomacy. No, it is about the realization of a ‘European Defence Union’, which is why a Commission post responsible for ‘defence’ is being created for the first time. However, the ‘strategic autonomy of the EU’, which von der Leyen spoke of for a while, is no longer an issue. On the contrary: “the partnership between the EU and NATO must be strengthened”.

The next EU Commission: structural changes planned

As usual, the other 26 Commission candidates were proposed by the governments of the member states. However, their powers will be determined by Commission President von der Leyen and her inner circle. She announced her proposal on September 17, 24.

Interestingly: to the dismay of the European Trade Union Confederation, there will no longer be a Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, according to UvdL. Instead, there will be a new portfolio for ‘Defense and Space’. UvdL  awarded it to Andrius Kubilius, the former Prime Minister of Lithuania. He belongs to the same European People’s Party (EPP) as UvdL.

In his “mission letter”, Kubilius is tasked with working on the ‘European Defense Union’. The member states must be prepared for “the most extreme military contingencies” (sic). The Commissioner must therefore work on military mobility, on the rapid deployment of troops on European roads and railways, which must be suitable for dual use (civil-military). This ‘dual use’ is a trick that has already been used in the past to be able to use the European budget for military purposes after all, although the Lisbon Treaty prohibits this.

UvdL expressly calls for the “legal and regulatory limits” of such dual use to be explored. Conveniently, ‚space policy‘ also falls within the remit of this Commissioner. This offers excellent opportunities for such ‘dual’ applications. The Galileo satellite project is a good example of this, as it can be used both for navigation systems, e.g. in private cars, and for observation and communication by the military. Kubilius is ordered to create a single market for military equipment with increased capabilities and to improve the standardization of equipment in cooperation with NATO. This is then the next higher level to ‘complete the EU single market’ and to strengthen ‘innovative European industrial policy’.

Defense Commissioner Kubilius is also expected to work together with the already appointed High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas. However, as one of the six Executive Vice-Presidents of the Commission, she is one level higher than him in the hierarchy. In this Commission, the powers overlap, and some commentators believe this is no coincidence. Because if the Commissioners do not agree, the word of the Commission President can be the final deciding factor. The concentration of power in UvdL and a small circle around her was already evident during her first term of office.

EU geopolitics beyond Ukraine: open questions

From UvdL’s point of view, Kallas is a suitable choice for a ‘Commission in a camouflage suit’. The strengthening of the EU-NATO partnership is guaranteed, as Kallas expressed an interest in succeeding Stoltenberg as NATO Secretary General in November 2023. The post went to former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte – Kallas will become head of European diplomacy. A high-ranking EU official doubted that it was a good choice “to entrust this post to someone who likes to eat Russians for breakfast”. Kallas’ idea of diplomacy is apparently “that you don’t talk to war criminals”. This was a reference to French President Macron, who had made attempts to hold diplomatic talks with Moscow in the first weeks after the Russian attack.

She also suggested that it would not be a bad idea for Russia to be divided into several smaller states. Many security advisors to various US presidents and neoconservative think tanks in the US have always recommended this in order to prevent a ‘Eurasian bloc of China, Russia and Germany’ (eg. the notorious Zbigniew Brzezinski with his 1997 paper A Geostrategy for Eurasia). Kallas even claimed that defeating the Russians was essential to avoid a third world war. However, as a staunch supporter of economic sanctions against Russia, she was alarmed when it became known that her husband co-owns a company that was still operating after the Russian invasion.

Incidentally, not much is known about her views on other regions of the world and areas of conflict.  Her candidacy as Borrell’s successor was received positively in Israel, as Borrell was seen as an enemy of Israel after making a number of statements about human rights violations in Gaza. Such statements are not to be expected from Kallas. At the parliamentary hearing, we may hopefully learn a little more about her views on EU-China relations and, for example, European leniency towards Morocco’s claims to the Western Sahara.  Likewise on the “two-state solution” Israel/Palestine, which the EU still supports, on relations with Iran and Yemen and much more.

Von der Leyen took up her first mandate under the banner of the European Green Deal. Ambitions gradually dwindled and a certain amount of pressure from disgruntled farmers, German car manufacturers and short-sighted politicians  were firmly commited to give the Green Deal project a death blow. They were very sucessfull in watering it  down. In the meantime, a European War Deal is emerging, which seems to have the entire “extreme centre” (Tariq Ali) behind it. Will it be possible to mobilize enough forces to stop this development?

This article was also published on the canadian site The Bullet