EU between ambitions and powerlessness Review by Teymur Atayev

Europe’s current geopolitical weakness is no secret. Once a continent that shaped the global agenda, at this stage of history, it has found itself sidelined, assuming the role of an international outsider.

The situation continues to deteriorate, as openly acknowledged by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who stated that since the start of the war by Israel and the United States against Iran, Europe has been forced to pay an additional €27 billion for oil and gas imports. This has become the second major energy crisis for Brussels in the past four years: whereas in 2022, gas supplies from Russia to EU countries were cut off, the issue of the Strait of Hormuz has now come to the forefront. As she noted, heavy dependence on imported fossil fuels makes Europeans vulnerable, and lessons must be drawn from these crises.

Another question is what exactly is meant by these “lessons” and what steps Brussels is prepared to take to prevent Europe from sliding further into a geopolitical abyss. Haven’t Europeans had enough time to recognise their bleak prospects on the global stage after the sharply anti-EU speech by U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance at last year’s Munich Security Conference? And what have they done to strengthen themselves? Practically nothing.

A year after Vance’s speech, the same venue hosted a more measured address by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Once again, Europe slipped into geopolitical silence. Even the escalation around Iran failed to shake it: the toothless summits of European leaders that followed merely confirmed the absence of political will and real instruments for action.

Following yet another rebuke from U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the need for Brussels to take meaningful steps in support of Washington’s position on the Strait of Hormuz and in the context of Arab monarchies facing serious challenges, no significant actions have been recorded. It has reached the point where Ukraine, which continues to endure relentless attacks from Russia, has effectively emerged as a European leader sought after by countries of the Persian Gulf in terms of strengthening their security. This may sound paradoxical, but it is a historical fact.

Brussels has also failed to respond to concrete calls from China for mutual understanding within a geopolitical framework. Quite the opposite has occurred: EU leaders have begun to voice ideas about preparing a roadmap aimed at reducing dependence on both the United States and China.

Yes, some European leaders have taken a softer stance towards China, and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez even made a number of statements in the Spanish-Chinese direction during his recent visit to China. However, this does not represent the EU’s overall position. The steps taken by the Spanish prime minister regarding Israel’s policies and, more broadly, the Middle East have triggered a certain degree of geopolitical jealousy in Brussels.

Time, however, is relentlessly running out for the European Union when it comes to restoring its geopolitical standing. Some steps are being taken—no doubt about that—but how effective are they? For instance, media outlets have already reported on the EU’s return to nuclear energy and the emergence of the “AccelerateEU” initiative, whose five key pillars are aimed at strengthening energy security and reducing dependence on foreign energy sources. Promises have been made to assist national governments in protecting consumers and businesses, including income support schemes and the introduction of energy vouchers to ease the tax burden on electricity for vulnerable households. Measures are also being pursued to increase private investment—among them high-level events such as the Clean Energy Transition Investment Forum (May 2026) and a clean energy investment summit later this year. 

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has also supported proposals coming from Berlin, particularly from the CDU/CSU, to reduce bureaucratic red tape across the continent in order to create conditions for strengthening the position of European companies in the global market.

According to analysts, these and similar steps taken by EU leaders are, in reality, belated in nature—emerging only after the fact, following yet another European setback. What remains absent, however, are genuine leadership decisions capable of demonstrating Europe’s strength on the international stage.

French President Emmanuel Macron continues to champion his idea of Europe’s strategic autonomy, which he has promoted since taking office, yet after nearly a decade, it still lacks concrete substance.

Meanwhile, the parliaments of Belgium and the Netherlands periodically adopt anti-Azerbaijani positions, issuing biased resolutions against Baku, which consistently adheres to the norms and principles of international law.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz continues to issue assessments on various global issues, only to later either walk them back or clarify his statements (most recently in the context of Ukraine’s territorial integrity).

There is a certain degree of movement in Europe, yet it has little impact on the global situation. In this regard, prominent European experts stress that this is a defining moment for Brussels. Whether EU leaders are able to seize this historic opportunity will determine Europe’s future. But is the current generation of European political leaders ready to make decisions vital for the continent? Possibly, Europe’s political stage is on the verge of seeing the emergence of new figures.