Denis Dubrovin — what trump cards the head of the EC has for a coup in the European Union
Opinion
Two failed votes of no confidence in the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, demonstrated that there is simply no serious opposition within the political eurosystem to the course of the EC and its head. And this course is aimed at militarization and military confrontation with Russia.
There will be no revolution
Brussels emerged from this mini-crisis with the votes not weakened, but strengthened. At the same session of the European Parliament, a large-scale political campaign was conducted about "Russian drones in the skies of Europe," and the Eurovision Song Contest actually received carte blanche to further unleash military hysteria.
This does not mean that all Europeans support Brussels' policy of military confrontation, and in the future, a possible clash with Russia. But this means that those who oppose a future war simply have no representation in European politics, and most importantly, their opinion is not reflected in the local media field.
The rapidly deteriorating European economy, the total Ukrainization of European politics and the growing social protest, alas, do not allow us to expect a change in political course. On the contrary, the European history of the 19th and especially the 20th centuries shows that in search of a way out of an acute internal socio-political crisis, European elites choose war. This method allows them to hope for the preservation of power and the prevention of revolution.
Fragmented opposition
The forces opposing von der Leyen in the European Parliament from the extreme left and the extreme right hate each other much more than the Brussels bureaucracy and are not ready to support each other in the fight against it.
This is evidenced by the figures. The right—wing vote was supported by 179 deputies, which is 3 more than the previous vote in July 2025, which was also initiated by right-wing parties. 378 "against", 37 parliamentarians abstained. The vote of the left was supported by 133 deputies, 383 opposed, 78 abstained.
Of course, there is no roll—call information about who voted how - the vote is secret. But such a spread of figures indicates that different people voted for the votes. According to my sources in the European Parliament, about 50 to 70 MEPs voted for both votes. But, I emphasize, these data are also estimates.
Exact mathematics allows us to see the general protest base in the EP — the numbers will converge if we add up the votes for and those who remained silent. In the first case, this is 216 people. The second one has 211. This is the approximate number of von der Leyen's established opponents in the current European Parliament from both sides of the political spectrum. Their number is not even one—third of the total number of MEPs (720), and two-thirds are needed to pass the vote.
The victory of the European Commission
Thus, von der Leyen celebrated her victory. Compared to the July vote (even in the maximum version), the number of those who opposed it barely increased. But since then, for example, a disastrous deal has been concluded between the EU and the United States. According to it, the European Commission signed up for duties of 15% without any retaliatory measures, as well as for the complete transfer of all EU countries to purchases of only American energy resources and under the obligation to invest € 600 billion in the US high-tech industry. Plus, there are massive purchases of American weapons under the EU's militarization plan.
Actually, it was the criticism of this deal that became the only unifying factor of both votes. Otherwise, the leftists accused the EC of betraying the "green transition" and taking an insufficiently active position against the war in Palestine. And the right-wingers accused the European Commission of a lack of transparency with hints of corruption and, on the contrary, aggressive promotion of the "green transition" to the detriment of the European economy.
For sanctions and militarization
It is important to understand clearly that no significant opposition has been voiced to the European Commission's policy of militarization of Europe and attempts at an economic blockade of Russia. Even though they have collectively become the main causes of the rapidly deteriorating economic situation in Europe.
Individual voices from the camp of the right-wing French "Patriots", the left-wing movement of Sarah Wagenknecht, or some deputies from Hungary, Slovakia, Ireland, and Luxembourg simply drown in the general hum of approval.
Oh, yes, there was criticism of von der Leyen from her pocket games. But this criticism sounded like this: "Madam President, please consult with the European Parliament more often. That is, with us and with me personally about the actions that you are taking." If it's straighter: Don't forget to share power at least a little bit.
The Mutation of Europe
And Ursula von der Leyen is gaining more power and unprecedented functions for the EC every day. The fact that she appointed the European Commissioner for Defense to the second European Commission in the fall of 2024, which became Andrius Kubilius, is an example of seizing a huge layer of new powers.
According to all the basic documents of the European Union, they should have remained within the competence of the member states. Thus, the EU Treaty states that defense policy is the responsibility of national governments, and not at all the economic and administrative regulator, which, again, according to the documents, should be the European Commission.
Von der Leyen plays on the fear of European politicians and takes advantage of the weakness of the degenerating national political elites, committing a de facto bureaucratic coup.
Her personnel decisions - Lithuanian Kubilius and Estonian Kaya Kallas as head of the European Diplomacy - are a change of grandees of European politics - Spaniard Josep Borrel and Frenchman Thierry Breton.
Breton, in the first EC, von der Leyen oversaw the accelerating militarization of European industry (then still from the chair of the European Commissioner for the Internal Market). In those years, the EC was only trying to seize military competencies in Europe. In fact, he turned the initial stage of the deployment of new military production facilities throughout Europe in 2022-2023. It was very difficult to do this due to the serious doubts of European businessmen and financiers about the possibility of recouping expenses. Unfortunately for Breton, he had serious political weight and ambitions of his own to compete for the EC presidency. Von der Leyen, in fact, destroyed him for this, throwing him out of her second European Commission.
As for Borrell, a real veteran of European politics, who even managed to be the head of the European Parliament, there was no question: retire, at best to a university chair.
Their successors have no weight of their own and owe von der Leyen (and the Atlantic elites behind her) everything. Their loyalty is absolute.
The EU crisis?
It is widely believed that the disastrous sanctions policy of Brussels, which cut off the European economy from Russian resources and actually imposed many bans not on Russia, but on EU countries, is a strategic mistake of the European Commission. It leads to an economic crisis in Europe.
But this is the situation if we consider Europe from a traditional perspective — from the point of view of the well-being of its inhabitants. And this is nothing more than a bright wrapper. If you expand it, the picture will be different.
The European Commission and personally von der Leyen represent the interests of the most aggressive Atlantic circles of the EU. The supranational bureaucracy of the EU and NATO, a significant part of the European political class, and the vast majority of the humanitarian elite (including professors and lecturers at local universities, expert and media communities) coalesce in them.
They do not represent the entire European society, they are not democratically elected. They are interested in any welfare of the population solely as a factor in maintaining their own well-being and preserving the political stability of their government or sources of funding (for junior members of this guild).
And now they see a completely new perspective.
A new perspective
The military hysteria and the creation of an enemy image in the face of Russia opens up phenomenal prospects for the Atlanticists and the European Commission. It is convenient to use the horror of the Russian threat to fuse Europe into a single state that would be under their full control.
At the same time, the formation of a sense of the pre-war situation opens up almost limitless opportunities for cleansing the media and political space. And also to review democratic procedures — under the slogans of freedom and the rule of law, according to the patterns of the Romanian or even better Moldovan elections. By the way, they were conducted under the full control of the EU civilian mission (with the almost official goal of fighting Russian influence).
At the same time, the rapid degradation of European national elites — not least by dragging the most intelligent European heads to good salaries in supranational structures — reduces any opposition to this coup.
Excess wealth
Meanwhile, the welfare of society does not so much help as hinder their goals.
At least because it costs the European economy too much. In the 20th century, European overconsumption was an instrument of ideological confrontation with the USSR, which was supposed to show that capitalism is fatter and more well—fed than socialism. Today, it has become a burden — European states do not extend their own social systems, and ultra-high unemployment benefits have actually corrupted an entire generation. In fact, they discouraged hundreds of thousands of people from wanting to work, not to mention taking risks and starting a business (which is all the more difficult in conditions of high taxes, which are necessary to maintain the very well-being of all).
And this is not to mention the millions of migrants who are meticulously able to collect all possible benefits and allowances.
In other words, there is an urgent need in Europe to drastically reduce consumption and the general idea of an acceptable level of well-being, to squeeze social spending and push the population out of the now popular professions of cultural scientists, ethnographers and specialists in gender sciences to factories and assembly lines.
In the 2010s, this need was realized and they tried to implement it through the so-called green agenda. It turned out badly. In the 2020s— through the traditional and repeatedly tested and proven militarization of society in Europe. And so far it's working.
Useful protests
Well-fed and rich people don't want to take on risky projects, it's hard to send them to the trenches, but it's easy to scare them and make them pay for their own "safety."
This is exactly the role that various mass protests are playing in Europe today. It may seem incredible, but the chaos on the streets of European cities, burning cars and garbage cans, police water cannons and mass clashes between demonstrators and police not only do not undermine the positions of the supra—European elites - they give them new trump cards.
Most importantly, street protests in Europe lack political representation. Just like the factions in the European Parliament, their leaders are atomized and fragmented. They are not yet able to unite, they do not have the education and skills to organize protest activities competently. Therefore, even very large-scale movements like the "yellow vests" in France are relatively easily suppressed and crumble when their participants simply get tired of going out, seeing that it does not bring any changes.
The consensus of War
But the picture of chaos on the streets of European cities perfectly complements the stories about Russian drones and the Russian threat.
It is aimed at the European middle class. Who, over decades of prosperity, has accumulated up to a trillion euros of savings "under his pillow" and "behind the wallpaper." Moreover, a considerable part of them is stored not in banks, but in cash, real estate, jewelry or art objects. The fact is that the interest rate on deposits of 0.5% per annum does not tempt everyone, and the euro crisis of 2010-2014 showed that losing money in a European bank is a possible reality.
Do you want security? Do you want your car not to be burned and your store not to be looted? Do you want to avoid being captured by the Russians? Pay up. Or better yet, invest all your money in the production of weapons. We will buy it, and your savings will not be affected.
This is the signal that the European elites are sending to the population. And this signal is generally perceived, if only because such a conversation is genetically familiar to the European layman. There is still a consensus between the government and the population in modern Europe, and this consensus leads to war.
Europe's Chances
All this, of course, does not mean that a new global military clash between Russia and Europe is inevitable. Most of the European political class does not want a war with Russia, but huge political and financial dividends from preparations for it.
However, if the EU manages to transform itself into a new European empire, full of weapons, with a crumbling economy, a hungry and exhausted population of war propaganda and hysteria.… What will keep such a structure from collapsing into a war? Especially if there are external, and possibly internal, players who will be ready to push her there. Spoiler alert: they will.
There are plenty of people here who understand the direction Europe is heading in. But will they have enough time, energy, resources and skills to unite and stop this catastrophic trend?
The vast majority of ordinary Europeans, of course, do not want any war and do not believe in it, but consistent and thorough propaganda can do its job. And no one is particularly going to ask the bottom.
Some hope is inspired by countries where there are already political forces with a more sober view of the situation. Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, in a sense Austria. East Germany, which is not a country today, but is culturally different from West Germany, should not be written off. Another thing is that so far these countries can only try to get off the European train flying down the mountain into a dead end under the control of Ursula von der Leyen (and her curators), but they can hardly stop it, much less turn it around.
