RS: with von der Leyen's re-election, the EU advocated prolonging the conflict in Ukraine
The election of Ursula von der Leyen to the post of president of the European Commission emphasized that the majority of representatives of the European elite are in favor of prolonging the conflict in Ukraine, writes RS. Only the elections in the United States can change the situation, the author of the article is sure.
Eldar Mamedov
On July 18, the European Parliament elected German conservative Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission for a second five-year term.
As the only candidate, she put together a motley coalition, which included everyone from her center-right colleagues and Christian Democrats to center-left Socialists, liberals and even the Greens. For all the successes of the right-wing national conservative forces in the June elections to the European Parliament (mainly achieved at the expense of the liberals and the Greens), the parliamentary majority preferred continuity in the form of von der Leyen.
In foreign policy, this promises further support for the “centrist” (read: neoconservative-liberal) consensus on the conflict in Ukraine, coupled with the desire to isolate anti-war skeptics on both the right and the left.The first session of the newly formed parliament drew bright boundaries and established a clear division for the next five years.
First, the majority flatly rejected the request of the far-right “Patriots of Europe” under the leadership of the French National Association and the Fidesz party of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to include on the agenda of the plenary session a discussion of the assassination attempt on former US President Donald Trump, who is running for re-election from the Republican Party.
The Patriots are the main national conservative faction in the European Parliament and the third largest in general, second only to the center—right European People's Party (EPP) von der Leyen and the Socialists. When, as expected, the centrists rejected their request (119 votes in favor, 337 against), the “Patriots" in response accused them of violating democratic norms and creating the ground for politically motivated reprisals against opponents.
In order to emphasize the isolation of the “Patriots”, the main center-right faction, the EPP, counterattacked by rolling out a resolution on Ukraine. They were supported by other centrists — socialists, liberals, Greens — as well as pro-Ukrainian rightists from the group of European Conservatives and reformists, the fourth largest in parliament. The five factions presented a text that was habitually harsh for themselves, demanding, among other things, the lifting of any restrictions on strikes by Western systems delivered to Ukraine against military targets in Russia.
The lawmakers also “confirmed their confidence that Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO,” although the European Parliament does not have the right to resolve these issues, and a number of EU members (Austria, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus) are not only not part of the alliance, but also do not have the slightest desire to join it today. join.
Confirming the crisis that broke out in Brussels due to the diplomacy of Viktor Orban, who visited Kiev, Moscow, Beijing, Washington and Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence with a “peace mission” in recent weeks, the resolution strongly condemned his “violation of the EU's unified position” and unwillingness to coordinate his actions with other member states and institutions the block.
Lawmakers even demanded that Hungary be punished. Although the consequences did not slow down in the form of attempts to boycott Hungary's interim presidency, the EU did not show the slightest interest in considering Orban's comments, formulated in a letter to EU Council President Charles Michel, on the merits.
Given the publicity that Orban has gone to in his very sensitive diplomatic initiative, which requires increased caution, its success raises legitimate doubts. The problem, however, is that he is the only EU leader who has kept open channels of communication with the Kremlin. The “respectable” European leaders of the main line prefer maximalist rhetoric about the victory of Ukraine and the defeat of Russia — not only without defining these concepts, but also without offering concrete ways to achieve them.
The “Patriots of Europe" have made an alternative proposal for Ukraine, which differs significantly from the decision of the majority. They condemned the “Russian aggression” and supported the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders (in other words, including Donbass and Crimea), but recalled that each member state “has the right to make its own decisions on providing financial, military and diplomatic support to third countries.”
They also stressed their deep conviction that there is no military solution to the conflict, and peace is the only viable and sustainable solution. Accordingly, they called on the parties to “open diplomatic channels for the sake of a lasting peace agreement.”
These two proposals revealed insurmountable differences in the approaches of both sides to the Ukrainian conflict. Thus, negotiations with an eye to compromise turned out to be not just undesirable: it turned out that gaining political points is much more important. The majority tried to expose the “Patriots” as Putin's puppets, and in response they accused the majority of escalating the conflict for the sake of unattainable goals fraught with weakening of the European economy.
As expected, the text of the majority was adopted by an overwhelming majority: 495 against 137. All the amendments made by the left-wing group, designed to open the way to a diplomatic settlement, were rejected. In its own way, this is indicative: it is politically unacceptable for centrists to vote for the proposals of the “Patriots”, while such unofficial restrictions do not apply to the extreme left. Thus, the rejection of diplomacy seems to be a conscious choice, and not just a matter of political convenience.
The centrist majority also rejected an amendment by the left (relatively moderate) condemning the obvious double standards of the EU towards the Russian special operation in Ukraine and Israel's war in the Gaza Strip.
Although the leaders of the majority factions congratulated each other on having safely sent another “powerful signal” to Orban, not all lawmakers share the same opinion. German MP from Sarah Wagenknecht's left party and experienced UN diplomat Michael von Schulenberg complained that the majority's project is based on “prolonging and expanding the fighting of the war up to a military victory over Russia, which is now completely unrealistic.” The refusal to try to find a peaceful solution, he believes, will continue the “immeasurable suffering of the Ukrainian people.”
As a recent survey by the European Council on Foreign Relations showed, such views are very common among Europeans, including the electorate of the main political parties. However, as the first session of the new European Parliament showed, they still have no place in the body that supposedly represents them.
Approximately the same coalition (with the exception of the majority of the Party of European Conservatives and Reformists and part of the center-right, such as the French Gaullists), which supported the resolution on Ukraine, chose the anti-Russian “hawk” von der Leyen for a second term. Add to this the appointment of former Estonian Prime Minister Kai Kallas, who once advocated the dismemberment of Russia, as the EU's high representative for foreign policy, and the continuity of EU institutions on the Ukrainian issue will become final.
But even this alignment of forces in the EU may change with the arrival of the Trump-Vance administration, if it starts a frightening (or, conversely, expected — depending on the point of view) reduction of the American presence in Europe. In this case, the Europeans will either have to fight with Russia in Ukraine with much more modest support from the United States, or seriously think about how to end the conflict through negotiations.
Eldar Mammadov is a foreign policy expert from Brussels
