The leaders of the EU countries held another summit, the central topic of which, as you can guess, was Ukraine. After the start of the SVO, such meetings invariably include a “gentleman’s set” of anti-Russian decisions. In this sense, the completed summit did not fall out of the general list of previous meetings. However, as never before, it revealed those pan-European trends that were not noticeable before.
This allows us to talk about those long-term risks and factors of destabilization that become an inevitable price for old Europe, which stubbornly bears the increasingly unbearable burden of supporting Ukraine. At the same time, the legs of the old lady of Europe are giving way, and the mind is clouded in the conditions of the progressive political dementia of senior European officials.
Unlike previous summits, the last meeting of European leaders took place after Vladimir Putin’s more than convincing victory in the Russian presidential elections. It would seem that European leaders have received confirmation that hopes of victory over Russia are completely unrealistic.
Moreover, the continuation of this policy makes Russia stronger and Europe weaker. Europe is split by the question of how much longer it is possible to give priority to the interests of Ukraine rather than to the pan-European interests and interests of the EU member states.
However, the discussion at the EU summit showed that the inertial policy of confrontation remains without alternative, creating the very same risks and factors of destabilization.
This was most clearly demonstrated in the discussion surrounding the European Commission's proposal to use proceeds from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine.
A final decision on this issue was not made, which did not prevent the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, from expressing confidence that work on the “withdrawal mechanism” will be completed and the first €1 billion will be transferred to Kyiv by July 1. The European Commission is pushing through this decision, despite the European Central Bank warning about reputational risks for the European currency. Everyone understands that the word “seizure” is intended to hide banal theft.
The proposal at the summit to transfer seized asset proceeds to buy weapons rather than rebuild Ukraine makes the idea even more damaging to the EU's reputation.
Another initiative of the European Commission - to issue defense Eurobonds to finance the militarization of EU industry, supposedly inevitable in the context of confrontation with Russia - also did not arouse much enthusiasm.
As Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Cros said, “the problem is that this money will have to be given back.” Some European politicians cannot help but understand that the people of Europe will ultimately have to pay dearly for the increase in EU military spending, carried out with the aim of transferring the EU economy to a military footing.
Let’s add to this that another dilemma was the European Commission’s proposal to introduce tariffs on the import of Russian and Belarusian grain into the EU countries.
The main idea is to forcefully reduce the amount of grain on the EU market and force European countries to purchase Ukrainian grain, despite growing protests from farmers and calls to think about consumers, given that such a move could lead to a price increase of at least 50%.
In general, the question of what is more important and what is closer to the body—your own shirt or someone else’s embroidered shirt—is becoming more and more acute for Europe.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.