Von Der Leyen's "State of the Union" speech was ambitious and visionary, but will the Brussels bureaucracy deliver?

European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen gave her annual "State of the Union" speech to the European Parliament on Thursday (17 September). The speech was visionary in its scope and ambitious in what it seeks to achieve. But many who are familiar with the Brussels bureaucracy do not think that the system that von der Leyen heads, has the stamina, flexibility or even the will to deliver.

Von der Leyen did not mince her words. Her opening statement laid out the vision and the ambition

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.' This is how Charles Dickens describes Europe in the days of the French Revolution. And it is also a fair description of the world we live in. The speed of change is incredible. The challenges exceptional. So if I look at Europe today, my take is this: the state of our Union is the strongest it has ever been. The state of our Union can also feel as precarious as it has ever been.

These two statements may seem incompatible. But they are both true. And they reflect these exceptional times. This complex age of great possibilities and great perils, which all countries are seeking to navigate.

In this world, Europe has chosen to forge its own path. And a stronger, independent Europe is now emerging.

This is a Europe that is securing its prosperity. One that is breaking free from its toxic dependency on Russian fossil fuels. That has become the greatest trading power on the planet. That is transforming its industrial policy while upholding our unique social model.

This is a Europe better able to defend itself than ever before. One that has radically overhauled its approach to securing our homelands. That has increased defence spending by almost 80 % in the last five years alone.

This is a Europe that stands up for each other. As we are doing by standing with Ukraine as it fights for its future and for our freedom. Or when we stood up for Greenland when it was threatened. Or when drones, hybrid attacks or disinformation target our democracies.

All of this proves one thing. That Europe is there for Europeans. And that in the cold fragility of today's world, only Europe can provide true sovereignty to Europeans.

This is a Europe we can be so proud of.

At the same time, we all know the threats that we are facing. As old assumptions and relationships have frayed, we are now dealing with an openly hostile world. A territorial war of aggression is raging on our continent; others have erupted nearby. A fight for industrial capacities is shaping global competition. And a battle of narratives is seeking to weaken confidence in Europe; to paralyse our democracies.

But people's worries are not only linked to these big, global threats. The effects of the many crises are present for many European families, not least in the cost of living or housing. The dizzying speed of change and technology is impacting our jobs, our livelihoods and our society. And it is also having a profound effect on our democracy and our discourse.

We see this in the rise of the extreme, the decline of nuance – even in the way that we relate to each other.

These real concerns are being weaponised to drive a wedge between us. Sometimes from the outside – and too often from the inside. But our path is clear. Building an independent Europe that has the power to act. Nothing can divert us from this. Because in this world, the fate of Europe must remain in the hands of Europeans.

So our choice is clear. Do we want a strong and independent Europe that stands up for its values in this world? Or do we let divisions and dependencies hold us back? Do we want to rally around our European idea that together we can decide our own destiny? Or do we let our democracies be undermined by the proxies and puppets of authoritarians?

Whether it is the ultranationalists or the anti-Europeans, whether it is Russian interference or disinformation, the names may be different, but their goal is the same. They despise our values, and they want to shatter our European unity. So let's not only fight back against that, but also let's fight together for our European idea.

The European Commission president used her speech to make the case for a stronger, more independent Europe.

Present in person at the EP in Strasbourg was Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The Commission president invited the country to work with Brussels on becoming “the first associate member of the European Union,” adding “we see the world through the same eyes.”

Von der Leyen also said she would propose a new security forum, A European Security Council, for EU and like-minded leaders in response to escalating Russian hybrid attacks and fraying transatlantic relations, with Canada, Ukraine, Norway, and the U.K. also invited to join.

Putting her point of view to the European Parliament, and being honest about the challenges ahead, was an important challenge. More difficult is the challenge that von der Leyen has: to convince the bureaucracy in the EU institutions in Brussels of the challenges ahead, and of the need to change and adapt to the new realities.

This bureaucracy has often failed to deliver. It's too caught in its own labyrinth and comfort zone; has a problem with engaging with both EU citizens and the wider world; lacks the readiness to learn from its own mistakes, partly because of a flawed institutional memory, and is too slow to adjust.

Von der Leyen has tried to fix some of these problems, but with limited success. She needs to try harder!

You can read Von der Leyen's speech in  full here

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI.   The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)