OPINION – Quo vadis, Europe? The EU’s quest for direction amid global turmoil

The resurgence of great power competition among the United States, China, and Russia, coupled with the weakening of multilateral institutions and the fragmentation of the liberal order, is redefining the global power landscape.

The European Union now faces the imperative of rethinking its role and its capacity for autonomous action. Against this backdrop, one question returns with growing insistence: Quo vadis, Europa?

The Union is entering a decisive phase in which both its political destiny and strategic identity are being tested on the Ukrainian and Middle Eastern fronts. A common thread connects these two crises: the EU possesses the instruments to act, yet continues to struggle to turn them into real political power.

In both cases, Brussels has deployed a vast array of diplomatic, economic, military, and humanitarian tools. These efforts show how far European integration has come.

Still, this wealth of tools has not led to a clear political course as Europe’s diplomacy remains cautious and fragmented.

A turning point for European integration
In a matter of months, the Union adopted measures that would have seemed unthinkable not long ago: vast packages of financial and military aid, sweeping sanctions against the Russian Federation, use of the European Peace Facility to support Ukraine’s defence, and even the first steps toward a common defence policy.

This toolkit demonstrates the Union’s capacity to mobilise in the face of an existential threat. But it also exposes the limits of an institutional framework still constrained by intergovernmental mechanisms.
Every strategic decision in Europe remains the delicate outcome of a balance among twenty-seven, often divergent, national interests.

At the 23 October Council meeting, Member States faced a major test of the EU’s credibility. The most sensitive being the question of using frozen Russian assets to finance Kyiv. Belgium, where most of these assets are held, warned of serious financial and legal risks linked to possible Russian retaliation.

Prime Minister Bart De Wever ultimately negotiated a postponement of the decision until the next Council meeting.

Some progress was made on sanctions. EU leaders adopted a nineteenth package after Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico withdrew his veto. The new measures will ban Russian LNG imports by the end of 2026 and tighten controls on Moscow’s “shadow fleet” of tankers used to evade Western restrictions.

Member States also agreed on a Defense Readiness Roadmap 2030 – a plan to coordinate Europe’s rearmament through the end of the decade.

The paradox is a global economic powerhouse that still struggles to convert that strength into political capital. Its voice, while authoritative, is not yet decisive.

The return of power politics
The EU now risks being sidelined by Washington and Moscow. Donald Trump’s return to the White House has dramatically reshaped the U.S. stance on Ukraine, with the new administration appearing to prioritise normalisation with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, potentially at the expense of both Kyiv and Brussels.

Under Donald Trump’s foreign policy, the proposed “peace plan” would rest on territorial concessions to Moscow and recognition of a Russian sphere of influence. It would leave Ukraine weakened and dependent, while shifting NATO’s security burden to Europe without granting real decision-making power.

As principles fade into rhetoric and power eclipses values, the European Union must reaffirm its place at the center of global affairs, without giving in to weak or short-term compromises. If Ukraine is the litmus test of Europe’s continental security, the Middle East represents the test of its international credibility.

The Middle East Test
The resurgence of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the scale of the humanitarian crisis have once again challenged Europe to act as a power capable of matching diplomatic resolve with historical responsibility. Yet the Union has remained a secondary actor, effective in reconstruction and cooperation but absent when decisive political choices are made.

The October Sharm el-Sheikh summit revealed the dominance of Donald Trump, who imposed a fragile ceasefire presented as peace. The most critical elements for the region’s stability now lie in the second phase of the peace plan, with many questions still unresolved, including the dismantling of Hamas and the future of Gaza.

Another source of instability stems from Israel’s far-right factions pressing for annexation of the West Bank. This prospect has alarmed Gulf monarchies, whose support is vital to maintaining the ceasefire, and has reignited fears of renewed conflict. Lasting peace will depend on explicit recognition of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

The most crucial elements for the region’s geopolitical balance lie in the second phase of the peace plan. Many questions remain open, such as the future dismantling of Hamas and curbing Israel’s right-wing factions.

The Question of Leadership
At the heart of both crises lies the same challenge: European leadership. The EU still lacks a shared political will. Its most decisive weapon is neither military nor economic but political — the capacity to act with unity and purpose.

As Jean Monnet wrote in 1976, “Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises.” The time has come for the Union to decide whether to remain a bystander or to affirm itself as an active and autonomous actor on the world stage.