РУССКИЙ
11:07 24.10.2026 •
An overwhelming burden of problems weighing down the driver, or perhaps, just a senseless, insular squabble - this is how one might describe the main takeaway from the latest EU summit held in Brussels on October 15–16. Most international analysts share this assessment, despite the summit’s ambitious agenda featuring the new EU budget, tough measures to combat illegal migration, the strengthening of European defense capabilities, the coordination of trade defense efforts to contain China’s surging exports, the security of vital global sea routes, and the already habitual search for fresh funding to prop up the Kyiv regime. Yet, the EU leaders failed to find definitive solutions to any of these issues.
In the course of two days of intense debate, the participants were bogged down in disputes ranging from climate standards to migration policy and long-term financial objectives. For Brussels, this is a highly alarming sign, a harbinger of a looming crisis: the Europeans’ supposed unity is bursting at the seams under the pressure of new international realities. Amid energy shocks, trade competition, and uncertainty regarding relations with the United States, European leaders are being increasingly confronted by their own internal divisions. The summit clearly demonstrated that these "frenemies" - ostensibly united by common interests - feel far less secure as a collective structure than they do within the confines of their own national borders. The existential question now confronting Brussels is whether the Union can adapt to this new global reality, or whether its capacity for action will continue to be sapped by the endless friction between competing national interests.
The EU’s new 2028–2034 budget - the overarching issue of the Brussels summit - loomed as a nearly insurmountable stumbling block long before it even began as a clear fault line had already appeared around it. A desperate, last-minute attempt by the Irish leadership, which currently holds the EU Council’s rotating presidency, to work out a proposal that would be acceptable to all parties, proved unsuccessful. Even cutting €159 billion from the European Commission’s initial €2 trillion proposal failed to satisfy either Brussels or the EU’s main contributors: Germany and its bloc of so-called "frugal" nations - Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland, and Austria –collectively accounting for 40 percent of the total EU budget. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was quick to warn that Dublin’s proposals were not enough, insisting that "the EU budget must be manageable for those who bear the primary burden of funding it." Germany itself now urgently needs money to push through its own socio-economic reforms as delays in implementing these reforms have fueled strong public discontent, pushing the Merz administration to the precarious brink of political survival. Meanwhile, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson told reporters that his country "is not an ATM for the EU."
Most of the cuts proposed by Ireland target pan-European priorities, such as competitiveness, defense, and foreign aid, in a bid to avoid provoking the opposing camp of 17 southern and eastern member states. Known as the "friends of cohesion," they are all out against cuts to subsidies for farmers and regional funding - collectively referred to as "cohesion policy." These areas account for nearly half of the total budget and are politically sensitive due to the pressure from agricultural lobbies and regional authorities. Italy and France have traditionally championed support for farmers. However, the cuts proposed by Ireland are clearly unacceptable to the European Commission with its primary focus on broader, pan-European priorities and defense.
European Council President Antonio Costa warned that time was running out and urged all leaders to finalize the seven-year budget before the end of this year. The reason is clear: 2027 will see critical national elections in France, Italy, and Poland, whose outcomes could significantly shift the balance of power within the European Union and derail negotiations. Costa believes that if there is no agreement by December, the entire budgetary negotiation process will spill over into the electoral cycle. This could potentially postpone a final deal until October 2027, dangerously close to when the new EU budget comes into force in January 2028. Furthermore, these calculations could be negated by the upcoming parliamentary elections in Spain set for this coming November 29, now that the center-right and far-right parties are poised to come to power there. The EU faces an unprecedented dilemma as its four major economies are heading toward elections or political upheaval, which could undermine the bloc’s ability to achieve any meaningful results.
French President Emmanuel Macron has warned his EU counterparts that an agreement needs to be reached before January because in the walkup to next April’s presidential elections he will lack the political mandate to sign it. Meanwhile, speaking at a news conference in Brussels, Marine Le Pen - leader of the French far right and currently the frontrunner in public opinion polls for the presidency – added to the general sense of unease accusing the EU of fast-tracking the negotiations in order to prevent France’s next leader from having a say. Moreover, she vowed to halve her country’s contributions to the EU budget should she come to power. Upcoming national elections could become a crucial factor in the European Union’s transformation. The presidential campaign in France is unfolding amid public discontent over economic issues, political instability and the government’s overall incapacity to address domestic challenges. At the same time, public attitudes toward the European Union are now becoming instrumental in the battle for voters.
In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz is facing similar political pressure. Following his SDU party’s humiliating defeats in elections across eastern German states to the far-right "Alternative for Germany" (AfD), the Chancellor is wary of making concessions that could be seen as increasing the burden on German taxpayers to satisfy demands from Brussels.
"The longer the budget negotiations drag on, the more difficulties we will face," Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo told Politico. "That is why we need to work toward a solution this year. I fully understand that it is difficult - it is a massive undertaking." Yet, the 27 leaders remain divided, showing no clear signs of bridging the gap between the "frugal" nations and countries like Italy and Romania, which advocate for larger allocations for regional development and the farming sector.
Trying to reach progress on the budget talks, EU leaders have agreed to meet again in Brussels on November 26. However, some governments are unwilling to commit to a year-end deadline, fearing that a lack of time could weaken their negotiating position. For example, Italy, whose Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni made her position crystal-clear.
“We will not sign an agreement that is unfavorable to us just to meet a deadline. We will only sign an agreement when it is in Italy’s interest," she stated. Notably, the summit documents make no mention of a consensus reached on the budget before the end of the year.
EU leaders did make some progress on another sensitive issue though - on ramping up the fight against illegal migration. Prompted by Denmark, Italy, and Poland and following the recent occupation of the Spanish exclave of Ceuta by illegal migrants, the participants agreed to work out general guidelines for emergency situations regarding asylum. The idea is for EU member states to be able to suspend the right to asylum in the event of an emergency posing a threat to their national security. It remains unclear, however, if this means that the EU might start implementing procedures to expel migrants (a practice currently prohibited under EU law). In any case, the regulation is still in the drafting stage. According to the business newspaper Handelsblatt, EU Commissioner for Migration Magnus Brunner plans to present it for discussion later this year.
Financial support for Ukraine was another key topic at the summit. Upon his arrival in Brussels, Volodymyr Zelensky ominously warned that if Russia wins the war, as many as 20 million Ukrainians could be forced to flee to Europe. According to Eurostat, more than four million Ukrainians are already residing temporarily in EU countries. Speaking to reporters, Zelensky urged his European counterparts to devise a financial plan for adding, in addition to existing loans, at least 70 billion euros for the coming year for Ukraine’s "defense, armaments, and strengthening our resilience." However, apart from expressions of solidarity from the EU, no concrete details regarding the Kyiv regime’s requests emerged during the summit. Chancellor Merz stated, however, that there is a sort of "major agreement" within the EU to continue providing aid to Ukraine throughout the winter and into next year, but failed to say exactly what that agreement actually entails.
For all the nuances of European meetings, it is becoming increasingly clear that the EU’s problems go well beyond budgetary matters or specific policy issues. The October 15-16 summit in Brussels should be viewed as a significant symptom of a broader process. The European Union enjoys a considerable edge, such as a large internal market, a developed industrial base, scientific potential, financial resources, and a network of international ties. Its problems cannot be attributed to a lack of capabilities – they primarily result from recurring failures to harness these assets collectively. The EU’s political system is under mounting strain, as the demand for joint action is growing faster than its members’ willingness to line up necessary funding and political support. From the undermining of the transatlantic alliance by US President Donald Trump to the ever-widening trade imbalance with China, the EU is now facing mounting geopolitical and economic pressure on multiple fronts. The budgetary stalemate, energy disputes, the waning of the traditional Franco-German leadership, and the upcoming 2027 elections are not isolated issues, these are largely the result of the highly politicized actions taken in Brussels.
The main takeaway from the summit is not so much the absence of concrete agreements, as it is the European leaders’ clear inability to take a unified political stance on issues that are becoming increasingly intertwined. Budgetary disputes cannot be separated from discussions on European defense; defense cannot be decoupled from relations with the United States; and foreign policy is inextricably linked to the domestic political processes of individual member states. All of this results in a fundamental contradiction: while the EU aspires to act as an autonomous geopolitical center, its members are not prepared enough to share the financial costs and political risks that such a role entails. This is precisely the contradiction that is likely to define how EU member states coexist in the coming years amid a deepening crisis in European integration. Meanwhile, in a world where Washington is rewriting the rules of trade, Beijing is strengthening its industrial leverage, and security challenges call for fast responses, there is no time for endless deliberation.
Some experts believe that the situation within the EU will “only get worse” by 2027. “There is no clear leader in Europe right now,” one EU diplomat told Politico. In their opinion, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is “strong, but we have neither a Merkel nor a Mitterrand.” With the situation being as it is, what the year 2027 may bring about is not so much a sudden, abrupt shift within the EU as a gradual transformation of the political environment decisions are made in. By the end of next year, the European Union may find itself in a significantly changed political state. While EU member states will remain committed to the single market, economic ties, and shared cooperation mechanisms, differences over funding, defense, and foreign policy will make it increasingly unlikely that the bloc can get back to its previous model where decisions on major issues were consistently reached through a broad political compromise. Therefore, it would be safe to assume that while Europe will continue to exist as a major economic bloc, its ability to exert influence in foreign affairs will be declining noticeably in the years to come.
The views of the author are his own and may differ from the position of the Editorial Board.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
