The governor of a large state,
if speaking for the E.U., risks not only undercutting federal officials who can
speak for the E.U., but also subtly orienting federal policy in the interest of
that state rather than the entire union. It is important, therefore, that the
president of the European Council be tasked with speaking publicly for the
Council, rather than usurped.
On December 19, 2025, the
president of the E.U. state of France stood at the European Council podium to
announce, presumably speaking for the Council, “Either a robust and lasting
peace is reached, with the required (security) guarantees, or we will need in
the weeks ahead to find ways for Europeans to re-engage in a fulsome dialogue with
Russia, and in complete transparency.”[1]
Because Macron was not the chair, or president, of the European Council, it is
impossible to know whether he is expressing his own opinion or that of the
Council; his decision to make the announcement rather than defer to the Council’s
president thus weakened the Council. President Putin of Russia had grounds to
dismiss Macron’s statement direct talks between Europe will be needed if the
American peace proposal falters. Simply put, Macron did not have standing to
speak for Europe in terms of talks. Alternatively, he could have stated that his
E.U. state would try to have direct talks with Putin, but the downside to that
is that Putin could play the E.U. state governments against each other. Hence distinctively
E.U. foreign policy would be worthwhile.
At the end of December, 2025,
European Commission President Von der Leyen was on firmer ground in insisting
that Ukraine’s accession to the European Union as a state was “a key component”
of the security guarantees that Ukraine was then seeking as part of a deal with
Russia. According to Von der Leyen, who unlike Macron can speak for the
E.U., accession represents “a key security guarantee in its own right.”[2]
Even though accession requires unanimity in the European Council, I contend
that there is value in having a federal official speak for the E.U. on Ukraine
becoming a state in the Union. For one thing, it provides a vision which the leaders
in the state governments can either accept or reject. For another, Putin can
count on Von der Leyen’s statement as coming from the E.U. itself, rather than
just from a state government, whether pro or con on Ukraine entering the Union.
In short, the difference
between Macron’s opportunism and Von der Leyen’s attempt to bolster Ukraine’s
chances in becoming a state is significant. That the state governments hold so
much power in the E.U.’s federal system renders making space for E.U. officials
especially important, lest one or two big states essentially take over the
Union in pursuit of their own geo-political interests. The E.U. has been
vulnerable to this because it was, even in 2025, too bottom-heavy.
2. Maria Tadeo, “Von der Leyen Signals Push for Ukraine’s E.U. Accession as Russia Derails Talks with Attack Claim,” Euronews.com, December 30, 2025.
