By: Ebba Lewenhaupt
“Our Union was built on the promise of peace, but today, peace can only be guarded by strength. This is Europe’s Independence Moment.” – Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission at the State of the European Union speech 2025.
As the relevance of the day-to-day politics of the European Union (EU) grows, the State of the European Union (SOTEU) address has come to symbolize the direction of the EU over the coming years. Many grand declarations were made, this year there were two points that caused both positive and negative reactions: boosted European defence spending in tandem with another Russian sanctions package, and new punitive measures against the Israeli government and in support of Gaza. Particularly the last point brought a mix of cheers and booing as the President of the European Commission went on with her speech, so much so that the Speaker eventually had to issue a warning of removal against the most disruptive of the parliamentarians. Although she framed this European Independence Moment as a moment of unity, these diverging reactions painted a rather different picture – one of a crossroads. If the near unanimous support for Ukraine represents what Europe can achieve when security interests align, then the unwillingness to support Gaza shows the limits of European unity when perspectives collide.
Europe’s Response to Ukraine
When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it marked a watershed in post-Cold War European security. Although few expected Ukraine to withstand the initial assault, three years of the EU’s support has been both sustained and transformative, with sanctions packages now totalling nineteen. Despite occasional veto threats from Hungary and Slovakia, cohesion has held firm, reinforced by fears of US disengagement under President Trump.
The result is a new 800 billion euro defence fund and a political consensus previously unseen in the history of the EU. For Brussels, Ukraine became a test case of European unity in action and an example of what the Union can accomplish when values and interests align. The war has served as a catalyst for joint spending, planning, and the strengthening of European defence structures, while also exposing Europe’s continued reliance on American security guarantees. Whatever measures the EU has implemented supplement NATO’s deterrent architecture rather than replace it, meaning true strategic autonomy remains some way off.
Yet, von der Leyen has used this record to underscore what she sees as the EU’s rising credibility as a geopolitical actor. Expert analyses describe Ukraine as the “high-water mark” of what the EU can achieve when united by both principle and necessity. In her speech, von der Leyen recalled how all member states, despite differing histories and interests, rallied swiftly in defence of Ukraine and collective security. If this unity can be replicated elsewhere, she suggested, Europe could indeed stand as an independent superpower.
Europe’s response to Gaza
While many share the perception of Russia as a threat, the same consensus cannot be found in regard to the Israel/Gaza conflict. Partially, perhaps due to a lack of clarity in aggressor due to a fraught history, partially because of shared historical ties to Israel, and furthermore because of the distance. It was not just parliamentarians disagreeing with the latest measures, but also the governments of various members.
Although calls for punitive measures have been increasing, from countries such as Ireland, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands, countries such as Germany, Hungary and the Czech Republic have voiced their scepticism and remain cautious around this issue. Germany, especially, underscores a preference to keep communication channels open, reflecting concerns over geopolitical repercussions and the risks of alienating a key Middle East partner. This intra-EU division illustrates deeper tensions about balancing values-driven policy with strategic interests and unity in foreign policy decision-making. Although Ursula von der Leyen, as President of the European Commission, can propose sanctions and other punitive measures to the parliament, passing them will be incredibly complicated. Should it prove impossible, it could seriously harm the credibility of the EU as a potential international power-broker, and perhaps even extend to Ursula von der Leyen as a President of the European Commission if she cannot negotiate a deal.
Indeed, expert analyses from international think tanks like the Carnegie Endowment emphasize the unprecedented nature of EU sanctions targeting a close partner like Israel, marking a significant shift in EU foreign policy. While sanctions remain feasible under EU legal frameworks, especially suspending trade privileges due to violations of human rights clauses in agreements, they come with complex precedents and challenges, notably the need for qualified majority approval among member states and unanimous consent for individual sanctions. This, of course, can be rather difficult when opinions vary so wildly and can require considerable concessions to pass, enough that the original punitive purpose may be lost. The Conversation also notes that such measures carry political and economic risks, including potential retaliation and fragmentation of EU unity if consensus is not maintained.
Realpolitik and Values
Together, these two wars illustrate the paradox at the heart of Europe’s geopolitical moment. Against Russia, the EU has demonstrated rare cohesion, even at economic cost, because the conflict unites values and strategic interest: democracy, sovereignty, and collective defence. Against Israel, however, Europe’s divisions show what happens when morality and strategy diverge.
Ukraine, in many ways, represents the triumph of realpolitik in service of values, the EU defending both its ideals and its borders. Gaza exposes the opposite, values constrained by realpolitik, where the limits of action lie when moral conviction meets political risk. This tension sits at the centre of the EU’s identity crisis. Europe aspires to be a normative superpower, guided by law and morality, but it remains a collection of states bound by compromise. This was initially by design, but in a time when political expediency and flexibility is increasingly being demanded of the EU, it leaves one to wonder what shape the union will take over the coming years.
The European Dilemma – Where Realpolitik meets Values
The ultimate direction of the Union now rests with a series of pivotal EU Council votes, where the stark fault lines between member states are certain to re-emerge. These votes are shaped not only by internal EU debate but by robust diplomatic engagement with the US and UK, both allies whose positions influence Europe’s room for manoeuvre, especially as Washington has resisted similar measures, sanctioned the ICC, and publicly condemned targeted sanctions against Israeli officials. Von der Leyen acknowledged the challenge in forging a qualified majority for suspending trade privileges or enacting targeted sanctions, stating candidly that any outcome “may be seen as excessive by some and insufficient by others,” but also insisting that “we must all take our own responsibility.”
In the end, the contrasting responses to Ukraine and Gaza bring Europe back to a familiar question: can it act according to its values when strategic interests pull the other way? Von der Leyen’s “Independence Moment” may mark less a declaration of power than the start of a reckoning: whether Europe wishes to be a power guided by principle, or pragmatism. Surely, there must be some way of combining the two?
Until that question is answered, the Union will remain what it is today; slow and split in opinion, but united in soul.
Edited by: Simone Vlug, Konstantinos Anagnostakis
Image Source: Unsplash, Guillaume Périgois