The persistent and wrong idea of respecting human rights just by global institutions and , political leaders backing by Media coverage limits greatly the capacity for an innovative world, and mostly important sustainable political transitional processes towards the consolidation of a true global democratic system.
Global institutions, particularly the EU, have made from interdependency, and centralization their guideline; however, it is only through strengthening sovereignties at the national level that we may find the way to connect globally, therefore, facing challenges based on national political freedom by taking their own strategical decisions, ideological positions, and allies. It is precisely this inner capacity that prevents war transforming alliances into geopolitical stability .
A unipolar world doesn’t allow nuances; instead, a multipolar world makes of ideologies a tool to negotiate, and geopolitical partnerships a catalyser for peace, feeling the safety of being part of a political/commercial agreement, and not in a pre-established position full of obscure interests. Ukraine-Russia conflict is a clear example of the complexity of being simply “against of” instead of “against war”.
Recent protests from Ukrainian citizens[1] confirm this idea, and call into question Von der Leyen statement: “More Ukrainians will need our protection and solidarity. We are and we will be there for them”.[2] Is the EU with them after the protests?
The manifest ineffectiveness of EU sanctions against Russia to stop war, and the increasing power from Germany-in delivering arms- to USA -replacing Russia gas supplier- are only some of the many examples that states the commercial purposes of a war that consequently aims to continue “as long as it takes”, making sure the establishment of a new order for whom Russia m literally out.
However, they are just pushing Russia into finding new partners like China or India, making BRICS a powerful alliance much more productive than with the EU. This is not a visionary focus from the EU but a short-minded idea that perpetuates the conflict and indirectly helps the BRICS to become even more powerful.
BRICS accounts for more than 46% of the world´s population, have 40% of internet users worldwide and 19% of global investment flows, among others benefits that make them a new axis of power. A fact that is not being considered by the European Union and enter in contradiction with the original vision of becoming a key factor in the global market.
The main idea from the EU of supranational organizations as a driver to stability in the region differs greatly from a true supranational democracy. Just because they are transforming into a wider structure by weakening their national sovereignties does not means gaining a transparent mechanism. In fact, leadership from citizens and reinforcement of their cultural habits shape the perfect scenario for a common ground of thoughts that finally may merge into a global state. The fact that Russia represents the 15th largest trade partner confirms the short-minded vision from EU institutions.
The same happens with the SDGs implementation, which is not a goal, yet a framework to be adapted to each country, and certainly, not a set of standards to be followed equally. It is precisely the capacity to allow flexibility at the cultural level that may help to join globally and find the drivers for peace and stability.
To keep the balance is imperative to go back to the roots of globalization´s essence: a map of cultures that join under a common framework. Now, the question is who leads the process? Is it here that reshaping a new mentality becomes key. Moving from a cantered-power world into a multipolar, flexible, and open world. The growing importance of groups like BRICS, Social Media groups, or business groups challenged the old, bureaucratic establishment.
Working on differences may add value at times to accept local conflicts and their biased actors, instead of trying to influence processes contaminated by commercial interests.
If intervention is the answer, plurality is the driver to move forward.
A cross-cutting political leadership that allows different profiles and interaction with institutions, not coming from them, may be the driver to decentralize power, therefore leading to a new path towards regional -and finally- global balance. Because contributing to global peace is not about a centralized power and only-one rigid solution, yet a complex process of negotiation and Diplomacy. This is not happening, and the leadership from Ursula Von der Leyen is clear: “war as long as it takes”. An statement that enters in total contradiction with the Minister of Defence of yesteryear, in the Munich Security Conference in 2015, stated that focusing on weapons alone could pour oil onto the flames and move us further away from the desired solution. “There are too many weapons in Ukraine already. For the separatists, the supply is potentially unlimited.”[1]
Besides, Germany industry interests enter in contradiction with the European Union. In fact, the 2017 Military Equipment Export Report lists 126 states that were supplied with German military equipment. A total of 11,491 individual export licenses were granted to Germany’s arms industry for this purpose. German war weapons and other military equipment are sold all over the world.[2]
In the same year, President Trump demanded 2% military spending. Schulz (former President EU Parliament), opposite Merkel and invite Germany to become an advocate for disarmament initiatives instead of participating in a spiral of military armament. However, the agenda was already set, and then Merkel, now Ursula Von der Leyen.[3]
Back to the present year, Von der Leyen changes completely her approach and focuses on military investment and the defence industry [4] She pointed to tax flexibility being used to channel investments into Ukraine´s defence sector, along with a joint procurement program that enables direct investment in the country´s defence industry.
Have we found the reason for Von der Leyen’s insistence on delivering armament to Ukraine and a war “as long as it takes”?¿ According to the German government’s most recent export log, 80% of arms exports were to “close partner countries” during the first quarter of 2025.[5]
Today, the political war agenda goes beyond any intention to build peace through Negotiation or Diplomacy, “using the existing EU budget to direct more funds towards defense-related investments”….coming from the powerful German arms industry [6]
Sadly a successful agenda on military intervention, far away from the needed peace-making leadership, coming from the wrong idea that the EU is a supranational authority, and not the combination of self-confident sovereignties that join towards a common purpose, and are not there to be submitted to a supranational leadership. The replacement of national authorities by regional institutions is not only toxic but not cohesive in terms of results. In the end, Brussels becomes an extraordinary power that gets out of control, consolidating as an elite instead of a centre for coordination of policies. The difference from coordination to centralise authority is what is contributing to dividing Europe even more.
Supranationalism is about more democracy, not more institutionalization. is it so that European Union leadership cannot be based on the current Brussels´ leadership of centralization, blocking each national sovereignty to take their own decisions, under the risk to make their actions bold in military and commercial purposes and extremely poor at acceptance and a cohesive European vision.
Just with some thoughts from former leaders in the European institutions, we realize how much mistaken, although determined is Von der Leyen agenda in changing the EU direction into something completely different from the traditional philosophy and purposes of Mediation, Diplomacy and negotiation.
In the end, a bridge for peace, not an actor of a never-ending war.
Going back on former EU leaders may shine some light in the true goals and philosophy:
Martin Schulz (President of the EU Parliament 2012-2017)“The EU is a community of values, not military buildups”[7]
Jean Claude Juncker (Former EU Commission 2014-2019); “European sovereignty derives from the national sovereignty of member states. Europe will never be directed
against others or become a fortress, turning its back on the world. It belongs to everyone, not just the few.”[8] “Ukraine war is leading nowhere….give Diplomacy a chance”[9]
Analysing the political consequences of a European leadership on becoming a crucial actor in this war, instead of a negotiator, with no hesitation, even without sharing the same ideology, I must quote Marine Le Pen: t“The crisis in Ukraine is all the European Union’s fault. Its leaders negotiated a trade deal with Ukraine, which essentially blackmailed the country to choose between Europe and Russia.”
The EU legal foundation pillars may help to find solutions on peace-making processes instead of feeding military intervention, and NATO expansion, therefore finding the road forward. Under the Article 21 of the Treaty of the European Union, build relations and partnerships should be based on: “preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and with the aims of the Charter of Paris, including those relating to external borders”[10]
Military action does not suppose preservation of peace; strengthen international security does not come from sanctions against Russia -that are bringing more violent reactions and only holds an impact on commercial goals-; preventing conflicts supposes a commitment to address controversial situations even before 2014 as the case with Ukraine corruption, Azov claims on far-right violence, and NATO expansion (main condition from Russia to keep peace in the region).
Back in 2023, Jean Claude Juncker has already addressed this point, unfortunately with no impact at all: “Ukraine is totally corrupt”[11]
Only with an open mind and a sensible heart can we analyse the current, and the needed EU leadership, having peace at the centre stage, instead of commercial/geopolitical goals. Oddly, rare earths or arms trade are two essential elements for this active and unprecedented EU military participation; however, it is not part of the very essence of the true foundations of the Union.
EU leadership: shadows and lights, now and then….
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/munich-security-conferences-puts-priority-on-ukraine/a-18241158
[2] https://www.greenpeace.de/frieden/death-business
[3] https://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/10/merkel-challenger-urges-disarmament-rejects-military-spending-hikes/
[4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/europe-financially-able-to-back-ukraine-if-us-reduces-aid-says-von-der-leyen/ar-AA1HVetT
[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/02/germanys-defense-industry-is-booming-heres-where-its-weapons-are-going.html
[6] https://thedefensepost.com/2025/03/04/eu-800-billion-rearm-europe/
[7] https://www.quoteslyfe.com/quote/The-EU-is-a-community-of-values-864149.
[8]https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/junckers-state-of-the-union-europe-must-say-no-to-nationalism-yes-to-patriotism
[9]https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/talking-europe/20240927-ukraine-war-leading-nowhere-give-diplomacy-a-chance-ex-eu-commission-chief-juncker
[10] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eut/teu/article/21
[11]https://www.politico.eu/article/jean-claude-juncker-ukraine-corruption-eu-accession/
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9w19pl84r8o
[2] https://www.pubaffairsbruxelles.eu/eu-institution-news/speech-by-president-von-der-leyen-at-the-european-parliament-plenary-on-the-russian-aggression-against-ukraine/
thesustainabilityreader 