With U.S. foreign policy priorities likely to shift under President-elect Donald Trump, the new EU foreign policy chief made a vigorous case for Europe to remain central in defending Ukraine and countering Russia and China.
At a key appointment hearing in front of the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee on November 12, Kaja Kallas noted that “Ukraine’s victory is a priority for us all” as she vowed that the bloc would continue to support Kyiv for as long as necessary.
During the three-hour session, she also underlined that China “must feel the higher cost” of supporting Russia’s war and hoped that Brussels can use the frozen assets of the Russian Central Bank in the EU, nearly 300 billion euro ($318 billion), to channel to Ukraine.
The hearing came amid fears in Europe that the new U.S. administration under Trump will seek a quick resolution to the war in Ukraine on terms more favorable to Russia and that Washington will care less about multilateral institutions such as the EU or even NATO.
‘Axis Of Autocracies’
In this sense, her grilling was one big sales-pitch to the Americans that the transatlantic alliance matters more than ever. She pointed out that the United States “is our biggest ally and continues to be so” and added that “if Washington was worried about events in the South China Sea, then it should also be worried about how we respond to the Russian war against Ukraine.”
She then invoked a lesson from the past, when the United States retreated from world politics after World War 1. “If you look at history, isolationism has never worked well for America,” she said.
But what can Brussels really offer?
The two clearest ideas in this sense were, first, to identify and categorize an “axis of autocracies” in which she included Russia, Iran, and North Korea — and “more covertly’ China.
‘A Systemic Rival’
The inclusion of China, a big European trading partner, was a clear nod to Washington’s Sino-hawks. Beijing “is now more of a competitor and a systemic rival,” Kallas noted, adding that “our dependency towards China in key sectors is a real vulnerability. We need to de-risk.”
Expect that the bloc will target more Chinese products going forward, after having slammed high tariffs on electric vehicles earlier this year. The trick appears to be clear: Show that Europe is serious about China, so that the United States remains serious about Russia.
The second selling point was the clear separation between the EU and NATO, with the former Estonian prime minister clearly waving away ideas about some sort of EU army — something of a dream for EU federalists who want a smaller American presence on the continent in the first place.
“I don’t think we need a separate military power besides NATO,” Kallas said, pointing out that “if we create an alternative structure, it would be just confusing when the real conflict hits.”
The fear, however, is that the United States might dismiss the purpose of NATO if more European allies don’t increase defense spending as a matter of priority.
Strengthening Europe’s Defense Industry
To address these concerns, Kallas said she would soon come up with ideas on how to boost the European defense industry.
However, she offered little in terms of how to tackle the two underlying problems behind this: a concrete lack of investment as well as the tendency of European countries to favor their own domestic producers and “national champions,” with little appetite so far for creating a proper European defense sector.
Her pitch that weapons produced in Europe could target Russia without restrictions, may not resonate with war-weary, cash-strapped Europeans wary of a nuclear-armed Russia.
A potential solution to the question of financing Kyiv in the future — particularly if the United States withdraws its support — could involve seizing frozen Russian assets within the bloc and channeling them to Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy also raised this idea during his meeting with European leaders in Budapest last week.
The big question is how much appetite there is for this. Major eurozone members and the European Central Bank worry that unilateral action could weaken the euro, as it may deter foreign investment in the continent. Kallas, however, argued that it should be Russia — not European taxpayers — who bears the cost of rebuilding Ukraine.
Building European Consensus?
In a similar vein, she was adamant that Europe will be at the table when the security of Europe is discussed but that Ukrainians should be “the first to have a say.”
The Ukraine war would end, she said, “when Russia realizes it made a mistake and can’t win it,” just as it eventually did in Afghanistan.
Tough talk, but the question is if she can deliver, especially as she will have to get all 27 EU member states onboard for any foreign policy decision?
With some member states, notably Hungary, keen to curry specific bilateral favors with Washington, this could prove even harder still.
Kallas had to admit that — even on a straightforward issue like extending the bloc’s Russia sanctions beyond six months — there wasn’t there wasn’t the necessary unanimity around the table.
So, what about the rest?
Not a word about Georgia — neither in her introductory remarks nor in questions by MEPs, which was telling and symbolic.
On Belarus, she offered a standard answer on the need to work with the opposition.
Armenia-Azerbaijan? She emphasized the importance of working for a “peaceful solution” and highlighted the need for transport corridors and energy cooperation.
Shockingly, there was hardly any mention of the Western Balkans, perhaps the region where Brussels still has the most influence.
One question at the very end of the hearing about how she would approach the region, and Bosnia-Herzegovina in particular, was the only time it was mentioned.
Answering that, she offered nothing concrete on the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, which she will chair. She added that the Dayton agreement on Bosnia “was very good,” but that there were “parts lacking” without specifying what. With respect to the Balkans, Kallas did note that EU enlargement needs to have “a success story in the next five years.”
This was just a first hearing and results will speak louder than any answers given today, but the real issue is whether the EU — a notoriously slow mover in a rapidly changing world — can deliver on anything.
Related News :