It is often said that history is shaped by great leaders with bold visions.
Then we have the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen.
Their strategy for the 21st century appears to be ‘wait, react, increase defense spending because Trump told us to, and then… wait some more’.
One might have been prompted to think that while the EU was cautiously waiting for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the leaders in Brussels were busy preparing a clear counterstrategy, a grand vision to ensure European autonomy and resilience, just in case.
Apparently, they did not.
Instead, now that Trump’s return became a reality and the American president set out to dismantle the post-World War world order, they seem to be stuck in an existential crisis, unable to decide whether they should be mildly defiant or just continue nodding along while writing bigger checks for NATO.
Ursula von der Leyen, the self-proclaimed champion of a strong, independent Europe, has mastered the art of statements without substance.
We can hear phrases like “strategic autonomy” and “a Europe that stands on its own two feet,” but there is little evidence that she—or any other EU leader—has the faintest idea how to actually achieve that.
Her response to Trump’s threats? A commitment to spend more on defense (which, conveniently, is exactly what Trump wants).
A response to economic challenges? A few more regulatory tweaks.
A response to the looming global shift away from Europe as a major power center? A commission, a report, and some hand-wringing.
Meanwhile, von der Leyen is still pushing the Green Deal and similar strategies, even though they appear to be a dead end in this new geopolitical framework.
Europe, alone, is not capable of changing the direction of climate change, yet it seems determined to press forward with policies that could cripple its own industries without any significant global impact. While other global powers prioritize economic and military strength, the EU appears intent on self-imposed economic decline under the banner of environmental leadership that no one else is following.
Which leads us back to Mario Draghi’s report on the future of the European economy, which laid out exactly what the EU needs to do: structural reforms, investment in key industries, and a true commitment to innovation.
The result? Silence. No urgency, no bold initiatives—just more summits, where leaders agree that yes, things are bad, and yes, they should probably do something… eventually.
The EU is not lacking in potential leaders—just in leadership.
The list of those who could step up is impressive.
The list of those who will actually do anything is tragically short.
French President Emmanuel Macron loves to talk about European independence, but his ambitious ideas—like an EU army—never seem to move beyond the speech phase. Perhaps he’s too busy dodging protests back home.
(Yet) German Chancellor Olaf Scholz? He has mastered the art of slow decision-making, ensuring that Germany remains the EU’s economic powerhouse while avoiding any responsibility for actual leadership. He is, however, ready to impose tariffs “within an hour” if Trump starts a trade war—because nothing says strategy like waiting for the first punch to land before deciding whether to fight back. His weakness was also on full display at the Munich Security Conference, where U.S. Vice President JD Vance openly criticized European freedom of speech, and Scholz’s response was a tepid defense of Europe’s democratic values, emphasizing the importance of rejecting anything that glorifies or justifies Nazi ideology. Not exactly a rousing rebuttal.
Spain’s Pedro Sánchez has shown promise, making Spain more influential in EU affairs, but he lacks the economic and military power to push a truly transformative vision.
Donald Tusk could be an interesting wildcard, but Poland has historically relied on the U.S. for security, making him hesitant (and that’s an euphemism) to push Europe away from Washington.
And then there’s Giorgia Meloni, who seems more aligned with Trump than interested in challenging him. If anything, she may ensure that Europe stays even more dependent on U.S. leadership.
And where does this leave Europe?
Europe is at a crossroads, but its leaders seem more interested in playing traffic cops than in deciding which road to take.
The EU could take charge of its own destiny—building stronger economic ties with Asia and Latin America, ensuring its own security without relying on Washington, and leading on key global issues like climate change and AI regulation.
Instead, it dithers.
The question now is: will Europe finally realize that waiting is not a strategy? Or will we look back in a decade and marvel at how the continent that once set the course of history ended up as little more than an economic and military afterthought? At the current pace, it seems the latter is more likely.
But don’t worry—there’s always another conference to discuss what should be done.
