There is a lot of hyperbole in Brussels, but it is no exaggeration to say that this is a make-or-break week for the bloc.
The European Union has reached decision points on three important issues that could shape its global image and international standing.
From the Ukraine peace talks, to the issuance of an unprecedented reparations loan that infuriated the Russian government, to the 20-year deal with Mercosur, all three are marred by uncertainty.
At stake is the credibility of the 27-nation bloc that shapes foreign and trade policy in the face of a more aggressive Trump administration that puts the United States first and seeks to shape global relationships in line with its interests, a more assertive China that expands its economic power into highly innovative areas, and the security threat posed by Russia.
European leaders will hold their final meeting of the year in Brussels on Thursday. With time ticking by, the next four days will be crucial for the EU.
As one diplomat suggested, a “one way or the other” decision will have consequences. Another diplomat said the European summit would be the most important since leaders agreed at an emergency meeting in the summer of 2020 to launch a historic plan to issue debt in bulk after the coronavirus pandemic.
Since his appointment as President of the European Council, which represents the 27-member Group of Leaders, Antonio Costa has been an effective timekeeper, keeping meetings to the point.
Things could be different this time around, as Thursday’s summit could be a long night in typical Brussels fashion. We know when it starts, but we don’t know when it ends.
As Europe seeks a just peace, focus on Ukraine
Meanwhile, European leaders are gathering in Berlin on Monday to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, alongside a U.S. delegation that includes President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff.
Both helped secure a ceasefire in Gaza, but Russia’s war in Ukraine turned out to be much more complex.
European countries are pushing to get back to the negotiating table after a controversial draft deal was agreed directly between Moscow and Washington last month, raising concerns that the deal was unfair to Ukraine.
Initial plans suggested wide-ranging territorial concessions and sidelining European countries on key issues such as the continent-wide security architecture and the commercial use of Russia’s frozen assets in the EU.
Both Ukraine and the EU refuse to enter into territorial talks without first obtaining clear security.
Last week, Kiev announced it would draw up an updated plan with European input and submit it to the United States.
For Europe, this will be a delicate balance between swaying the terms in favor of Ukraine, pushing back against Russia, and keeping the US president engaged. European diplomats have also denied that the EU is considered a “warmonger” in the eyes of the Trump administration or that it could harm Ukraine.
One idea being floated is that Ukraine could abandon its long-held desire to join NATO in exchange for security and increased EU membership in a new 20-point plan that streamlines the 28-point deal negotiated by Moscow.
Reports suggest an entry date of January 1, 2027.
One diplomat told Euronews that the process is merit-based and enlargement would be neither realistic nor desirable as it would imply a broader reform agenda.
But by putting a date on the paper, Ukraine moves the discussion from “if” to “when” and puts the ball in the EU’s court. For the United States, this is a way to impose further responsibility on the bloc.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has insisted that although the country belongs to the EU, it still needs to take steps to become a member.
The commission has resisted portraying Ukraine’s accession as politically motivated. Setting a date for when the reforms are complete and the process is complete contradicts this.
Reparation loan to Ukraine expires
Even if Kiev, the Trump administration, and the EU are ultimately able to stabilize a trilateral peace deal, there is no guarantee that Moscow’s war will end immediately.
Indeed, Russia is likely to reject any agreement acceptable to Ukraine at this stage and will not pay compensation for the damage suffered.
European countries have not abandoned the idea of issuing compensation loans to Ukraine using frozen assets, mostly held in Belgium.
This would create a direct funding channel, with Russia paying the cost rather than European taxpayers. Europeans also argue that this would set a precedent under the principle of “if you break it, you pay.”
Still, Belgium, which holds 185 billion euros of the 210 billion euros in Russian assets frozen in Europe, resists the idea and is seeking alternatives.
The hard line adopted by Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Weber reflects the Belgian government’s concerns about possible retaliation and legal setbacks. But it also shows that there is a broader mood among Belgium’s political class and public opinion that does not think it is a good idea.
A European diplomat told Euronews that Mr de Wever’s resistance was no bluff. They say it has cross-party political support and is doing well with Belgian voters.
“Don’t underestimate it,” the diplomat said. A poll released on Monday found that 63% of Belgians support De Wever’s continued call for Plan B.
For the majority of the council, which represents leaders from 27 countries, there is no Plan B.
Admittedly, it is not as efficient or effective as converting assets into a €90 billion compensation loan in 2026-2027. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kalas told reporters on Monday that reparation financing was under pressure from all sides, including the United States.
Some officials are concerned that the Trump administration will use frozen assets for commercial purposes as part of a postwar investment deal with Russia. At times, that will be consistent with President Trump’s mercantilist foreign policy.
To avoid that, the EU last week agreed to permanently immobilize Russian assets under its jurisdiction, using a legal workaround under Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which applies to economic emergencies.
Still, there is a growing impression that the EU has exhausted its options to make reparations financing work if other countries, including Belgium and Italy seeking alternatives, block it.
Mercosur agreement signed to counter President Trump’s tariffs
Ever since the Trump administration introduced sweeping tariffs around the world, including a 15% tariff on the European Union, effectively tripling tariffs on European goods, Brussels has argued it needs to diversify its trade relationships and open new markets for European products.
After more than two decades of psychological drama, the EU is closer than ever to concluding the Mercosur agreement, which will open up trade with Brazil, as well as Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.
The EU argues that multilateralism, as well as a trade opportunity, has become a geopolitical imperative, at a time when multilateralism and its interests are under intense scrutiny.
The EU sees itself as a champion of rules-based trade.
The deal appeared to be on track with the European Commission and Germany backing it and the inclusion of new safeguards to quell anger among European farmers, but France, whose lobby is so powerful in shaping EU agricultural policy and budget subsidies, is now calling for the vote to be postponed.
Obtaining the required majority for passage remains unclear.
Poland and Hungary have joined France in opposing the deal, while Belgium plans to abstain and Austria is leaning against it. The Netherlands and Ireland have not yet taken a position, and Italy’s position on the vote is unclear, given the domestic mood around the deal, which is decades old and comes with harmful baggage.
A diplomat from a country supporting the deal said Europe would be seen as “ridiculous” if it didn’t get Mercosur across the finish line by the end of the year.
Ms von der Leyen is scheduled to leave for Brazil on December 20, but that will depend on the outcome of the vote and whether France can secure an 11th-hour majority. If so, Mercosur is “effectively over,” the diplomat said.
French authorities maintain that concerns about unfair competition and environmental standards are legitimate and need to be taken into account. Mercosur supporters, including Germany and Spain, say the issue is well settled and the deal should be seen in a broader, more complex geopolitical context.
The only thing that is certain at this stage is that it will be sent to the wire.