In early March, Emmanuel Macron’s remarks on potential Western troop deployment in Ukraine sparked controversy, dominating political discourse. Despite opposition, he emphasized the weight of his words on Russian aggression. EU leaders convened in Brussels for a war council on March 21, coinciding with Russia’s declaration of a “state of war”. Over 150 Russian missiles struck Ukraine, prompting criticism of delayed support and European inaction. Ursula von der Leyen, confirmed as the EPP’s top candidate for the EU elections, faces criticism for policy shifts. Legislative delays, exemplified by opposition from Hungary, highlight challenges in reconciling divergent EU interests, particularly on environmental policies. The delay in adopting flagship nature conservation policies underscores ongoing disagreements among Member States. Austria and six other States seek to delay and weaken the implementation of the EU’s Anti-Deforestation Regulation.
In early March, French President Emmanuel Macron sparked controversy by not ruling out the deployment of Western troops in Ukraine, defending his stance as meticulously considered. This issue has dominated recent political discourse. Despite opposition, Macron stressed during a visit to Paris’s 2024 Olympic Village that every word he utters on Russian aggression holds significant weight. On March 20, following a leaders’ conference backing Kyiv, Macron indicated the possibility of deploying ground troops to Ukraine, prompting mixed reactions within NATO. While most allies opposed the idea, Estonia and Lithuania offered partial support. Macron’s administration contextualized his remarks, by emphasizing potential roles like mine clearance and arms production involving Western engagement in Ukraine.
On March 21, EU leaders convened in Brussels for a highly anticipated war council. Simultaneously, Moscow declared Russia’s “state of war” and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu unveiled the formation of two new ground armies. Thus, Lithuanian official Gabrielius Landsbergis warned of Russia’s increasing mobilization. Overnight, over 150 Russian missiles struck Ukraine, targeting critical infrastructure, including the Zaporizhia hydroelectric dam, with persisting daily bombardments. Ukrainian President Zelensky criticized allies for unmet promises, while EU leaders expressed contentment after a seemingly fruitful summit.
Macron cautioned against Ukraine’s swift decline, but pledged EU support, although concrete arms announcements were notably absent. Only Estonia committed €20 million in aid, raising questions about the delay in supplying promised arms to Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz rejected providing long-range missiles to prevent escalation, and Washington urged Kyiv to cease attacks on Russian refineries. This European inaction drew criticism as Ukraine faced ammunition shortages. French General Burkhard emphasized the importance of European readiness for future security, with NATO playing a vital role. While efforts to prevent escalation are crucial, swift action may become inevitable.
Additionally, Ukraine sought €5 billion from profits on frozen Russian assets held by Euroclear. However, the EU planned to utilize only proceeds generated after February 15, 2024, leaving €5 billion for Euroclear to cover potential legal expenses. Legal constraints prevented backdating, and Euroclear would retain 3% of the proceeds for efficiency purposes. Furthermore, Euroclear maintained a 10% safety net, retrievable by the EU if legal risks didn’t materialize by 2027. Despite US pressure for asset confiscation, the EU opted to use investment proceeds due to legal and financial concerns.
Three months before the EU elections, projections show the European People’s Party (EPP) leading with 181 seats, followed by S&D with 140, and RE with 82. The informal coalition of these parties secures an absolute majority in the Parliament. ID gains one seat, reaching 92, while ECR gains three, totaling 83. G/EFA drops to 49 seats, and Left gains three, totaling 45. NI decreases by five to 44, and unaffiliated parties are expected to have four seats.
The election is expected to see a massive surge in support for the far right, driven by European public dissatisfaction with the recent wave of illegal immigration. In an attempt to meet this challenge, mainstream parties and European political elites seem to be settling on a twofold strategy. First, they are trying to neutralize migration as a political issue by imitating right-wing policies. The European Union’s new migration pact, adopted in December, is a clear example of this strategy, as it is France’s recent migration law, which was largely drafted by the right and the far right. Second, European elites hope to change the narrative in their favor by promoting a
The election is expected to see a massive surge in support for the far right, driven by European public dissatisfaction with the recent wave of illegal immigration. In an attempt to meet this challenge, mainstream parties and European political elites seem to be settling on a twofold strategy. First, they are trying to neutralize migration as a political issue by imitating right-wing policies. The European Union’s new migration pact, adopted in December, is a clear example of this strategy, as it is France’s recent migration law, which was largely drafted by the right and the far right. Second, European elites hope to change the narrative in their favor by promoting a vision of European success centered on the EU’s response to Russia’s war on Ukraine, the climate crisis, and the Covid pandemic.
But some recent surveys in 12 EU countries that account for three-quarters of the seats in the European Parliament – Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden – show that both strategies are likely to backfire. While the former risks to overemphasizing the role of migration policy, the latter could end up inadvertently mobilizing voters for anti-European parties by highlighting precisely those issues where public opinion tends to align with the right.
The EPP has confirmed Ursula von der Leyen as its top candidate for the upcoming European elections. Despite some opposition, she received strong support at the EPP congress in Bucharest. Von der Leyen, known for her handling of crises such as the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has instead recently been criticized for her policy shifts and isolation within the Commission. As the clear frontrunner, she aims to secure the role of European Commission President with the backing of EU leaders and the European Parliament.
However, her main rival, the Socialist Nicolas Schmit, is not expected to pose a significant challenge. Von der Leyen has pledged to prioritize peace, prosperity, and security, and has promised to support Ukraine and tackle climate change. Her party’s manifesto includes controversial proposals such as outsourcing asylum applications and creating a European Defense Union. As the campaign intensifies, she faces the task of balancing her Commission duties with her role as EPP candidate, while navigating complex political dynamics within the EU.
The fact that – for the first time in the EU’s history – the incumbent President of the European Commission, von der Leyen, is standing as the top candidate of one of the political families, the European People’s Party, is a great opportunity for the pro-European majority to have a leader with strong popular legitimacy, but, on the other hand, it could lead to a focus from the mainstream parties on the EU’s successes alone, which could backfire.
Many Europeans, including mainstream voters, perceive pro-European leaders as having hidden agendas, such as raising energy prices and transferring power to the EU. Climate policy is particularly divisive, with many preferring to reduce energy bills rather than prioritize climate action, highlighting the complex attitudes towards environmental initiatives.
At the Environment Council meeting, on 25 March, 14 countries, including Germany, France and Spain, called for swift adoption of the EU’s flagship nature conservation policy. However, Hungary, which recently joined the opposition, caused a delay in the final vote. The compromise agreement, successfully negotiated between the Council and the EU Parliament in November 2023, was narrowly approved by EU lawmakers in February.
The vote has been postponed avoiding a rejection due to Hungary’s withdrawal of support. Supporters emphasized the essential role of nature conservation in the fight against climate change, stressing its immediate benefits and responsibility towards future generations. However, Hungary remained defiant, arguing that the proposal lacked the necessary flexibility for implementation by Member States. Italy and Finland opposed the compromise text as well. The proposal was seen as an opportunity to generate new income for farmers, but Hungary and Italy expressed concerns about the additional burdens on the agricultural sector.
Despite this, the Belgian Presidency is determined to rally support for the legislation, acknowledging the challenge of reviving it if it is not agreed before the European elections. Overall, while several countries underlined the urgency of adopting the nature protection policy, opposition from Hungary and others highlighted ongoing disagreements over implementation and sectoral impacts. The delay in the vote reflects the complexities involved in reconciling the divergent interests and priorities of EU member states, particularly when it comes to environmental regulation and agricultural policy.
This situation pairs with Austria and six other EU Member States that are seeking to delay and weaken the implementation of the EU’s Anti-Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by seeking exemptions for small-scale farmers. They argue that the regulation imposes an undue administrative burden on the agricultural sector and could hinder organic farming. This move is opposed and criticized by representatives of the organic sector and environmental NGOs, who claim that any changes to the regulation would undermine its effectiveness in combating deforestation.
hello@haizum.eu
P. IVA 12561140968
Via Pattari, 6, 20122 Milano MI
© 2022 Created by ABCPRODUCTION.digital
