Subscribe
The annual State of the Union address delivered by the President of the European Commission is one of the most significant events in the European political calendar, serving as a strategic synthesis and direction for EU policies in the coming months. Ursula von der Leyen’s latest speech addressed issues of international and domestic relevance affecting the entire Union, ranging from the war in Ukraine and support for Kiev to the complex Israeli-Palestinian situation. She also addressed issues such as European security, common defence, ecological transition and strategies to reduce energy dependence on external fossil fuels. More than concrete contents, the address highlighted the multiplicity of interpretations and reactions across the various political families of the European Parliament. These reactions not only reflect a debate on specific choices, but also reflect deeper tensions within the Union’s institutional architecture, linked to the overall vision of Europe’s geopolitical role, its capacity for self-defence and the future direction of economic and environmental policies. In this context, von der Leyen’s speech serves as a reflection of the contradictions and convergences between political groups, highlighting how European cohesion remains a delicate objective, still partially unconsolidated despite calls for unity and collective responsibility.
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND THE DIVISION BETWEEN EUROPEANISTS AND SOVEREIGNISTS
One of the most discussed points of the speech concerns the European Union’s commitment to Ukraine. Von der Leyen reiterated the need for political, economic, and military support for Kyiv, proposing innovative measures such as the use of proceeds from frozen Russian assets. The political families supporting the Commission—the People’s Party, Socialists, Liberals, and Greens—welcomed this approach, seeing it as a sign of resolve and shared responsibility. Eurosceptic and far-right forces, on the other hand, expressed strong opposition. The absence of their representatives from the chamber, save for a few members such as the German AfD, was a clear political gesture of dissent. The criticisms raised concern the economic and geopolitical risks of a prolonged engagement in Ukraine, perceived by these forces as a burden on European taxpayers and as a choice that could drag Europe into an unwanted conflict.
THE GAZA ISSUE AND INTERNAL FRACTURES
The speech also devoted ample space to the crisis in the Middle East. The president condemned Hamas and reaffirmed her support for the two-state solution, along with the proposal for a European reconstruction mechanism for Gaza. These positions gained support from moderate and progressive forces, who interpreted them as an attempt to balance support for Israel with a clear stand in favour of Palestinian rights. However, there was also disagreement within the pro-European camp. Some sectors of the moderate right saw these proposals as a risk of diplomatic friction with Tel Aviv, and some groups openly contested the idea of sanctions against extremist Israeli ministers and violent settlers. The differences that emerged in the chamber highlight how European foreign policy remains a highly polarized area, with the difficulty of reconciling support for Israel’s security with recognition of Palestinian aspirations.
COMMON DEFENSE AND THE EASTERN FLANK
Another central issue was European security. Von der Leyen insisted on the need to strengthen common defence and invest in advanced surveillance tools, such as the construction of a “drone wall” to protect the eastern flank. Parties belonging to the so-called “Ursula Majority” welcomed these proposals, emphasizing the need for greater European strategic autonomy within the framework of NATO. Conversely, nationalist forces accused the president of wanting to drag Europe toward excessive militarization, subordinating national interests to a community agenda perceived as distant from citizens’ priorities. For these currents, strengthening European defence is nothing more than a way to justify increasing military spending at the expense of welfare and national sovereignty.
THE ECOLOGICAL TRANSITION AND THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
The part of the speech relating to the ecological transition, and specifically the automotive sector, highlighted another fault line. Von der Leyen reiterated the goal of making the European electric car market competitive, emphasizing the need to counter Chinese competition. This position was applauded by Greens and progressives, who saw it as a confirmation of Europe’s commitment to fighting climate change. However, reactions were more cautious among the grassroots, where concerns persist about the impact on industry and employment, especially in countries with a strong manufacturing tradition. The far right, however, has radically challenged the European green strategy, accusing it of penalizing citizens with high costs and jeopardizing the competitiveness of European companies.
DECISION-MAKING RULES AND THE ISSUE OF UNANIMITY
One of the most sensitive proposals put forward by von der Leyen concerns overcoming the principle of unanimity in foreign policy, in favour of qualified majority voting. This proposal was welcomed by federalist and progressive forces, who see this reform as an indispensable tool for making the Union more effective and capable of responding rapidly to crises. However, the reaction from governments and conservative parties was harsh, interpreting the idea as a direct attack on national sovereignty. Statements by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, albeit indirect, appeared in the chamber as the main points of criticism of the President.
TENSIONS BETWEEN POLITICAL FORCES
No less significant was the internal conflict between Europe’s main political families. The leader of the European People’s Party, Manfred Weber, criticized the Socialists for their lack of accountability on trade matters and their management of transatlantic alliances. His words prompted an immediate reaction from the Socialist group leader, Iratxe García Pérez, who accused Weber himself of being the main obstacle to the unity of the pro-European majority. This exchange of accusations highlighted the fragility of the political balance on which the current Commission is based, demonstrating that support for von der Leyen is not without internal tensions, especially in view of the upcoming European elections. Ursula von der Leyen’s speech highlighted more clearly and sharply than in previous years the deep divisions that pervade the European political landscape, highlighting the internal tensions between the various political families and the difficulty of translating declarations of principle into a lasting, operational consensus. On the one hand, the Commission President forcefully emphasized the importance of the Union’s unity and cohesion in the face of global challenges, ranging from support for Ukraine and the management of the Middle East crisis, to the construction of a common European defence and the ecological transition. On the other hand, the reactions of the parliamentary groups showed that divergences remain profound, with differing positions on key issues such as security strategy, foreign policy, energy policies, and the reform of the Union’s decision-making rules. These differences highlighted how the European project remains complex, fragmented, and often contested, even among avowed supporters of integration. The so-called “Ursula majority,” although existing and formally cohesive, appears to be riddled with internal contradictions that could amplify as the European elections approach, revealing the tensions between political realism and idealistic aspirations in managing common challenges. Beyond official positions, the debate generated by the speech highlights the need for ongoing dialogue and strategic compromises to ensure that the initiatives proposed by the Commission can be translated into concrete actions without undermining the Union’s credibility internationally. In this context, von der Leyen’s leadership is measured not only by her ability to set the course, but also by her ability to mediate between diverging political visions, strengthening Europe’s image as a coherent and responsible actor in the face of global challenges.