with contributions from Minna Ålander, Cordelia Buchanan Ponczek, Saila Heinikoski, Manuel Müller, Katariina Mustasilta, Julian Plottka, Sophie Pornschlegel, Federica Prandin, Antti Rauhala, Sanna Salo, and Timo R. Stewart
-
-
Once again, geopolitics was the main topic in Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the European Union address. But there were also many other things that she mentioned, and some that she omitted.
Three and a half years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the war in Europe was at the heart of the State of the European Union address in 2025 as much as it was in 2022. As she does every September, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (CDU/EPP) appeared before the European Parliament today to take stock and announce her most important plans for the coming months. She set the tone right from the start of her speech: “Europe is in a fight,” she claimed, in an “unforgiving” world of “imperial ambitions and imperial wars”. People can “feel the ground shift beneath them,” and “we simply cannot wait for this storm to pass.” Fortunately, she also had a solution at hand: a European “independence moment”, brought about by “unity” among member states, EU institutions and the “pro-European democratic forces” in the European Parliament.
The most impressive moment of the speech also came very early on, when von der Leyen told the story of a Ukrainian teenager (present in the Parliament as a guest) who was kidnapped by Russian soldiers and only freed thanks to the courageous efforts of his grandmother. In general, the threat posed by Russia, which von der Leyen addressed in no uncertain terms, was a key theme of the speech. The fact that Russian drones had entered Polish airspace the night before lent her warnings a very acute urgency. The key phrase “Europe stands in full solidarity with Poland”, while clearly well-intentioned, sounded a little off – after all, Poland is part of Europe, and solidarity is usually shown to others, not oneself. Overall, however, the message was clear: Ursula von der Leyen, the woman that coined the catchphrase of the “geopolitical Commission”, believes that Europe is in danger and is ready to take action.
Of course, Russia and Ukraine were not the only topics covered in this State of the European Union address. Other geopolitical hotspots, such as Gaza and the US, were also addressed, as were economic and social policy, climate and energy, migration policy, and the rule of law. This article provides a collection of short analyses on some key issues of the SOTEU, written by experts from several universities and think tanks. Further information on the speech can be found on the Commission’s website, along with the original multilingual text and an English translation.
Defence: The challenge of “independence”
In this year’s SOTEU speech, almost everything was somehow relevant for the wider question of Europe’s ability to defend itself. The challenges Europe is faced with are not limited to the number of tanks or fighter jets (or drones) European armies have at their disposal, but encompasses everything from digital sovereignty to trade. In many of these areas, Europe’s dependence on the United States (or China) has proven dangerous, if not even fatal. And Ursula von der Leyen set the bar high: she did not speak of “strategic autonomy” anymore, but of Europe’s “independence” moment.
Of the many interesting things von der Leyen said regarding European security and defence, the sentence “Europe will defend every inch of its territory” was perhaps the most remarkable one – because it copies NATO’s 2022 pledge to “defend every inch of Allied territory”. Europe alone, and especially the EU as an institution, has no structures in place today to actually provide collective defence outside of NATO. But that may well be the future. For what it’s worth, the challenge that nobody in Europe has been willing to say out loud is now out there.
Ukraine keeps featuring high up on Europe’s security agenda. The SOTEU speech took place in a dramatic context, with an unprecedented Russian violation of Polish airspace with drones. That Poland and NATO allies shot down some of the drones using highly sophisticated and expensive fighter jets, further underlines the urgency of the announced new initiatives to boost Europe’s catchup with drone technology – such as the Eastern Flank Watch including a drone wall, the Qualitative Military Edge, and the drone alliance with Ukraine.
Minna Ålander • link
Israel: Harsher than previously, but still avoiding direct blame
Von der Leyen reiterated long-standing EU support for a two-state solution, meaning an independent Palestine alongside an independent Israel, and highlighted the efforts of France and Saudi Arabia to further this goal in their upcoming New York Conference. Although the speech was full of passive voice and agentless constructions to avoid placing direct blame on Israel, the tone was harsher than previously. While von der Leyen was careful to mention her long-standing friendship with the people of Israel, underline there would be no place for Hamas and recall the plight of the Israeli hostages, she also mentioned man-made famine in Gaza and “a clear attempt to undermine the two-state solution”.
The speech called for more EU action, while acknowledging the difficulties of achieving unanimity or even majorities. The proposed measures included traditional approaches of dealing with the symptoms of ongoing Israeli occupation, such as setting up a Palestine Donor Group to help repair the massive damage Israel has purposefully created in Gaza. Other measures aimed at creating political pressure. Von der Leyen announced that she would put the Commission’s relatively minor bilateral support to Israel on hold. She also expressed support for a partial suspension of the Association Agreement on trade-related matters and sanctions on what she called “extremist ministers”.
While this has been a path followed by some EU member states, singling out individual ministers makes a disingenuous distinction between them and the Israeli government in whole. After all, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s government is entirely committed to the goal of preventing a Palestinian state and asserting Israeli sovereignty over all the areas it illegally occupies. Netanyahu himself is wanted in the Hague on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including using the war crime of starving the civilian population of Gaza.
Avoiding direct mentions of Israel and Israeli policies directly undermines any attempt to create political pressure on Israel. This in turn undermines von der Leyen’s stated aim of pursuing “the only realistic peace plan”, which she says is “based on two states”.
Timo Stewart • link
US: “Europe’s independence moment” – but independent from whom?
Von der Leyen spent only about three minutes directly naming the United States. But between the lines, the entire speech referred tangentially to the Trump administration’s impact on Europe and the ways that the EU can respond. The reference, within the first few minutes, to “Europe’s independence moment” was striking. The question is “independence from whom?”, and the answer seemed to be: the United States. But this was contradicted by von der Leyen’s insistence on the importance of the transatlantic relationship. What came throughout the speech – on defense and security, competitiveness, technology and energy, society and democracy, partnerships and alliances, determination of destiny – were tacit references to the evolving relationship between the US and EU.
In real terms, von der Leyen defended her tariff deal with the United States, arguing that it protected trade and goods and Europe jobs and was preferable to a trade war with one of the EU’s closest allies. There were important contradictions and omissions, though, and von der Leyen received plenty of pushback from the parliamentary group leaders after her speech. Iratxe García (PSOE/PES) mentioned digital taxes and the need to use the EU’s anti-coercion instrument – things to which Trump, in defending US big tech, has been vehemently opposed. Another issue was picked up by Green leader Bas Eickhout (GL/EGP): The terms of the US-EU trade deal require the EU to buy $750 billion of US energy by 2028. Recently, US Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, noted that an EU shift to buy US LNG over Russian gas would help the US to back tougher sanctions on Russia, which is fundamentally at odds with EU climate goals. All other party responses also mentioned the US; most bemoaned the EU’s weakness.
It was telling that von der Leyen quickly followed up on her defense of the US trade deal with a focus on the need to expand to new partnerships, including a coalition of like-minded countries to focus on rules-based trading – included a shout-out to the CPTPP. It was also notable that she segued from the US section directly into naming new initiatives on research security, with the Choose Europe Package, health, with a new Global Health Resilience Initiative, rule of law, with the European Democracy Shield, protecting against disinformation, with a new European Centre for Democratic Resilience, and independent journalism protection, with a new Media Resilience Programme. All of these – research, health, rule of law, disinformation, and independent journalism – are areas where the United States is backsliding at the moment.
Von der Leyen’s message was clear: the EU must present an alternative vision for itself and for the world, and that vision is independence. Now, it only needs to be operationalized.
Cordelia Buchanan Ponczek • link
Global relations: Enter like-minded partners, exit development cooperation
The EU’s global relations featured unsurprisingly narrowly in this year’s SOTEU, with the speech reflecting the on-going major shift from a Global Europe focused on multilateralism and development cooperation towards a doubling down on trade, investments, and bilateral as well as minilateral international partnerships with like-minded actors. Global partnerships were mainly addressed under the headlines of competitiveness and energy transition as well as a geopolitical need to diversify partners. In the realm of foreign and security policy, Ukraine and Gaza dominated the agenda, with no other conflicts or crises mentioned – not even as a cause of irregular migration.
Beyond the security priorities, the Global Gateway – the EU’s response to China’s Belt and Road initiative and what looks like its new blueprint for international development – was addressed in connection to supporting European clean technology, with von der Leyen stating that the partners invested in through Global Gateway are strongly incentivized to “buy European”. This captures the heavy emphasis in the Global Gateway framework on securing the EU’s, the member states’, and European companies’ interests. However, such incentives can easily backfire on the EU, as many countries in the so-called Global South prefer issue-based and versatile international partnerships and do not like to feel pressured to choose sides in the geopolitical competition.
In terms of the more traditional international development agenda, only global health was explicitly mentioned. In the context of the dismantling of USAID and the huge aid cuts by the United States hitting global health governance, von der Leyen’s announced Global Health Resilience Initiative is certainly welcomed. At the same time, it reflects the changing landscape of international development, including in peacebuilding and fragile contexts, with shrinking aid budgets and a focus on humanitarian aid dominating the agenda.
In a nutshell, the broader global relations in the SOTEU can be summed up as follows: Today’s world is unforgiving, turbulent, and insecure, yet the democratic EU remains open to old and new allies – as long as they buy European!
Katariina Mustasilta • link
Enlargement: Back to the future of 2021
Von der Leyen’s treatment of the enlargement issue showed how fast the policy wheel in Brussels can turn. In her State of the Union speech two years ago, there was need for a “vision for a successful enlargement”, which is a “catalyst for progress.” This year, there were fewer lines dedicated to the topic than there are countries holding candidate status.
Von der Leyen’s call “Let’s make the next reunification of Europe happen”, because “[a] larger and stronger Union is a security guarantee for all of us”, are really nice words. But how should this happen? All the Commission president mentioned was “integrating [the countries] into the Single Market” and following a “merits-based process”. With other words: welcome back in 2021, where there are lukewarm words of welcome, but accession is ultimately treated as a business of the candidate countries.
Any problems with enlargement policy? Maybe in Georgia? No, von der Leyen did not mention Georgia at all. At least, Turkey will now no longer have to feel alone in the group of unrealistic candidates.
Julian Plottka • link
Democracy and the rule of law: Brushing aside internal differences
Von der Leyen said that our “most important task is to protect our democracy”. Judging by her speech, that task today primarily consists of tackling external threats, framed as a precondition for safeguarding Europe’s freedom, independence and, by extension, democracy. Regarding foreign interference and disinformation, in addition to her Commission’s flagship initiative, the European Democracy Shield, von der Leyen proposed a new European Center for Democratic Resilience.
Secondly, referring more to the EU’s internal challenges, von der Leyen emphasized protecting the rule of law. In addition to strengthening the conditionality mechanisms related to the use of EU funds, she proposed a new Rule of Law Cycle, an attempt at centrally monitoring the rule of law in Member States. Third, von der Leyen underlined the significance of independent media and proposed a Media Resilience Program to that end.
Overall, besides citing an aspiration to strengthen the Parliament’s “pro-European majority”, the EU’s internal differences were largely brushed aside. Yet, for her “pitch for unity” of Europe to succeed, navigating the major internal differences not only regarding policy, but also regarding the values of and goals for the Union itself, will be a foremost task in the remainder of her tenure.
Sanna Salo • link
Economic policy: No big solutions for Europe’s growth puzzle
The competitiveness agenda was not at the centre of this year’s State of the Union. In a dark-toned speech, Ursula von der Leyen framed it as one element of Europe’s “Independence Moment,” an instrument of sovereignty rather than a centrepiece of the European policy agenda. Instead of sweeping trillion-euro recovery funds like those mobilised during the pandemic or the European Green Deal, this Commission’s approach has been marked by more modest means if not lesser ambition: focused on the priority ofclean and digital technologies and reducing the bureaucratic cost of regulations for European businesses.
Von der Leyen underlined the need to expand electricity grids for the green transition, build European cloud and AI infrastructure, and support sectors such as the car industry under pressure from global competition. To back these goals, she promised a mix of deeper Single Market integration, new funds to help firms scale, and streamlined rules to cut red tape.
The speech contained no big ticket item to reinvigorate the stagnant European economy but offered a smorgasbord of targeted actions. The Single Market Roadmap, Industrial Accelerator Roadmap, continued work on the Omnibus, European Innovation Act ticked many boxes for those watching the speech with bingo cards in hand for mentions of the Draghi and Letta policy priorities that animated European economic policy debates for the past year. Yet, the scale of the funding announced, only up to ten billion euros at most for initiatives like Scaleup Europe Fund, looks small compared to the transformative ambition the agenda implies and the EU’s past big spending packages.
Von der Leyen’s sharpest diagnosis concerned Europe’s chronic weakness: the lack of growth capital for scaling companies. “We want the best of Europe to stay in Europe,” she declared, warning that financing gaps drive promising firms abroad or leave them outpaced by rivals. But beyond the passing mention of a Savings and Investment Union, there was no real detail on timelines or operationalisation of fully integrated European capitals markets.
The same applied to internal Single Market barriers. The speech promised a Single Market Roadmap to 2028 – but without more concrete steps to dismantle internal barriers or to advance capital markets integration, it risks being remembered more for its accurate diagnosis than for setting the scene for successful structural reforms needed to make the European economy globally competitive.
Antti Rauhala • link
Social policy: Or rather industrial policy?
Social policy played a major role in the political guidelines that Ursula von der Leyen presented in her 2024 re-election bid in the European Parliament (for which she needed the support of the centre-left S&D Group). At that time, she declared the “European social model” to be an essential component of the “European way of life” and proclaimed a “Union of equality” as a goal.
Just over a year later, social policy still featured prominently in the SOTEU. Von der Leyen emphasised that times were tough for many families, declared this a matter of “basic social justice”, and promised that an “ambitious European Anti-Poverty Strategy”, to be drawn up shortly, would help to make it possible to “eradicate poverty by 2050”.
However, she only announced concrete measures relating to “affordability and the cost of living”, which she illustrated using four examples: energy, housing, cars and food. In these areas, her proposed solutions included increasing electricity production and improving grid infrastructure, speeding up building approval procedures and providing more state subsidies for housing construction, launching an investment initiative for “small affordable cars”, and deregulating, subsidizing and protecting the agricultural sector.
All of this sounds more like industrial policy than actual social policy, which is certainly no coincidence. The Commission only needs a qualified majority in the Council to regulate and deregulate markets, whereas redistribution measures in favour of the socially disadvantaged would require unanimous agreement among the member states and are therefore much more difficult to enact. In other words, von der Leyen is doing what she can – and labeling it as a matter of “social justice” to keep the centre-left happy.
Manuel Müller • link
Migration: Nothing new on the migration front
On migration, the SOTEU speech offered no major innovations likely to make headlines. The most notable announcement was the Commission’s plan to treble funding for migration and border management in the next budget. Ursula von der Leyen urged co-legislators to swiftly adopt the EU’s common returns system, referring to the Return Regulation proposed in March, which also includes a framework for establishing return hubs outside the EU. She further stressed the need to implement the Pact on Migration by summer 2026, reminding member states of their obligation to contribute (whether through relocations or financial support) despite some governments already signalling resistance to mandatory solidarity.
The Commission president noted that migrant arrivals to Europe are declining but placed blame for irregular entry squarely on smugglers and traffickers. She pledged that the EU would continue to honour its international obligations, as she said the EU has done in the past. Beyond legislation, she also called for cooperation with online platforms and airlines to curb irregular arrivals, citing flights to Belarus, a point directed particularly at a Polish audience.
Overall, the migration section of the speech was cautious and offered little that was new. It omitted the politically prioritised “migration partnerships” and other “innovative” initiatives related to the external dimension of migration previously promised to be explored, including the related proposal on safe third country regulation currently under discussion in the Council and Parliament. Positioning migration at the very end of the address, while highlighting only increased funding, seems to have been a deliberate choice to keep the issue out of the SOTEU-related headlines. For now, member states remain in the driver’s seat of EU migration policy and at least the Commission president is doing her best not to irritate any political sides on this politicised topic.
Saila Heinikoski • link
Climate and energy: Prioritising economic growth and independence
Ursula von der Leyen framed climate and energy policy within the broader European competitiveness and economic security discourse, portraying the Green Deal not as a standalone environmental imperative but as a tool for reducing dependencies – particularly on Russian fossil fuels – and securing future markets. She reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to 2030 climate targets, citing scientific, economic, and security imperatives, while positioning the bloc as a low-carbon leader.
This geopolitical lens mirrors the discursive shift in EU climate narratives from 2019 onwards, evolving from environmental priorities to geopolitical and security lenses post-Ukraine invasion. Von der Leyen addressed industry and hesitant member states by acknowledging 2040 target fears, promising investments, just transitions, and protections against “unfair competition”. Key measures announced include a single market roadmap by 2028 covering energy, €1.8 billion in equity for battery production, “Made in Europe” requirements for clean tech demand, accelerating the Circular Economy Act, and a new initiative to address eight energy bottlenecks for affordable, homegrown clean energy. She also proposed subsidies for affordable European electric cars and a long-term trade instrument to replace expiring steel safeguards.
These steps align with the Clean Industrial Deal’s ambitions but risk adding regulatory complexity, potentially exacerbating the “Valley of Death” for clean tech commercialization without clearer timelines or mechanisms. Notably omitted were broader environmental priorities beyond climate, such as biodiversity, resource efficiency (outside circularity), or chemicals regulation, signalling a narrowing of the original Green Deal’s scope to favour industrial competitiveness over holistic sustainability. Overall, the speech advanced a pragmatic vision, prioritising economic growth and independence over urgent climate action.
Federica Prandin • link
Multiannual Financial Framework: Many plans requiring funding
Ursula von der Leyen delivered her speech today in a strikingly urgent and alarmist tone. She declared, “Europe is in a fight – for a continent that is whole and at peace, for a free and independent Europe, for our values and our democracies, for our liberty and our ability to determine our destiny, for our future.” She acknowledged the difficult and “unforgiving” geopolitical climate and urged EU member states to move past deadlock and paralysis, stressing the urgency for collective, decisive action.
The EU budget featured only briefly in her address: once in the context of food and agriculture, and once regarding democracy and the rule of law. Von der Leyen noted that agricultural income support for farmers has been ring-fenced in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) – a concession sought by major agricultural lobbies and one that risks limiting meaningful progress toward a green transition in the food sector.
She also emphasised that the Commission’s MFF proposal, published in mid-July, seeks to strengthen the link between EU funding and respect for the rule of law, making it clear that “respecting the rule of law is a must for EU funds.” To fulfill this, the Commission must take a firmer stance than it did in December 2023, when it released funds to Hungary in exchange for Viktor Orbán dropping his veto against a Ukraine support package, despite Hungary’s clear and continuous breach of EU Treaties. The Commission must avoid repeating such concessions.
Overall, many of the proposed measures in her speech, especially in defence and competitiveness, will require adequate funding in the coming years. With EU budget negotiations set to begin soon and the Danish Council Presidency preparing the negotiation toolkit for December, von der Leyen’s most important message was political: a call for member states to overcome paralysis and reach compromise. Europe’s future depends on it.
Sophie Pornschlegel • link
Institutions: “New Europe” needed, but major reform still off the agenda
Starting her speech with a call for a “new Europe”, Ursula von der Leyen only managed to address “real reforms” in the last 180 seconds of her State of the Union speech. A comparison of the few sentences dedicated to institutional reforms at the beginning and at the end of her speech shows considerable inconsistencies in the Commission President’s view on what is needed for a “new Europe”. Initially, she suggested that anything could be achieved if only the member states and EU institutions were united, citing the EU’s response to the pandemic and its support for Ukraine as examples. Later, she admitted that the EU legislators need to act faster.
Her outline of Commission proposals for the EU’s response to the war in Gaza already made clear that Europe is paralysed on this topic. In his response to the speech, the EPP chairperson, Manfred Weber, further emphasised that the real threat to the EU’s ability to act are populist and anti-democratic governments: “We cannot allow Orbán and crazy Fico that they turn the European Union into a foolish organisation.”
Von der Leyen’s concrete proposals how to achieve this are limited: She only referred to the renewed framework agreement between the European Commission and the European Parliament, voiced support for a right of initiative of the European Parliament, and called for more qualified majority voting. Her previous praising of the EU’s crisis management, however, implied that the European Parliament is not at the centre of her idea of institutional reforms. Both during the pandemic and with regard to the EU’s ongoing support for Ukraine, the Parliament has been sidelined and the Commission has worked closely only with the member states.
Such a strengthened intergovernmentalism may serve the short-term institutional interest of the European Commission, but it has also important pitfalls. This governance approach might make crisis decision-making more efficient, but it grants every government a veto. Avoiding political paralyses by means of increased differentiation might be an opportune option but undermines democracy in the long-term.
The SOTEU 2025 shows that institutional reforms remain off the table. The European Parliament’s work on the own initiative report “on the institutional consequences of the EU enlargement negotiations” is therefore likely to have the same fate as the Conference on the Future of Europe: in a few months, only the members of the AFCO Committee will remember it, even though the debate on institutional reforms is actually urgently needed in order to prepare for enlargement.
Julian Plottka • link
|
Minna Ålander is an
Associate Fellow at Chatham House.
|
|
Cordelia Buchanan Ponczek is a
Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs
(FIIA)
and a
Clarendon Scholar and doctoral candidate at the University of
Oxford.
|
|
Saila Heinikoski is a Senior Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA) in Helsinki. |
|
Manuel Müller is a
Senior Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International
Affairs (FIIA)
in Helsinki and
editor of the blog “Der (europäische) Föderalist”.
|
|
Katariina Mustasilta is a Senior Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA) in Helsinki. |
|
|
 |
Sophie Pornschlegel is a Brussels-based political analyst, with a focus on EU politics and institutions, democracy and the rule of law. |
|
Federica Prandin is a Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA) in Helsinki. |
|
Antti Rauhala is an independent policy consultant who has worked on economic development and energy transition issues at the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the OECD. |
|
Sanna Salo is a Senior Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA) in Helsinki. |
|
Timo R. Stewart is a Senior Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA) in Helsinki. |
The contributions reflect solely the personal opinion of the respective authors.
