Beginning on 28 February 2026, numerous statements were issued by world leaders regarding the escalating conflict following the attacks carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran and Iran’s retaliatory actions, which also involved countries in the region. Among these statements, one of the most notable came from the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. Two messages she published on her X account in particular attracted attention.
In one of her statements, in which she did not mention the United States or Israel in any way, von der Leyen directly targeted Iran by stating that renewed hope had emerged for the Iranian people who have long suffered and that their right to determine their own future is strongly supported. She added that Iran must end its reckless and indiscriminate attacks against its neighbors and sovereign states, and that a credible transition process for Iran should include the suspension of both its nuclear and ballistic missile programs as well as the end of its destabilizing actions in the region. She also stated that the overall situation would be addressed at the Security College meeting, emphasizing that Europe must be prepared for the consequences of recent developments in areas ranging from energy and nuclear issues to migration and security. Furthermore, she underlined that, in terms of regional security and stability, it is of utmost importance to prevent further escalation of tensions caused by Iran’s unjust attacks against its regional partners.[i]
In another statement, she described the situation as “brutal”,[ii] she criticized the “Iranian regime” and concluded by saying, “We call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint, protect civilians, and fully respect international law,” thereby making a rather muted reference to the European Union’s increasingly less credible emphasis on democracy, human rights, and international law. Von der Leyen’s second message focused on the possibility of a mass migration wave reaching the European Union via Türkiye because of the war in Iran. Referring to her telephone conversation with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, she stated that she appreciated Erdoğan’s efforts regarding the potential impact of this crisis on migration and emphasized that they were already working in close cooperation on Syria.[iii]
When Ursula von der Leyen’s statements, which are essentially pro United States and pro-Israel and centered on fears of refugees, are examined through these two messages, it becomes possible to conduct a broader reading of the crises the European Union has been experiencing for a long time, particularly its institutional problems as well as its challenges in the fields of security and defense, economy, and politics. However, it is first necessary to examine how the European Union gradually entered into these crises.
The origins of the European Union should be sought in the belief that the European continent, which had collapsed economically after the Second World War, had lost its position as a global power center, and had limited capacity to counter the security threats it perceived from the Soviet Union, could only regain strength and protect itself through unity. Efforts to establish the European Defense Community, the creation of the Western European Union, and later the establishment of the core communities of the European Union, namely the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community), Euratom (European Atomic Energy Community), and the EEC (European Economic Community), were products of this idea. However, particularly in the fields of security and defense, the establishment of NATO under the leadership of the United States and Europe’s decision to leave its defense and security needs to NATO reduced its autonomy in this area, while the desire for unity in foreign policy was not accepted by the member states of the communities at the time. Therefore, the main area of integration for these communities, which have been referred to as the European Communities since 1967, remained the economy.
Beginning in the 1970s, as the number of member states gradually increased, the Community began to work on institutional structuring as well as issues related to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Following the 1973 Economic Crisis, the Community began to aim not only for economic integration but also for social, cultural, and political unity. From the 1980s onward, and especially in the early 1990s after the end of the Cold War, the Community adopted the name European Union and moved toward the idea of common policies and unity in almost every field. In this context, the Maastricht Treaty, which entered into force in 1993, along with other founding treaties, aimed at full integration in the areas of economic union, common foreign and defense policy, and justice and home affairs. In addition, the European Union sought to become an influential actor in global politics.
In order to become a prominent actor in global politics in the New World Order, the European Union placed particular emphasis on democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and respect for minority rights in the political sphere, which were also determined as criteria for new members. In the economic sphere, adaptation to a free-market economy was emphasized. In this context, the European Union’s attempts to increase its global influence through normative values, combined with the motivation of membership, succeeded in becoming an important catalyst for democratization and Europeanization processes. From the mid-1970s, Greece, Spain, and Portugal benefited from this influence, and from the 1990s until the mid-2000s the former Eastern Bloc countries and Türkiye also experienced similar processes. Thus, during these years the European Union became an important economic power and model through economic integration, while at the same time gaining global political prestige through its aim of establishing a political union based on normative values. In this way, the European Union gained importance not only for current and prospective member states but also for countries included within its neighborhood policy.
However, from the mid-2000s to the present day, the crises the European Union has experienced have turned into a cluster of existential problems for the Union. The rejection of the European Constitution in 2005, which could be seen as the peak of political integration, the economic crisis of 2008 that pushed several member states with weaker economies, particularly Greece, to the brink of bankruptcy, the weakening of the European Union’s institutional structure following the major enlargement of 2004, the refugee crisis that reached its peak in 2015 and eroded the common refugee policy, and finally the Russia Ukraine War that has continued from 2022 until today have pushed the European Union to set aside its political prestige built on normative values and prioritize economic, security, and defense issues. In addition to all these developments, the statements made by United States President Donald Trump regarding Greenland and NATO have revealed the need for restructuring within the European Union under the framework of the policy of strategic autonomy.
In this context, when this overall picture is combined with the statements made by the President of the European Commission, these statements can be analyzed in four dimensions: institutional, economic, political, and security and defense.
Problems in the institutional structure of the European Union, such as issues related to internal democracy within the institutions, problems of institutional representation, and cumbersome bureaucratic processes, have long been on the agenda. However, together with these statements it appears that the threefold decision-making mechanism consisting of the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Council has lost further strength. For example, some analysts and politicians argue that von der Leyen has effectively engaged in a form of power usurpation and ignored institutional hierarchy. According to the European Union treaties, authority to make foreign policy statements formally belongs to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, who began making more statements and expressing views parallel to von der Leyen after the criticisms, and to the President of the European Council, Antonio Costa, who is responsible for representing the European Union externally. Moreover, while foreign policy decisions are expected to reflect the common view of all 27 member states, the fact that Spain, Belgium, and later France expressed positions that did not fully align with von der Leyen’s statements appears to have delivered another blow to the European Union’s understanding of a common foreign policy and to the principle of the rule of law.[iv]
When the economic dimension of the statements is examined, the weakening of the Western centered economic system and institutions in the face of China after the 2008 Economic Crisis led the European Union, previously described as an economic giant within the Western centered economy, to lose its global competitiveness. The gradual loss of its potential to remain a global economic power in comparison with the United States and China, together with the emergence of energy security concerns following the refugee crisis and the Russia Ukraine War, has made the European Union more dependent on a United States and Israel centered trade and economic system. Although the European Union has attempted to reduce this dependency through its Strategic Autonomy policy by concluding advanced partnership agreements with Chile, New Zealand, and India, establishing raw material and energy agreements with Central Asian and African countries such as Namibia and Kazakhstan, and signing digital trade agreements with Singapore and Japan, the outcomes of this policy have not yet fully materialized.
The Russia Ukraine War that began in 2022 brought the European Union’s energy dependency and security needs to their peak, while Trump’s statements regarding Greenland and NATO pushed the European Union, whose security and defense strategy has been largely centered on the United States since the Cold War, into a search for new security arrangements. As reflected in the statements of European Union officials and member states, one or more issues in almost every sector have been securitized, and the perception has become widespread that the European Union is surrounded by numerous threats in the fields of security and defense..[v] While military and political securitization focuses on common issues, concerns related to economic, environmental, and social security have also come to the forefront. The most fundamental and urgent threat that must be addressed is Russia, which has been subjected to military and political securitization. In this context, the European Union’s security perceptions have generally been shaped by what are described as vital and ontological threats, and the response to these threats has been framed as a matter of survival. At this point, the European Union faces a major dilemma. On the one hand, it remains dependent on the United States’ security umbrella against Russia; on the other hand, it seeks to take precautions against the fragility of this umbrella and move toward greater autonomy. Within this framework, the European Union introduced the Strategic Compass in 2022, outlining its security vision until 2030 and deciding to establish a Rapid Deployment Capacity consisting of 5,000 personnel. At the same time, the Union has begun allocating billions of euros in funds such as EDIRPA and ASAP to strengthen its defense industry capacity, adopted new legislation to protect energy infrastructure and digital networks, and defined dependence on Russian gas as a security risk while diversifying supply chains with allied countries. In this way, economic security has been incorporated into the broader concept of national security. However, these initiatives in both the economic and security fields have not yet reached a level that would reduce dependence on the United States and Israel, effectively leaving the European Union with little choice but to adopt such positions in its statements.
Alongside these developments, the European identity of the European Union, built upon normative values and reflected in its internal institutions and external political approach, as well as its emphasis on political integration and common policies across various fields, has gradually eroded due to successive crises. At the same time, these normative values appear to have lost significance in a contemporary global political environment increasingly shaped by power politics and disregard for international law. In particular, these values no longer function as an effective political instrument for the European Union. Consequently, these principles, which the European Union itself has begun to abandon even in its responses to international developments, are increasingly perceived by other countries as empty concepts. This situation has transformed the European Union into an actor that is heavily dependent on the United States and Israel and one whose influence is increasingly disregarded.
In addition to the first message of the President of the European Commission, which reflects a foreign policy closely aligned with the United States, the second message highlights another major crisis that places pressure on the European Union in all four of the aforementioned dimensions: the refugee crisis, which has become the European Union’s most persistent concern since 2015. Individual migration flows from unstable regions since the 1990s and the mass attempts by refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war to reach European Union countries have posed significant challenges for the Union. These developments have strained the European Union institutionally, through disagreements over a common refugee policy; politically, through the rise of xenophobia and the strengthening of far-right movements; economically, through the perception of refugees as a financial burden; and in terms of security, through the need to strengthen border controls. For this reason, Türkiye occupies a central place in von der Leyen’s statements, particularly due to the cooperation that has existed since 2016 regarding Syrian refugees and the need to prevent a potential influx of refugees from Iran.
Under current conditions, it appears quite difficult for the European Union to return to its ambition of becoming an effective global actor in the economic and political spheres based on the normative values it aimed to establish during its founding process. The initiatives undertaken by the European Union within the framework of its “strategic autonomy” policy are entirely focused on the economy and security/defense. Some researchers argue that Europe’s attainment of strategic autonomy in a changing geopolitical environment is no longer a matter of choice but a democratic necessity and that Europe’s security architecture should be reconsidered, and although they emphasize normative values once again by linking the practice of compulsory military service with the concepts of democracy and citizenship on the grounds that it increases social resilience, strengthens democratic values, and develops civic consciousness,[vi] it no longer appears very possible under current conditions for the European Union to conduct politics based on these values.
[i] @vonderleyen, “The situation in the Middle East remains volatile”, X, https://x.com/vonderleyen/status/2028431551638179938, (Access Date: 06.03.2026).
[ii] @vonderleyen, “The developments in Iran are greatly concerning”, X, https://x.com/vonderleyen/status/2027691363811090828, (Access Date: 06.03.2026).
[iii] @vonderleyen, “Good phone call @RTErdogan of Türkiye tonight”, X, https://x.com/vonderleyen/status/2028187847136530576, (Access Date: 06.03.2026).
[iv] “ABD-İsrail ve İran savaşı sonrası Leyen’e ‘yetki aşımı’ eleştirileri”, Euronews, https://tr.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/03/03/abd-israil-ve-iran-savasi-sonrasi-leyene-yetki-asimi-elestirileri, (Access Date: 06.03.2026).
[v] “Europe speech”, Elysee, https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2024/04/24/europe-speech, (Access Date: 06.03.2026).
[vi] Pekka E. J. Väisänen 2026. No More Illusions Strategic Autonomy as Europe’s Democratic Imperative, National Defence University Department of Warfare Series 3: Working Papers no. 48. (Access Date: 06.03.2026).
