Two separate motions of censure concerning the EU’s policies on Gaza and trade agreements have been tabled in the European Parliament for European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, one by far-right groups and the other by left-wing groups. In this regard, Von der Leyen stated that the EU is facing challenges both internally and externally, and that rivals are both provoking and exploiting divisions within Europe, saying, “This is a trap. And we must not fall for it…”[i]
Although it is predicted that the no-confidence vote on October 9, 2025, will not result in Von der Leyen being forced to resign, the words chosen in the statement are important in that they contain messages beyond the response to the no-confidence vote. Of course, Von der Leyen’s response to the two no-confidence motions directed at her is primarily an attempt to defend herself personally and protect her leadership. However, on the other hand, this statement must be seen as a reflection of the political fragility within the EU. In recent years, the EU has faced various challenges, both in terms of internal crises and foreign policy. Due to issues such as the Russia-Ukraine War, increasing security concerns, the energy crisis, the economy, rising populism, and migration, it is becoming increasingly difficult to preserve the political unity of the Union.
Under the leadership of von der Leyen, the Commission aims to promote policies that support European sovereignty and integrity in areas such as defense, energy, the green transition, digitalization, and supply chains, with the goal of enhancing coordination between member states and the European Union. Such approaches, which increase the centralization of decision-making processes, are seen as Brussels-centered impositions by countries with high sovereignty sensitivities, such as Hungary and Slovakia. This highlights the emerging Political Europe-Sovereign Europe divide between core countries, such as Germany, France, and the Netherlands, and peripheral countries, including Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and, to some extent, Italy, triggering division within the EU. All of these points highlight the need to redefine the EU’s identity in order to strengthen the sense of unity.
When examined in detail, Von der Leyen’s statement can be seen as a rhetorical reflection of the quest for political unity, constructed to redefine European identity and neutralize the opposition’s objections, rather than a personal defense. Indeed, with the statement “this is a trap,” Von der Leyen is shifting the issue from democratic debate to the realm of security. She presents internal problems in Europe as a move orchestrated by external actors seeking to divide Europe. Von der Leyen then strengthens the perception of threat by stating that “Putin is trying to pit Europeans against each other,” directly targeting Putin.
The targeting of Putin highlights a security concern that has been frequently referenced in the EU’s official discourse since 2022. Indeed, considering Russia’s disinformation campaigns, its ties to the European far right, its indirect interference in elections, and the Russia-Ukraine War, it is easy for Von der Leyen to highlight Putin as a realistic and credible threat to Europe and place him in the category of the other. Indeed, Von der Leyen, who says, “We must not fall for this,” easily constructs a us-them dichotomy, and an internal EU political crisis is redefined as a discourse of external threat.
When the no-confidence motion is assessed based on the current definition, Von der Leyen positions herself as a cautionary, unifying leader defending European security at a time when criticism of the Commission is intensifying, while also attempting to rebuild internal political unity by delegitimizing the criticism. At the same time, this definition also shows that the “other” mechanism, historically used in the construction of the EU’s identity, has been reactivated. In the classic us-them distinction, Putin is portrayed as a “divisive force” targeting European unity. The emphasis is on the vital importance of unity against the “enemy setting traps for Europeans,” namely, Putin, for the survival of the EU. Thus, Europe’s identity, the nature of the threat, and the importance of unity are reiterated, and the European identity is rebuilt based on the perception of external threats rather than values such as democracy and equality. In other words, Von der Leyen’s statement shows that the Union’s identity is based on a shared perception of threat rather than shared values.
In this context, criticism within the EU is defined as serving the enemy’s purposes, and criticism and opposition are targeted as “threats.” Indeed, while EU institutions are exempt from criticism in the name of unity and solidarity, supporting a motion of censure creates the perception that it is equivalent to falling into Putin’s trap.
Of course, accepting criticism and opposition in this way as an extension of external intervention contradicts the EU’s principles of transparency and accountability. Mechanisms such as no-confidence votes are mechanisms that monitor the Commission’s activities. While the Commission’s decisions are not considered risks stemming from individual mistakes or political preferences but rather as necessary measures taken for the survival and security of the union, presenting criticism as external interference may strengthen the sense of unity in the short term but, in the long term, reduce the effectiveness of democratic control mechanisms and centralize decision-making processes. In other words, this approach, which strengthens the Brussels-centered decision-making mechanism, damages pluralism and the democratic identity of the EU. However, transparency, accountability, and pluralism are among the fundamental values of the EU. Any erosion of these values deepens the center-periphery divide within the EU and weakens cohesion by highlighting cultural and political differences.
In conclusion, European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen’s statement in response to the no-confidence motion may appear at first glance to be a personal defense, but it actually has a deep political background. With her statement, Von der Leyen has redefined the internal cohesion of the EU in terms of security by linking internal political criticism to external enemies. On the one hand, a no-confidence motion was tabled in the guise of a division plan instigated by the EU’s enemy, Russia, while on the other hand, the Commission, led by Von der Leyen, is portrayed as the last bastion defending the Union. In this way, linking internal EU problems to foreign policy can be seen as a move that will strengthen solidarity in the short term. However, considering that the legitimacy of the EU, a multinational structure, is based on democratic institutions and control mechanisms, attempting to limit criticism through external threats will clearly confront the EU with long-term consequences, such as weakening institutional legitimacy and increasing resistance against Brussels.
[i] “Von der Leyen: ‘Putin’in tuzağına düşmeyin’”, Euronews, https://tr.euronews.com/2025/10/06/von-der-leyen-putinin-tuzagina-dusmeyin, (Date Accessed: 08.10.2025).
