The following is a translation of an article written by the Minister for Regional Development and Public Administration and a researcher at the Europe Strategy Research Institute Tibor Navracsics, originally published on the Five Minutes Europe blog of Ludovika.hu.

At the end of December this year, the second von der Leyen Commission will conclude its first full year. After a difficult formation process, the Commission, which has set itself ambitious global political goals, will have a good opportunity to conduct a preliminary assessment at the end of 2025.

When it took office, the body led by Ursula von der Leyen organized its goals around seven priorities, promising renewal in various areas, including improving competitiveness, enhancing social security, and increasing global political engagement. In the words of the Commission President, Europe has reached a crossroads, a point where it must not only find new answers to the problems that have become familiar in the history of European integration but also preserve the fundamental characteristics of the European political structure. In other words, the European Commission’s task is not only to ensure smooth policy cooperation, but also to ensure that ‘the democratic centre remains the dominant political force in Europe’.

This unusual mission was complemented by an equally unusual international political goal, as it called for the European Union to play a more active role in the coming period. As stated on page 16 of the document on political priorities: ‘The best investment in European security is investing in the security of Ukraine.’ In addition to the policy objectives, these new elements are what the Commission President intends to use to lay the foundations for the historic mission of the second von der Leyen Commission. The past year has been spent laying the foundations for and achieving these objectives.

‘The best investment in European security is investing in the security of Ukraine’

The publication summarizing the results of the first year says relatively little about the achievements in these areas, focusing instead on the fulfilment of policy objectives. It largely confines itself to statements such as that the multiannual financial framework for 2028–2034 will guarantee the rule of law within the EU. Regarding Ukraine, the document states that the freedom of Ukrainians is also the freedom of Europe, and therefore, the European Union will continue to provide stable support to Ukraine until a just and lasting peace is achieved in the country.

However, the end of the first full year did not bring convincing success, even in terms of policy objectives. One of the most important goals, improving the competitiveness of the EU, can only be considered a task for the distant future, even though the European Competitiveness Compass, which was created based on the conclusions of last year’s European Council meeting in Budapest, broke down the work to be done into short-term tasks. The first draft of the multiannual financial framework, although undoubtedly not lacking in bold ideas, does not yet have the support of the majority of Member States and the European Parliament.

‘The end of the first full year did not bring convincing success, even in terms of policy objectives’

However, it is in the area of geopolitical engagement that the Commission has achieved the least. In its defence, it should be said that it had to achieve its already ambitious goals in a more complex international environment than ever before. It is a remarkable achievement that in just four months, the Commission managed to finalize the SAFE initiative, a €150 billion financial instrument that Member States can use for defence investments, and that the Readiness 2030 initiative will support an additional €800 billion in defence investments over the next four years.

At the same time, efforts to establish a defence union are undermined by the Commission’s failure in one of the most important international political arenas, namely the negotiations to end the Russo–Ukrainian war. The EU’s exclusion from the negotiation process is a failure for the Commission, which may take its toll on the wavering confidence of Member States in the future. In view of this lack of results, many once again see national solutions or NATO cooperation as the real solution, which represents a serious loss of prestige for the Commission.

Although the first full year brought policy successes, the Commission has not yet been able to achieve any real success in any of the key areas. The extremely uncertain international political situation and the Commission’s declining authority as a result of its failures do not bode well for the future.

Save what can be saved: instead of pursuing global political ambitions, the College of Commissioners should focus on its traditional task of encouraging and facilitating policy cooperation between Member States. The whole of Europe would benefit from this change of role.

Related articles:

Click here to read the original article.