Insights from Brussels - The Hesitating Giant
We are in “Europe’s moment of independence.” But have the union and the continent really become more independent in 2026?
The title of the European Commission's 2026 Work Programme was a striking recognition of Europe's vulnerable position in a new world, and a clear statement of intent. The choice of "Europe's Independence Moment" marked the position and ambition in the work to reduce Europe's critical dependencies, in order to secure "the freedom and power to determine our own destiny". The programme revolves around measures to ensure European sovereignty, both in terms of security, technology and economy.
No one can argue that the months that have passed have made the perspective of the work programme less relevant. Another energy crisis shows how vulnerable the EU is without control over its own energy supply. Artificial intelligence is so dominated by American companies that the rapid development of technology is just as quickly creating European dependence. China's industrial capacity has reached such a formidable level that it threatens to outcompete European industry in ever new areas. With Trump's threats against Greenland, the relocation of US troops from Europe and a fifth year without a solution to the bloodbath in Ukraine, 2026 has not helped to calm the security policy nerves on the continent either.
Yet the EU appears to be a hesitant giant, caught between long-term ambitions and short-term realities. After all, it takes time to emerge from dependency, and what do you do in the meantime? The problem for EU countries is that most steps towards greater independence can be met with counter-reactions that exploit the dependencies Europe is trying to free itself from. Moreover, what makes sense in the long run can have an immediate cost that voters and businesses cannot easily be persuaded to pay.
Such dilemmas are visible in relation to most of the priority areas that were highlighted last fall.
The rapid rearmament in Europe could paradoxically increase dependence on American weapons systems, because it takes time to develop one's own . "Right now we don't have time," explains the head of the German air force, announcing the purchase of more American aircraft. The asymmetry between Europe and the United States was clearly demonstrated when the EU accepted the Turnberry Agreement last year. The agreement involves a 15 percent tariff on European goods to the United States, and zero tariffs on industrial goods the other way. Consideration for Ukraine and its own security was said to be an important reason why the EU accepted this bias.
China is increasingly being accused of pursuing an unbalanced trade policy, with the surplus from its export machine growing larger and larger. The Chinese trade surplus with the EU has grown by 24 percent in just twelve months . Discussions about stronger European countermeasures are underway , but here too there is hesitation. In many European capitals, the fear of coming out on the losing side of a trade war is great, and the desire to lose access to advanced and cheap Chinese products is small.
In June, the Commission launched a “technological sovereignty package” , with ambitious plans to develop European microchip production, as well as its own data centres and cloud services. A few weeks later, it followed up by fining Google €890 million for abusing market power. The decision could ignite a long-running row between the EU and the US, where such fines are seen as unfair taxation of US companies. In any case, critics say there is still too much of a gap between the EU’s ambitions and the tools on the table: “If we continue to grow the way we have been growing, we will spend a hundred years catching up with Microsoft,” one business leader told Euractiv about Europe’s tech sector.
What about perhaps the most critical dependency of all, energy? In a previous edition of this column, I wrote about how the EU is intensifying its efforts for a green transition, because renewables are power Europe can control itself. In the middle of the Norwegian public holiday, the Commission presented a comprehensive electrification plan , with the goal of increasing electricity's share of energy use from the current 23 to 46 percent by 2040. By achieving this goal, EU countries can save 260 billion euros a year on reduced imports of fossil energy. But this picture is not without important nuances either. Will the goals be achieved? In the member states, politicians are feeling the pressure for much faster cuts in energy prices. Then there are proposals to resume imports of Russian gas , or to weaken climate measures that increase the price of fossil energy . The long-running tug-of-war over the EU's emissions trading system (ETS) is set to continue in the Parliament and Council this autumn, but the Commission's proposal for a revision involves more quotas and higher emissions between 2030 and 2040 . Critics believe the revision undermines the goals of the electrification plan , pointing out that it means less money for decarbonizing industry.
Being caught between the long and short-term is nothing new, neither in politics nor in life. For the EU and Europe, it is now extra demanding. On September 17, Ursula von der Leyen will lay the foundation for a new work program when she delivers the annual State of the European Union address to the Parliament in Strasbourg. Then we will find out how she herself thinks things are going.