Drifting Diplomacy in Brussels: Kallas Marginalised, von der Leyen in Control? |
Drifting Diplomacy in Brussels: Kallas Marginalised, von der Leyen in Control?
In Brussels, European foreign policy is drifting between a leadership vacuum and an increasing concentration of power. Behind institutional appearances, a silent struggle is reshaping who speaks — and decides — on behalf of Europe, with one clear outcome: the growing irrelevance of the EU as a credible diplomatic actor.
Kallas Without Power: A High Representative in Name Only
Kallas was supposed to bring clarity and firmness, especially regarding Russia. Instead, what has emerged is a hesitant, often disconnected diplomatic presence, incapable of putting together a coherent diplomatic discourse—for instance, when she floated an ambitious multi-billion euro military support initiative for Ukraine only to see it rapidly diluted by member states, without managing to defend or reframe it politically, leaving the impression of a proposal launched without a strategy to sustain it.
In meetings and public statements, she struggles to project the kind of strategic narrative that the position demands. Diplomacy, after all, is as much about language as it is about power—and here, the gap is visible. As put by Michel Foucault in The Archaeology of Knowledge, discourse is not merely descriptive but constitutive: it produces authority, defines what can be said, and structures the field of action itself. From this perspective, the inability to articulate a clear and consistent narrative is not a minor communicative flaw: it signals a deeper loss of power, as the actor fails to impose meaning, set the terms of debate, or establish a recognisable strategic position.
Her remarks frequently lack precision or coherence—for example, when outlining the EU’s position on the Middle East, she alternated between calls for de-escalation and reaffirmations of support for Israel without clearly defining conditions, red lines, or political objectives—leaving both journalists and diplomats searching for meaning rather than direction.
More troubling is the perception—quietly shared in EU circles—that she is not taken seriously, neither by major capitals nor by external partners. A cancelled high-level meeting in Washington at short notice was read in Brussels as more than a scheduling issue; it signalled a lack of weight. Even her own admission that she would “learn on the job” over time did little to inspire confidence in a role that offers little room for apprenticeship.
To be fair, the job is nearly impossible. But that is precisely the point: Kallas has not managed to transcend its structural limits. Instead, she appears trapped within them, unable to impose a line, unable to build consensus, and increasingly sidelined in the very domain she is meant to lead.
A Silent Takeover: Ursula von der Leyen Steps In
If Kallas embodies weakness, Ursula von der Leyen embodies the opposite. The President of the European Commission has not simply filled a vacuum; she has systematically expanded into it.
Across successive crises, von der Leyen has positioned herself as the de facto voice of Europe abroad. Whether in Ukraine, the Middle East, or relations with Washington, she speaks first, often speaks louder, and increasingly speaks alone – under protests of European heads of state and governments. This is not accidental. It reflects a deliberate strategy to transform the Commission into the centre of EU foreign policy.
The consequences are striking. New Commissioners now handle external relations portfolios that once fell squarely under the High Representative’s hand. Entire administrative structures—Directorates-General with their own expertise, budgets, and diplomatic reach—have been built within the Commission. Sanctions policy, once a shared process, is now largely coordinated from within the Commission’s machinery. Defence, at least in its industrial dimension, has been rebranded as a Commission competence.
The result is what many in Brussels privately describe as a quiet institutional coup—a “white coup” through backstage confrontation and accumulation of power. Von der Leyen is said to be often exasperated with Kalas. No treaty has been rewritten, and no formal authority transferred. Yet in practice, foreign policy has drifted away from the EEAS and into the hands of the Commission presidency.
Even member states have begun to push back. Reports from Politico suggest growing irritation among governments that see von der Leyen overstepping her mandate, particularly during sensitive geopolitical moments. But frustration has not translated into resistance. And in the absence of resistance, the shift continues.
Kallas, meanwhile, is left occupying the space that remains—symbolic, procedural, and increasingly marginal.
Gaza, Iran, and the Cost of Incoherence
Nothing has exposed this institutional confusion more starkly than the EU’s handling of the Middle East. Here, the problem is not only who speaks but what is being said.
On Gaza, the Union has appeared divided, hesitant, and at times contradictory. Some member states, such as Spain, demanded a stronger stance on the fulfilment of international and humanitarian laws by Israel; others insisted on Israel being sanctioned. In this double-standard landscape, Kallas failed to articulate a coherent European position and let the Union be appointed as complicit in genocide. Her ambiguous posture cost her political capital, particularly with countries more critical of Israel’s actions.
At the same time, von der Leyen’s more assertive line—widely perceived as strongly aligned with Israel—further deepened divisions. The result was not a compromise, but a dissonance: multiple voices, conflicting signals, no clear strategy, and a huge loss of the EU’s image and moral standards.
The pattern repeated itself in the EU’s absence of condemnation of the Israel-US bombardment of Iran, including the killing of 165 school girls – facts that constituted a clear breach of international law. The EU’s reaction was, however, to condemn Iran’s response and its right to defend itself. To many observers, this was not just an inconsistency—it was a credibility problem, a much more serious situation that Kalas and von der Leyen cannot grasp, the damage it caused to the credibility of the Union.
The damage goes beyond internal politics. In much of the Global South, the EU is increasingly seen as applying international law selectively, undermining its long-standing claim to be a normative power. Kallas, already weakened, bore the immediate political cost. But the deeper issue is systemic: a Union unable to align the expected values with its actions.
Europe Without a Voice – Who is in Control?
What emerges from this picture is not simply a leadership problem but a vacuum, diplomatically absent where it matters most due to its double standards.
In the absence of a strategy, sanctions have become the default tool, applied selectively and with double standards. They are visible, measurable, and relatively easy to agree upon. But they are not diplomacy. They punish, they signal, but they rarely resolve. They risk becoming a substitute for political thinking, a shortcut.
Meanwhile, diplomacy increasingly takes place elsewhere: in Beijing, Washington, Moscow, Doha, Islamabad, and in ad hoc coalitions that bypass Brussels altogether. The EU, despite its weight, finds itself adrift rather than shaping outcomes.
In this context, the question “Who is in control?” becomes almost secondary. Kallas does not appear to be in control. Von der Leyen appears to be, but without a clear mandate to unify member states politically. And the member states themselves remain divided, often preferring national channels over collective ones.
The uncomfortable conclusion is that no one is truly in control. What we are witnessing is a system drifting—partly by design, partly by default—into fragmented leadership.
Kallas’s difficulties and lack of talent make this visible. Von der Leyen’s authoritarian traits accelerate it. And the world, increasingly shaped by hard power and strategic competition, leaves little space for such ambiguity.
Ricardo Martins – Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel