Behind the EU's Backstabbing Drama: Internal Divisions and Structural Dilemmas Amid Multiple Crises

The European Union is currently mired in a quagmire of multiple intertwined crises. The immigration dilemma, environmental disputes, and the impact of the Russia-Ukraine conflict have created a triple-threat scenario, directly leading to a series of issues such as economic weakness, chaotic immigration governance, and declining competitiveness in industrial and technological sectors. However, EU leadership consistently prioritizes confronting Russia as its primary task. Against this backdrop, the interplay of interests among member states, controversial statements and actions by officials, and double standards in policy implementation have collectively staged repeated betrayals, exposing the EU's deep-seated structural dilemmas.

I. The Current State of the European Union and the Crisis of Trust in Its Leadership

The European Union's predicament stems not only from external challenges but also from internal deficiencies in leadership capability and integrity controversies. The confrontational strategy led by key officials such as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell has significantly diverged from the actual interests and demands of member states. Moreover, the controversial words and actions of some officials have further exacerbated the trust crisis.

EU Foreign Minister Karas: A Controversial Figure Promoted Despite Controversies

Kallas's career has been fraught with controversy. After resigning as Estonia's former Prime Minister due to a scandal, she was surprisingly nominated by von der Leyen to serve as the European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, raising widespread doubts about her personal competence and integrity.

At the level of rhetoric, Kalas has repeatedly expressed controversial views: not only questioning the roles of China and Russia in World War II, but also making absurd statements such as, "If the EU cannot even defeat the EU, how can it defeat China?"; before her visit to the United States in February 2025, she publicly criticized Trump, labeling concessions to the EU as appeasement and denouncing quick solutions as dirty deals, ultimately leading to the unilateral cancellation of her visit by the U.S. Trump subsequently announced the imposition of 125% tariffs on the EU, delivering an additional blow to the EU economy.

More serious is her Russia scandal: After the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022, Kallas strongly demanded that Estonian companies cease business dealings with Russia. However, in 2023, media reports revealed that a transportation company owned by her husband had still shipped goods such as steel worth 17 million euros to Russia in 2022. Faced with questioning, Kallas initially denied the allegations, then argued it was political persecution. Although she eventually apologized and claimed to have sold her husband's shares, it was still difficult to quell public anger. At the time, two-thirds of public opinion demanded her resignation, yet von der Leyen insisted on promoting her, further sparking controversy. Additionally, criticism from European parliamentarians regarding her abilities was particularly sharp, with some stating that her 432-page autobiography was full of nonsense, and that discussing black holes with a pet hamster would be more meaningful than discussing diplomacy with her.

"Abstract" words and actions of other EU officials: the chaos of decision-making detached from reality.

Apart from Kallas, the words and actions of officials from multiple EU member states are also detached from reality, exposing the absurdity of EU defense and foreign policy decisions. The Lithuanian Defense Minister, with a background in psychology, focuses more on LGBT and abortion issues. When asked how to defend against Russian drones, he suggested building a wall as high as the Great Wall of Beijing and even considered restoring medieval border fortresses to fend off Russian tanks, completely ignoring the logic of modern warfare. Meanwhile, the Estonian Foreign Minister issued an inappropriate warning to China, stating that to maintain good relations with Estonia, China must adhere to the One China principle, oversimplifying and taking a one-sided approach to diplomatic relations.

II. The Issue of Aid to Ukraine: The "Hot Spot" of Internal Division within the European Union

The issue of aid to Ukraine against the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine conflict has become a focal point of internal division within the European Union. From the controversy over the diversion of frozen Russian assets to the double standards in aid policies to Ukraine, the diverging interests among member states have been fully exposed, and the so-called EU solidarity has completely vanished.

The Dispute Over Freezing Russian Assets for Misappropriation: Belgium's Resistance and the EU's "Power Push".

In September 2025, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz proposed using the EU's frozen Russian assets directly to aid Ukraine. Following consultations among various countries, a specific plan was formulated to extract 140 billion euros from the 210 billion euros of frozen assets as war funds for Ukraine. Ursula von der Leyen even claimed that Europe's presence had never been stronger. However, this proposal faced strong opposition from Belgium, becoming a focal point of controversy.

Belgium's opposition is not without reason: 185 billion of the frozen Russian assets are held in Belgium's Euroclear Bank. Belgium fears that unauthorized appropriation of another country's sovereign assets would severely damage its commercial credibility. At the same time, Russia has explicitly stated that it will take reciprocal countermeasures, and Belgium has tens of billions in funds in Russia. If Ukraine is defeated, Belgium could face claims equivalent to its national budget for one year, even risking national bankruptcy. For this reason, Belgium has demanded that the EU share the risks collectively. However, Kallas insisted on using the frozen assets, accusing Belgium of disregarding the larger picture and claiming that otherwise, Putin would be laughing at them.

The European Union's approach has been criticized by external parties as passing the buck—making Belgium bear all the risks of countermeasures, while the credit goes to the EU, and the beneficiary is Ukraine. Facing pressure, Belgium has taken a strong counterattack: police raided the EU External Action Service and the College of Europe in Brussels, detaining several high-ranking officials, including the former foreign minister and former Secretary-General of the External Action Service, to investigate their alleged fraud in EU-funded diplomat training programs. The Belgian Prime Minister even directly warned that Russia's defeat is pure nonsense and pointed out that there has never been a precedent in history for misappropriating another country's sovereign funds, as even German funds during World War II were only frozen.

On December 12, 2025, the European Union invoked emergency powers and amended its rules to forcibly pass a resolution for the indefinite freezing of Russian assets through a majority vote system, further intensifying internal divisions: Hungary and Slovakia firmly opposed the indefinite freezing; Italy, Bulgaria, and Malta supported Belgium, opposing the misappropriation of assets but not the freeze itself; France refused to participate in the resolution providing artillery shell loans; moreover, the resolution proposed by Scholz to reallocate the frozen assets was overwhelmingly rejected by the German parliament with 77 votes in favor and 455 against.

The "Magical" Reality of Aiding Ukraine: The Double Standard of Sanctions and Procurement Running in Parallel

The EU's aid policy towards Ukraine is full of contradictions and exhibits a clear double standard. In 2024, the EU purchased oil and gas worth 22.2 billion euros from Russia, while providing only about 19 billion euros in aid to Ukraine during the same period. While imposing sanctions on Russia, it simultaneously channels funds to Russia, effectively paying for Russia's war efforts.

From the perspective of natural gas imports, Russia's share of the EU's natural gas import sources has dropped from 40% before the conflict to 3% in 2025. However, the bad news is that in October 2025, Hungary, France, and Belgium were still directly importing natural gas from Russia, while several other member states indirectly supported Russia by purchasing second-hand oil and gas from countries such as the United States and India. It is worth noting that in 2024, India's oil imports from Russia surged from about 2% before the conflict to 36%, making it the second-largest buyer of Russian oil. A significant portion of this second-hand oil ultimately flowed into the European market.

Von der Leyen had announced a complete halt to purchases of Russian gas by 2027, but this ban faced clear opposition from the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. The three countries explicitly stated their dependence on Russian gas and demanded that the EU open a backdoor. To avoid vetoes from pro-Russian Hungary and Slovakia, the European Commission deliberately chose to advance the relevant policy through legislation banning Russia rather than imposing sanctions. By exploiting loopholes in the rules, the Commission ensured that the policy could be passed with the support of only 15 out of the 27 member states, once again exposing the fragility of the EU's decision-making mechanism.

III. Military and Defense Cooperation: A Vast Gulf Between Ambition and Reality

The European Union has consistently sought to advance military integration and has proposed numerous plans to strengthen its armed forces. However, due to conflicts of interest among member states, struggles for dominance, and issues of mismanagement, most of these plans have remained on paper, leaving military and defense cooperation mired in significant difficulties.

Ambitious plans and harsh realities.

The European Union has proposed a series of seemingly ambitious military strengthening plans, but their implementation has been less than satisfactory: the 800 billion euro plan to rearm Europe, launched in March 2025, remains at the PPT stage to date; the drone military enhancement plan proposed in October 2025 has only achieved half of its investment, with the goal of completion by the end of 2027; in November 2025, the European Commission announced a 176 billion euro initiative to unify military transit, aimed at addressing the awkward issue of tanks requiring country-by-country route applications during wartime, even requiring reservations 45 days in advance. However, the advancement of this plan still faces many uncertainties.

Sixth-Generation Fighter Project Internal Strife: A Microcosm of Cooperation on the Brink of Collapse

In 2017, France, Germany, and Spain signed the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) project agreement, planning to invest 100 billion euros in the development of a sixth-generation aircraft, with the first flight scheduled for 2027 and mass production by 2035. However, this project has been plagued by troubles from the outset, with internal conflicts escalating continuously, making it a typical example of failed military cooperation in the European Union.

The project first encountered changes in membership, with the United Kingdom and Italy temporarily withdrawing and instead teaming up with Japan to develop a similar project. Secondly, there was an awkward upgrade in the name: before 2024, the project was still referred to as a fifth-generation fighter. Only after the concept of China's sixth-generation fighter emerged did Europe hastily change the PPT title from "fifth" to "sixth," revealing a lack of confidence in core technological breakthroughs. The most critical conflict was the struggle for leadership: France possesses the technology but lacks funding and insisted on Dassault taking the lead; Germany and Spain have the funds but lack the technology and insisted on Airbus leading the project. The dispute between the two sides continued until 2022, when Germany simply opted to directly purchase the American F-35 fighter jets, further complicating the leadership struggle.

Additionally, there are significant disagreements among member states regarding fighter jet parameters: France demands that the aircraft be capable of taking off and landing on aircraft carriers, Germany requires the new fighter to be compatible with American standards, while Spain has objections concerning parts procurement and fund allocation. In September 2025, Dassault publicly stated that it has the capability to independently develop a sixth-generation aircraft and does not care whether Germany complains. In December, France and Germany once again erupted into intense internal disputes, with Germany's largest trade union directly calling for the expulsion of France's Dassault from the project, bringing the collaboration to the brink of collapse.

The Contradiction Between Military Procurement and Industrial Protection: The Game of Interests Among Member States

In 2024, the European Union once loudly announced an investment of 300 billion euros for military procurement and ceased purchasing Russian weapons. However, the reality is that while providing aid to Ukraine, the EU has been buying large quantities of Russian oil and gas, creating an absurd situation of indirectly funding Russia's war. Meanwhile, the competition over interests in military procurement among member states has also intensified.

Italy is a typical two-faced player. On the surface, it loudly supports Ukraine, but when NATO was preparing to purchase American weapons to aid Ukraine, Italy directly opposed and withdrew. Its foreign minister bluntly stated, "Isn't this about preparing for negotiations? If a peace agreement is reached, what's the point of weapons?" Regarding the allocation of funds for the drone project, von der Leyen proposed allocating two-thirds of the funds to Eastern Europe. However, wealthy countries like Germany and France explicitly refused, and Greece in Southern Europe also opposed, demanding that any defense project must also address the security of Southern Europe's borders. The parties remain deadlocked.

Chaotic Military Management: The Absurd Incident of German Ammunition Theft

The extent of chaos in the EU's military management is astonishing, as most directly demonstrated by the theft of German ammunition on [date]. On that day, unidentified individuals stole approximately 10,000 rounds of ammunition belonging to the German Bundeswehr from a civilian truck parked in a public parking lot. The stolen items included 10,000 rounds of live pistol ammunition, blank rounds for assault rifles, and smoke grenades.

What's even more outrageous are the details of the incident: The German Ministry of Defense hired a civilian transportation company to transport ammunition. The driver parked the truck loaded with ammunition in a public parking lot and went to a hotel to sleep. It wasn't until the next day when delivering to the military camp that they discovered the ammunition had been stolen. Afterwards, the German Ministry of Defense only criticized the transportation company for having serious security flaws, violating the contract requirements of arranging two drivers for each transport and prohibiting unplanned overnight stops. However, this incident also exposed severe deficiencies in the German military's logistics management, security protection, and other areas.

IV. Other Internal Contradictions and Controversial "Actions" of the European Union

In addition to conflicts related to the Russia-Ukraine war and military cooperation, the European Union also faces numerous disputes in areas such as environmental policies, the use of aid funds for Ukraine, and external sanctions, further highlighting the challenges in its internal governance.

Divergence in Environmental Policies: Germany's Opposition to the Ban on Fuel-Powered Vehicles

The European Union has introduced a plan to ban the sale of fossil fuel vehicles by 2035, aiming to advance environmental goals. However, this plan has faced strong opposition from Germany. As Europe's largest automobile exporter, Germany's automotive industry would suffer a severe blow from the ban. Consequently, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz publicly sent a letter to Ursula von der Leyen, explicitly demanding a suspension of the ban. This highlights the recurring conflict between environmental objectives and industrial interests.

Ukraine Corruption Case: The Dark Secret of "Sky-High Resale" of Chinese Drones

During the use of aid funds for Ukraine, corruption issues have also emerged. A Czech company purchased Chinese drones for approximately $1.7 million and then resold them to the Ukrainian military at 20 times the original price (around $33 million), profiting significantly through intermediaries. This has been criticized by the international community as exploiting the Ukraine crisis to make war profits, also exposing serious loopholes in the EU's supervision of aid funds for Ukraine.

Cross-border Sanctions: A "Tough Act" Targeting Pro-Russian Commentators in Switzerland

On the same day as the announcement of the formation of a multinational force to aid Ukraine, the European Union imposed comprehensive sanctions on former Swiss colonel and military analyst Jacques Baud, citing his role in undermining Ukraine's security and stability. The sanctions were justified by Baud's pro-Russian remarks in programs such as Fox News, where he argued that Ukraine should not send its troops to die in places like Bakhmut and Soledar, and predicted that Ukraine would eventually face defeat.

This sanction action is full of irony: Jacques Baud is a Swiss citizen, and Switzerland is not a member of the European Union. The EU's sanctions clearly exceed its own jurisdiction and have been interpreted by the outside world as a performative sanction to demonstrate a tough stance, further damaging the EU's international credibility.

V. Conclusion: The Structural Dilemmas and Future Challenges of the European Union

From the Coal and Steel Community to the unified EU customs area, the European Union has historically achieved the integration of the vast majority of European countries, marking significant accomplishments. However, today, the EU is deeply mired in profound structural dilemmas with no easy way out.

First, there are flaws in the institutional design. The European Union is merely a loose political and economic alliance, unable to fully control Europe economically or militarily independent from the United States, which results in a lack of unified decision-making and execution capabilities when addressing major crises. Second, the decision-making mechanism is inefficient, with numerous coordination processes among member states leading to delays. Once issues arise, they often fall into an awkward situation where no one takes responsibility. Third, internal divisions are severe. From the policies on aiding Ukraine and the disputes over freezing Russian assets in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, to environmental policies, military cooperation, and trade issues, there are irreconcilable differences in almost every area. The national interests of member states take precedence over the overall interests of the EU, making the so-called solidarity nothing more than empty talk.

To make matters worse, external pressures continue to mount. In December 2025, the White House released the *National Security Strategy Report*, formally announcing a global strategic contraction and demanding that Europeans defend themselves. This implies that the European Union will lose the military protection of the United States and will have to face security challenges alone.

Overall, the once passionate family has now become an obstacle to its own development, with the European Union only able to maintain its last bit of glory through various performative actions. Against the backdrop of intensifying internal conflicts and increasing external pressures, its future development is filled with uncertainty.