BRUSSELS, June 20 (Xinhua) -- The European Union (EU) summit ended on Friday with leaders divided over the policy towards Russia. Several key issues, including the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), were postponed for further discussion, reflecting a continued lack of consensus within the bloc.
The disagreement over the policy towards Russia highlights diverging national interests and strategic views, which analysts say may weaken the EU's influence in any future peace process involving Russia and Ukraine. The bloc's members also remain split over the MFF, particularly on agriculture, green transition and defense spending, casting uncertainty over the proposed 2-trillion-euro (2.29-trillion-U.S. dollars)budget.
WHO SPEAKS FOR EUROPE?
A dispute emerged after European Council President Antonio Costa said on Friday that he was establishing a diplomatic channel through his office to facilitate direct communication between the EU and Russia.
Costa stressed that the bloc must be able to convey its own messages to Moscow rather than rely on others to interpret Russia's positions.
The statement led to different reactions from EU members. Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal said, "the EU cannot assume the role of mediator in these negotiations."
"The moment the EU -- or any individual country -- positions itself as a mediator, it inevitably constrains its own ability to take the very actions required to support Ukraine and increase pressure on Russia," said Michal.
Ivan Cardillo, senior expert at the Center for International and Strategic Studies at LUISS University in Italy, said that the divisions stem from different historical experiences and geographic realities across the bloc.
Cardillo noted that member states differ significantly in their assessments of Europe's long-term relationship with Russia, and that such divisions could complicate efforts to secure a stronger European role in any future settlement.
The debate also reflects differences over who should represent Europe in a potential peace process. Germany favors the "E3" format involving France, Germany and Britain, while some other members are reluctant to see major diplomatic initiatives concentrated in the hands of a few countries.
Yan Shaohua, deputy director of Fudan University's Center for China-Europe Relations, told Xinhua that these differences highlight a broader dilemma in EU security policy: while collective defense relies heavily on NATO, EU members do not share the same threat perceptions.
"In the short term, the bloc is likely to preserve its common framework of support for Ukraine. However, as discussions move from military assistance to a potential negotiating phase, underlying divisions could become more pronounced, testing the EU's cohesion and its ability to act as a unified geopolitical actor," he added.
HOW MUCH WILL AMBITION COST?
The debate over next MFF also exposed EU's deep divisions and competitiveness-related dilemmas among members.
According to a proposal by the European Commission, the EU's 2028-2034 long-term budget would amount to approximately 2 trillion euros (2.29-trillion U.S. dollars) and is intended to fund a wide range of policies, including support for farmers and the promotion of research and technological innovation.
However, traditional beneficiaries seek to preserve funding for cohesion policy and the Common Agricultural Policy, while net contributor countries are reluctant to significantly increase the overall EU budget.
Eric Maurice, policy analyst at the European Policy Center (EPC), argued that the MFF will fall far short of addressing the massive financing needs associated with green transition, digital transformation, innovation, economic security and the strengthening of defense capabilities. These needs are estimated at 1.2 trillion euros (1.38 trillion U.S. dollars) per year, according to the European Central Bank estimates.
Time constraints are also narrowing the space for compromise. Legally, EU members must reach an agreement on the budget by the end of 2027. However, with elections scheduled in several countries, including France, Italy, Poland and Spain, next year, many diplomats believe an agreement should ideally be finalized by the end of 2026 to avoid domestic electoral politics derailing the process.
Moreover, Maurice argued that the debate misses the real point, namely how the budget should be spent: "The central question should be how it can help achieve results that member states could not achieve alone, while reducing fragmentation and duplication across European, national and regional policies." ■
