The European Council of December 19, 2025 revealed a European autonomy built through assertive pragmatism, responding to the challenges of the US National Security Strategy and the Kremlin’s neo-imperialism with the “art of the possible”.
The first front of this stance materialized in supporting Ukraine through a solid financial solution. By guaranteeing 90 billion euros for the 2026-2027 biennium, the EU guarantees Kiev the necessary predictability to maintain its decision-making autonomy, avoiding the financial strangulation that Moscow desires. This solution, by not immediately confiscating the capital of Russian assets, does little to harm the ongoing peace process, but guarantees Ukraine safeguards to negotiate sovereignly, without the coercion of insolvency.
Still, Europe remains dependent on NATO’s security structure, an interdependence that conditions the practical scope of this proclaimed strategic autonomy.
At the same time, the agreement with Mercosur exemplifies this European realism, where political commitment prevailed over dilatory pressures. By setting the signature for January 2026, the EU erased the opposition of France and Poland, transforming the agreement into a politically decided fact. It is a calculated step to get a foot in the door of South America and break the implicit blockade of the American sphere of influence. For Portugal, the result is very positive, as it validates the Atlantic axis and ensures that Europe does not give up its commercial projection in an area of fundamental historical and linguistic influence.
This movement is reinforced by the irreversibility imposed on enlargement to the Western Balkans, with clear goals for Montenegro and Albania serving as strategic self-defense against Russian subversion and Chinese penetration.
However, behind this effectiveness, there remains a concern regarding the bloc’s cohesion. European unity faces maximum tension, squeezed between Russian interference and US transactional pressure, while trying to balance deepening defense coordination while managing a complex enlargement process.
This Council revealed fissures in the Franco-German axis that cannot be deepened. More than a conflict of styles between Paris and Berlin, it is a structural gap on industrial policy, budgetary reform and energy. While France, weakened by a precarious political balance and fiscal constraints, seeks compromise diplomacy, Friedrich Merz’s Germany insists on rigid discipline and an assertive external line towards Russia. The misalignment threatens the European center of gravity, opening space for competitors to exploit differences.
This fragility is the terrain on which Putin operates his insidious disintegration. The Kremlin has realized that influencing national policies can be more effective than conventional warfare; The cases of Hungary and Slovakia show how the nationalist “fifth column” can paralyze Brussels.
The risk is that isolationist nationalism, fueled by the cost of living and war fatigue, will conquer the heart of Europe. The Council’s audacity in staying the course is relevant, but insufficient without internal recomposition.
The future of the project will depend less on rhetoric than on the ability to translate pragmatism into institutional cohesion and shared security. Only in this way will today’s realism become a sustainable survival strategy for the Union.
Strategy, Security and Defense Analyst