Bullfights across Europe are being kept alive thanks to millions of euros donated by the EU, campaigners claim, despite attempts by MEPs to ban the subsidies.

The funding goes to farms that raise bulls to compete under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a long-standing system of subsidies to the sector.

The Spanish Union of Criadores de Toros de Lidia, which represents the interests of 347 breeders, estimated that a ban on the payment of subsidies would mean an economic hit of around €200m (£170m) a year for the sector across Europe.

In 2015, in a move hailed by animal rights activists who branded bullfighting a “cruel practice”, MEPs voted overwhelmingly in favor of blocking agricultural funds “for financing deadly bullfighting activities”.

More than six years later, however, there has been little change, as the ban was overturned over fears it would alter CAP legal provisions.

Joe Moran of animal rights organization Eurogroup for Animals said: “While we fully agree with MEPs in their moral outrage and what they are trying to do, the legal avenues to do this are quite difficult. . In fact, I would say they are impossible.

To completely remove the funds would require animal welfare to be an official EU competence, coupled with a law banning the breeding of bulls for this purpose or banning bullfighting altogether, Moran added.

EU official says if there are no funds specifically earmarked for breeding fighting bulls, ‘it’s not ruled out’, and bull breeders could still receive public funds from agricultural financing.

Since 2003, EU agricultural subsidies are mainly allocated according to the area of ​​land cultivated, rather than according to production or the final destination of the products.

Green MEPs tabled a CAP amendment in 2020 calling for a ban on livestock funds whose final destination was “sale for bullfighting-related activities”, but it was dropped when the European Commission, the EU Council and Parliament finalized the policy.

Portuguese MEP Francisco Guerreiro described the funds as “a lifeblood that continually helps this industry stay afloat” as the number of festivals involving bulls has declined.

Europe’s bullfighting industry has racked up reported losses of more than €150m (£125m) during the Covid pandemic, with events such as Pamplona’s San Fermín festival canceled and bulls sent straight to the slaughterhouse.

The pandemic hit as the sector struggled to recover from Spain’s economic crisis, which saw cash-strapped municipalities suspend festivals involving bulls. In 2007 – a year before the financial crash – 3,651 events featuring bulls took place across Spain. A decade later, the number of events had plunged to 1,553.

Breeders’ associations in Spain, France and Portugal continue to defend the approximately 1,000 farms raising bulls for bullfighting across the EU.

Antonio Bañuelos, president of Spain’s Unión de Criadores de Toros, said: “It is discriminatory to create this concept that the fate of these cattle can be linked to whether or not they receive funds. Many farms produce a variety of products while raising bulls, meaning any ban would erode their right to access finance on the same basis as other EU farmers, he said.

The industry has also lobbied MEPs saying fighting bulls, raised in large areas, have less impact on the environment than pigs or sheep.

An association of Spanish veterinarians opposed to bullfighting has said the public suffering inflicted on bulls is unjustifiable.

He told MPs that instruments ranging from barbed darts to an 80cm sword were used on bulls in bullfights which lasted around 15 minutes, causing “deep wounds, severe bleeding, intense suffering and death. painful”.

Bañuelos claimed that a fighting bull’s death is “faster and results in less suffering” than many commercially bred animals.

“There are thousands of animals that die every day in very painful circumstances. But the focus is on bullfighting because it is the most exposed in terms of publicity and it is an easy target”, a- he declared.

Sign up for the Farm Animals monthly update to get insight into the biggest farming and food stories around the world and follow our investigations. You can send us your stories and thoughts at [email protected]

Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala said having a face-to-face discussion with Zelensky was “something really special”.

“The main objective of our visit and the main message of our mission is to tell our Ukrainian friends that they are not alone, that Europe is on your side,” Fiala said.

Fiala said he wanted to assure Ukrainians that we are “hosting your wives and children” and providing them with “shelter” in the Czech Republic.

The Czech Republic has now taken in 250,000 refugees, according to the prime minister, who said they “will continue to provide more help and support”.

Zelensky thanked EU leaders for their “wonderful support” as “so many other ambassadors left Ukraine because of the full-scale Russian invasion”.

“The most important thing is that we really trust these leaders,” Zelensky said. “When we talk about security guarantees, our future in the European Union, or when we talk about sanctions policy, we are 100% certain that whatever we discuss, whatever we say, will lead to a positive result for our country.”

He continued that with “friends like that”, Ukraine “can win”.

Poland’s Morawiecki, Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Janša and Czech Fiala left by train before 9 a.m. local time, said the head of the Polish Prime Minister’s Chancellery, Michal Dworczyk. The train departed from Poland, a Czech government press officer told CNN on Tuesday.

The purpose of the visit is “to confirm the unequivocal support of the entire European Union for Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence and to present a broad spectrum of support for the Ukrainian state and society”, said a government spokesman.

They said the trip to Kyiv had been organized in agreement with European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and added that the international community would be informed of the delegation’s visit by the through international organizations, including the United Nations.

“In these defining times for the world, it is our duty to be where history is made, because it is not about us, but about the future of our children who deserve to live in a world freed from tyranny,” Morawiecki said in a Facebook post on Tuesday.

Morawiecki said he and the other leaders were traveling to Kyiv to “show Ukrainians our solidarity” and denounced “Putin’s criminal aggression against Ukraine”.

European values

More than 3 million people have fled Ukraine since the Russian invasion began on February 24, the International Organization for Migration announced on Tuesday.

Poland has been the largest host country for Ukrainian refugees, with more than 1.8 million people entering the country on Tuesday, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Prime Minister Fiala said last month that his country was sending “machine guns, submachine guns, sniper rifles and pistols and their corresponding ammunition worth CZK 188 million”, to support the Ukrainian government in its fight against Russia.

In short

The situation: The European Commission (“EC”) has issued its first decision (“Decision”) regarding the intersection of EU merger control rules and the recent growth of domestic foreign direct investment (“FDI”) regimes. The EC found that the Hungarian government’s decision to block a transaction under its domestic FDI rules violated the EC’s exclusive jurisdiction to review transactions with a “European dimension”, subject to certain exceptions.

The context: This decision contrasts with recent EC efforts to support the development of FDI screening regimes at national level.

Look forward: While the EC ruling may add another level of EU approval for certain transactions subject to EU merger control and national FDI reviews, it limits the circumstances in which a Member State may block a transaction under its national FDI rules. The decision also invites the merging parties to challenge member states’ attempts to block a transaction under national FDI rules when the EC is empowered to carry out an EU-level competition review.

The EC recently found that Hungary’s veto of Vienna Insurance Group’s (“VIG”) acquisition of the Hungarian subsidiaries of the AEGON Group, an insurance, pension fund and asset management company, violated EU merger control rules, which give the EC exclusive authority to review transactions that meet EU jurisdictional thresholds.

VIG’s acquisition of AEGON’s Hungarian subsidiaries was part of a larger transaction, including the acquisition of several subsidiaries based in the EU and other states. Hungary rejected VIG’s acquisition of the Hungarian subsidiaries under its FDI rules. The EC then cleared the main transaction unconditionally under the EU Merger Regulation (“EUTMR”).

The VIG transaction highlights the potential limits of national FDI rules stemming from EU merger rules. Article 21 EUTMR recognizes that Member States may take appropriate measures to protect the following legitimate interests:

1. Public security, media plurality and prudential rules; Where
2. Another public interest, provided it has been communicated to and approved by the Commission (within 25 working days) after an assessment of its compatibility with the general principles of EU law.

When an FDI review of a Member State pursues an interest not specifically recognized in point 1, the Member State must therefore notify its intentions to the EC before implementing its decision. The EC ruling found that the Hungarian authorities failed to (i) notify their intention to veto to the EC before its implementation; and (ii) demonstrate that the veto was justified by legitimate interests. The EC ordered Hungary to withdraw its veto by March 18. If Hungary does not withdraw its veto by that date, the EC could launch an infringement action before the European Court of Justice to overturn Hungary’s decision.

Look forward

The EU has encouraged the development of national FDI regimes, notably through the adoption of its March 2019 regulation on EU screening (to see our april 2019 white paper). Due to the EU Screening Regulation and a wider trend towards protectionism, there has been a significant increase in the number of Member States adopting FDI regimes, adding to the layers already (and increasingly more) complex antitrust and regulatory oversight in the EU (to see our April 2021 Remark regarding the EC’s expansive approach to non-reportable transactions). These FDI regimes empower national authorities to review, and possibly condition or prohibit, transactions that may threaten various national interests, including national security and public order. Although the EU Screening Regulation encourages Member States to adopt FDI rules, it does not promote a common set of rules or establish a one-stop shop for screening FDI in the EU. EU scale.

The EC decision recalls that even in the field of FDI, Member States cannot ignore the principles and rules of EU law. The decision is part of settled EU case law requiring Member States to justify and ensure the proportionality of measures which may restrict provisions of EU law, including limitations on the free movement of capital or the right of a company to carry out cross-border transactions within the EU Union. As a result, the EC decision may encourage member states to be more cautious or selective in applying FDI rules to matters involving both FDI and competition scrutiny at EU level. .

Finally, the EC decision draws attention to the obligation of Member States to inform the EC of certain measures likely to affect a concentration respecting the EU jurisdictional thresholds. Although the principle is clear, a Member State must communicate to the EC (and obtain its prior approval) any measure which does not genuinely aim to protect one of the interests recognized by the EUTMR (i.e. security media plurality and prudential rules) — the application of the rule in practice is less straightforward. EU and national authorities may have different views on what constitutes a recognized interest and what measures a Member State should notify. The absence of guidelines leaves room for different interpretations and, consequently, legal uncertainty and potential delays in the implementation of agreements that are subject to simultaneous examination at different levels.

Four takeaway meals

1. Unlike the EU competition law regime, there is no review of FDI at the EU level. Although Member States or the EC have exclusive competence to carry out competition reviews, Member States carry out FDI screening exclusively at the national level. Therefore, a transaction requiring filing at the community level competition frequently also involves one or more FDI examinations at the national level.
2. Although Member States generally have wide discretion in the field of FDI, a Member State must notify the EC of its intention to block a transaction subject to Community competition review if such a decision is not not based on the limited legitimate interests recognized by the EUMS (i.e. public security, media plurality and prudential rules). Any such notification will include a consideration of whether the measures are genuinely aimed at protecting a legitimate interest and may therefore lengthen FDI reviews.
3. Given the limited number of recognized legitimate interests and the lack of guidance on what might be considered other public interests under which a Member State may reject a reviewable transaction at EC level, the EC and Member States are likely to have different interpretations of these interests and what measures would be justified, appropriate and proportionate to achieve this interest.
4. In some transactions, merging parties may choose to file merger control notices with the EC or Member States. In these matters, parties should consider whether the possibility of EC oversight of a Member State’s FDI decision tips the balance in favor of filing with the EC, if they expect problems with a Member State’s FDI review.

The High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, Josep Borrell, will visit North Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina from 13 to 16 March. The visit will reaffirm the EU’s commitment and support to the region, also taking into account the Russian war against Ukraine and its impact on the security of Europe as a whole.

On Monday, HR/VP Borrell will travel to Skopje, North Macedonia, where he will meet President Stevo Pendarovski, Prime Minister Dimitar Kovačevski and Deputy Prime Minister for European Affairs Bojan Marichijk, Foreign Minister Bujar Osmani , Defense Minister Slavjanka Petrovska as well as with Speaker of Parliament Talat Xhaferi and leaders of parliamentary groups. The High Representative will hold a press point with Prime Minister Kovačevski at 12:00, which will be broadcast on EbS. The High Representative will also participate in an event where representatives of civil society and youth organizations will present their work on the contribution of the Western Balkans to the Conference on the Future of Europe. The event will be streamed live on the EEAS(link is external) Facebook channel.

On Tuesday, the High Representative will travel to Tirana, Albania, where he will meet Prime Minister Edi Rama. Their meeting will be followed by a press briefing at 11 a.m. High Representative Borrell will meet other representatives of the Albanian authorities and representatives of civil society and visit the ongoing restoration works of the mosaic of the National Museum of History, renovated under the EU aid to the recovery after the earthquake.

On Wednesday, the High Representative will travel to Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, where he will first visit the EUFOR Althea operation, whose troop capacity on the ground has been nearly doubled recently. High Representative Borrell will then meet the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, representatives of political oppositions and civil society.

Press engagements throughout the visit will be broadcast on EbS.

Photos and videos of the mission will be available on EbS and remarks from the press briefings will be published on the EEAS website.

The government will seek “flexibilities” in EU law that will allow VAT to be further reduced on fuel prices without financial penalties being imposed on the state, Taoiseach Micheál Martin has said.

Speaking as he arrived for a special summit of EU leaders at the Palace of Versailles in France, Mr Martin said the war in Ukraine had had a dramatic impact on energy prices and supply.

The Taoiseach also said it was possible that Irish Defense Force personnel could be deployed at some point around the EU-Ukraine border, on a peacekeeping or enforcement mission. Peace.

The Versailles meeting is hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron and discusses proposals to strengthen the EU’s energy independence as well as its defense capability.

Mr Martin said Ireland had benefited from historic derogations from VAT on fuel prices which allowed it to charge lower rates. However, in a situation where a State varies its rate, it risks losing the exemptions.

The government has already reduced excise duties on petrol by 20 cents per liter and on diesel by 15 cents per liter in response to dramatic increases in fuel prices since the outbreak of the war.

Mr Martin told reporters as he entered the palace grounds that if Ireland reduced VAT further it would lose the waiver and would have to accept a higher rate in future once the situation returned to normal normal.

He said the government was now looking for “flexibilities around this”. Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe was also advocating for this with the European Commission, he added.

The Taoiseach said three key points would be discussed by the 27 EU leaders. “(We will discuss) defense and security investments across Europe, with many member states reconsidering (their positions),” he said.

“The Ukrainian crisis has really changed the world order. Economic resilience and robustness will be a key element of tomorrow’s discussions in terms of key areas where Europe needs to be more resilient.

“New Initiatives”

“We have seen this in healthcare in the context of Covid-19. There are new initiatives in semiconductors, for example, to ensure that Europe is not too vulnerable, in terms of low production levels.

He said the third problem was energy dependency.

“There is a statement that we have been working on, around reducing dependence on Russian gas and oil over time. Obviously, some states are much more dependent on the import of (Russian) gas and oil. I think more strategically, we’ll see a much bigger focus in the medium term, on more renewables, effectively reducing dependencies.

He said the crisis created by the war was a global crisis that had a huge impact on energy prices. Regarding the national impact, he said the government had realized the significant impact of the dramatic escalation in oil and gas prices on the Irish economy.

Asked about the alleged price-fixing by some fuel suppliers in Ireland, he repeated his comments that it was “morally wrong in the context of barbaric warfare”. He said the Competition Authority’s role would be to ensure that there was no price-fixing or that there were no cartels operating.

Asked about the new sanctions imposed by the EU, Mr Martin said this would be done in collaboration with the EU, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.

“My rule of thumb is that we should have unity of purpose on this and we should move forward in unison.

“Because it will have the greatest impact in terms of pressure on Russia.”

He said it would be discussed at the meeting, but since it was not a formal council, he did not think a formal decision would be made at Versailles.

atrocities

Mr Martin said there was huge anger in Ireland over the atrocities in Ukraine. “We pay tribute to the journalists around the world who bring us these photographs and risk their lives to go behind the scenes or to show the war to the people. Because it creates a huge momentum against the Russian Federation and its war against Ukraine. In my view, that in itself will create pressure.

He also praised Mr. Macron for keeping communication channels open with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an effort to end the war.

Mr Martin said that while Ireland was militarily neutral, it did not prevent other member states from helping countries defend their citizens from attack.

Asked about the circumstances under which Irish Defense Force personnel could travel to Ukraine’s borders to help on a humanitarian basis, he said it was “always possible”.

“We are ready to help neighboring countries in terms of humanitarian crisis in terms of logistics along the border,” he said.

Mr Macron said before the meeting that the war had completely changed the architecture of Europe.

“Our democracy and our values ​​have been threatened. We have to accept that sometimes we have to pay the price,” Macron said as he entered the meeting.

“I will spare no effort to achieve this ceasefire,” he said.

The European Parliament has, by a large majority, adopted a resolution calling on the European Commission to take action to withhold funds from member states that fail to respect the rule of law. The document names Hungary and Poland as particular offenders.

The resolution was condemned by Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party, which unsuccessfully proposed an amendment calling for the rule of law mechanism not to be applied due to the war in Ukraine and the the pandemic. He also called on the EU to immediately release Covid recovery funds that have been blocked for rule of law reasons.

In the resolution adopted today – with 478 votes in favor and 155 against – the European Parliament welcomed the recent decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to reject an attempt by Poland and Hungary to prevent that EU funds are conditional on respect for the rule of law.

The parliament said it was now “high time” for the European Commission to “react to the continued breaches of the rule of law in some EU member states, which constitute a danger to the financial interests of the Union European”.

It asks the Commission to initiate the use of the conditionality mechanism by notifying the Member States concerned in writing. The measures should apply to both the EU’s general budget and the EU’s Covid recovery plan, the parliament said.

Among Polish MEPs, those from The Left (Lewica), Poland’s second largest opposition group, voted in favor of the resolution while those from the Civic Platform (PO), the largest, abstained. PiS MPs voted against.

The PiS has long opposed the conditionality mechanism, saying it would be used for political purposes to punish certain member states. The timing is particularly inappropriate to use it, argues the PiS, given the EU’s need for unity amid the war in Ukraine and the resulting refugee crisis.

“The Russians bombed a maternity ward in Mariupol. Meanwhile, Germany is blocking further sanctions against Russia and the European Parliament is voting in favor of sanctions against Poland,” PiS MP Sylwester Tułajew tweeted.

Yesterday, the European Conservatives and Reformists – a group in which the PiS is the dominant force – tabled an amendment calling for the rule of law mechanism not to be applied due to the war in Ukraine and the pandemic. He also called on the EU to release Covid funds, which have been frozen for Poland due to rule of law concerns.

After the rejection of this amendment, its author, MP PiS Bogdan Rzońca, said that “the left-liberal European Parliament has shown Putin that there is no solidarity within the EU and that it can harass and scare countries bordering Ukraine”, reports TVP Info.

He also accused Polish opposition parties of ‘not wanting the money to go to local authorities [in Poland] who are now helping refugees from Ukraine”.

PO – who voted against the amendment but abstained on the resolution – “agrees that this time of war is not the time for such resolutions”, said MEP Andrzej Halicki, quoted by TVN24. However, he also called on the PiS government to “end the [rule-of-law] dispute as soon as possible” in order to release EU funds.

Robert Biedroń, MEP and one of the leaders of The Left, said his group supported the resolution because “respect for the law, including the right to an independent tribunal that is not influenced by politicians , is a fundamental freedom…[and] the basis of the values ​​for which Ukrainian soldiers are dying today”.

Like Halicki, he also called on the PiS to release the funds by reversing its judicial policies. “In these times, you have to put aside unnecessary political arguments and do the right thing,” Biedroń told PAP. “The interest of 38 million Poles and more than 40 million Ukrainians is greater than the interest of a few politicized judges.”

Main image credit: KPRP (under public domain)

The pip fruit sub-group of the European Commission’s Fruit and Vegetable Market Observatory met today, by videoconference, to analyze the situation of the pear and apple campaigns.
The sub-group will analyze the state of prices and stocks of pears and apples in the EU and will exchange views on the current market situation. It will also analyze the campaign in countries outside the EU, in particular the campaign in the countries of the southern hemisphere, and the evolution of consumption.

The first fruit sub-group is one of the four sub-groups set up within the Expert Group of the Fruit and Vegetable Market Observatory, which aims to make as much information as possible available to the European sector and to provide it with greater transparency. These groups include Commission officials and representatives of sectoral organizations from the different Member States.

FEPEX is involved in the pome fruit subgroup through the European association FruitVegetablesEurope and is represented in the subgroup by Joan Serentill, president of the FEPEX pear and apple committee.

Spanish exports and imports of pears and apples
Apple exports in 2021 amounted to 110,362 tons, 17.5% less than in 2020, for a value of 90 million euros (-8%). However, in 2021, Spain imported more apples than it exported, since it imported 184,631 tonnes of apples, i.e. 3% more than in 2020, for 157 million euros ( + 3%).

Spanish pear exports in 2021 amounted to 122,411 tons worth 105 million euros, 14% more in volume and 17% more in value than in 2020. Imports of pears increased 32% in volume and 33% in value compared to the previous year, totaling 66,446 tonnes and 64.3 million euros, according to data from the Customs and Excise Department, processed by FEPEX.

Source: fepex.es

The European Union is in the grip of a “growing gas crisis” made worse by its reliance on Russia, Brussels will warn, as it pushes even harder for energy savings and a switch to renewables.

According to a draft paper on EU energy prices, due out on Tuesday and seen by the Guardian:

Gas and electricity prices will remain high and volatile until at least 2023. Compared to last autumn’s outlook, the situation has deteriorated.

Like the rest of the world, the EU has been grappling with soaring energy prices for months, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has sparked soul-searching about Europe’s gas dependence.

The Union imports 40% of its gas from Russia, a figure that has not changed for more than 15 years despite the repeated gas crises triggered by supply cuts from Moscow.

The guidance document also confirms that EU competition authorities are investigating Russian state energy company Gazprom for “unusual business behavior”. The Russian company’s European storage facilities are only 16% full, compared to 44% for non-Gazprom storage, raising suspicions that the Kremlin is using gas as a geopolitical tool.

The paper states:

The commission is currently investigating all allegations of possible anti-competitive business behavior on the part of Gazprom as a matter of priority and is gathering additional information from relevant market participants.

The draft, from last week, does not comment on the extension of EU sanctions to Russian oil. On Sunday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Washington was “in very active discussions” with European allies over a ban on Russian oil.

The committee makes a series of recommendations, including calling for a swift agreement on EU energy efficiency legislation, which is expected to result in 17 billion cubic meters (bcm) of energy savings by 2025, under the EU Green Deal Plan.

The European Commission also wants more EU funds for new solar technologies, while member states are urged to use revenues from the EU’s carbon trading system to fund the switch to renewables.

European imports of liquefied natural gas reached almost 10 billion cubic meters in January, the highest monthly level on record, as the Union sought alternatives to Russian gas in preparation for Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine.

The commission says it plans to engage in discussions with other major LNG buyers, namely China, Japan, South Korea and India, “with a view to avoiding in the future conflicting market conditions, which increase the price of energy supply for all”.

Separately, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the EU was working on a package of new sanctions against Russia in response to “the Kremlin’s disregard for citizens”.

Speaking alongside Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, she said:

We will discuss the new enforcement package we are working on right now… We need to make sure there are no loopholes and the effect of sanctions is really maximized.

In view of the evolution of the situation in Ukraine, of the Kremlin’s carelessness with regard to the citizens: women, children, men, we are of course also working on other sanctions which could be justified.

She did not elaborate on those details, but went on to say that the EU must “get rid of dependence on Russian gas, oil and coal”.

“And just as Vladimir Putin thought he would destroy European unity, the exact opposite has happened. Cooperation is rock solid,” said European Council President Charles Michel.

Something remarkable in geopolitics happened last week. It’s not just that Germany has flip-flopped in its defense policy, which is quite remarkable; it is the fact that the European Union has indeed taken swift and historic decisions. When you have 27 sovereign states, getting an agreement normally takes a long time. Often a very long time.
It was Russia’s recognition of areas not controlled by the government of the Ukrainian oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk on February 23 that got the ball rolling. In response, the EU adopted a set of sanctions targeting some politicians, businessmen, most senior commanders of the Russian armed forces and some banks. In total, asset freezes and travel bans were imposed on 23 people, 3 banks and a notorious internet “troll factory” in St. Petersburg. The immediate reaction to the EU announcement was disappointing. Some EU countries, such as Lithuania, had wanted to hit the Kremlin immediately with the harshest possible sanctions, but larger member states France, Germany and Italy argued for a more gradual approach.
They did not have long to wait since the next day, President Putin gave the order for the invasion of Ukraine. As Russian forces rained missiles down on its southern neighbor throughout the day, in the biggest state-on-state attack in Europe since World War II, EU leaders met again in emergency session and agreed on a wide range of sanctions that would freeze Russian assets en bloc and block its banks’ access to European financial markets. EU foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell described it as “the toughest package we have ever implemented”. Belgian Prime Minister De Croo asserted that “our sanctions will harm the Russian economy at its heart”.
Previously, a sense of helplessness was tangible after the West failed to stop a war their leaders saw coming. “We have not succeeded enough, not decisively enough, in preventing Russia from taking this step, which is a tragedy for Ukraine, a tragedy for Europe and a tragedy for Russia itself,” he said. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda, whose country is on the front line. with Russia. Perhaps, but the EU countries that would face the greatest economic backlash were keen to keep the harshest measures in reserve, arguing that it was the most effective strategy. Nevertheless, most observers were amazed that the EU, normally a timber giant, could be so nimble in reaching a common agreement within hours, which normally would take months.
The momentum was maintained and the following day, Friday February 25, envoys from the 27 member states approved a new wave of measures, this time agreeing to freeze the assets of Putin himself, as well as his longtime top diplomat. , Sergei Lavrov. “They are responsible for the death of innocent people and the trampling of the international system. We as Europeans do not accept this,” said German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. As she spoke, something else remarkable was happening in Berlin.
For years, the United States has pushed Germany to spend more on defense and invest more in its military. Until last week, those calls had largely fallen on deaf ears. Not because Germany considered it had to do no more as a member of NATO, or because it saw itself as a bridge between the West and Russia, or even because its economy and its business world are closely linked to Russia. It was a reason that is at the heart of how Germany sees itself as a country. German pacifism is a real thing, something that vibrates in German society. Over the years, there has never been broad public support for a more robust defense posture. Vladimir Putin changed all that. His invasion of Ukraine made Germany a reality, and there’s no denying how significant this moment is.
It was the day after Putin’s rambling speech recognizing the two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine that Germany’s new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, announced he would block the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea gas pipeline project. of 10 billion euros intended to double the flow. Russian gas directly to Germany. It was quite a big decision, as Germany depends on Russia for more than a third of its gas. But an even bigger one came the following Saturday: Scholz promised to arm Ukraine with 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger missiles. It would also lift restrictions on German weapons sent to conflict zones by third parties. Finally, in an innovative speech to the German Bundestag, he notably committed Germany to devoting more than 2% of the country’s GDP each year to the army, thus achieving a NATO objective that Berlin had long delayed. It was nothing less than a Zeitenwende, a historic turning point in German defense policy and a massive investment in the struggling German armed forces. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine brought more clarity and change to German foreign and defense policy thinking in a matter of days than the United States and governments from Paris to Warsaw could. do in a decade.
Putin also restored something that had been broken for years: transatlantic unity. For years, Putin has been able to sit back and savor unseemly scenes of Western disunity, ranging from Britain’s Brexit exit from the EU in 2016, Hungary’s longstanding antipathy towards Brussels and , also, of the fracture created by former President Donald Trump which has far from completely healed under Joe Biden. For Putin, the timing seemed perfect for his invasion of Ukraine, as it had the potential to open the cracks of division even further, with a war on the continent forcing everyone out of their diplomatic comfort zones. Precisely the opposite has happened.
Hear what European Council President Charles Michel said in an interview with a small group of journalists last week. “And just as Vladimir Putin thought he would destroy European unity, the exact opposite has happened. The cooperation is rock solid,” he said. “That is what the circumstances of the story demand. Required by circumstances none of us could have imagined.
Last week, transatlantic relations were further strengthened by an agreed package of measures unprecedented in scope and unity, when Brussels and Washington announced financial sanctions within minutes of each other, all targeting Russia’s central bank and excluding the country from much of the SWIFT international financial system. transactional system. Another surprise came when the EU agreed to fund the purchase and delivery of arms and other equipment to a country under attack, described by European Commission President Ursula von der Layen as “a moment decisive”.
A furious Putin resorted to the old vernacular the West loved to use during the Cold War era of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact – describing Western allies as “American satellites humbly flattering him, bow down to him, copy his conduct and joyfully accept the rules he proposes to follow”. Spitting venom, he continued: “So it’s fair to say that the whole Western bloc, shaped by the United States to their liking, represents an empire of lies.” The Western powers will have taken Putin’s anger and cynicism towards their unity as a compliment. After all, he made the EU great again.

John Dobson is a former British diplomat, who also worked in the office of British Prime Minister John Major between 1995 and 1998. He is currently a visiting scholar at the University of Plymouth.