What was negotiated behind closed doors at the European Council—and why the decisions taken matter
The European Council held in Brussels on 18 and 19 December was not just another summit in the EU calendar. Beneath its technical appearance and carefully calibrated conclusions, heads of state and government faced a fundamental choice: to demonstrate whether the European Union was ready to act as a geopolitical actor with strategic autonomy, or whether it would remain constrained by internal vetoes and external pressure in an increasingly hostile international environment.
Aquí Europa, a Prensamedia outlet belonging to the same media group as The Diplomat in Spain, has had exclusive access to information obtained through EU sources directly involved in the preparation, conduct, and finalisation of the agreements reached at this summit. Drawing on these elements, this Backstage reconstructs a meeting that—beyond its formal conclusions—marked a turning point in how the EU approaches its role on the global stage, particularly with regard to Ukraine and the broader strategic balance.
Ukraine 2026–2027: the message that had to be sent
For the European Union, securing funding for Ukraine in 2026 and 2027 was crucial. This was not merely a budgetary issue, but a matter of sending an unambiguous political signal in two key directions.
First, to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, making clear that there is no turning back: the EU will continue to support Ukraine in the peace process, the country’s reconstruction, and its path towards EU membership as a future Member State.
Second, to Donald Trump’s United States, underscoring that Europe will not accept being sidelined from either the design of the end of the conflict or the subsequent distribution of power, influence, and reconstruction efforts.
The figures illustrate the scale of the challenge. The World Bank estimates Ukraine’s needs for the coming years at around $147 billion. With the decisions adopted, the EU comes significantly closer to covering those needs in the 2026–2027 biennium.
Two options on the table… and an awkward veto
Aware of the gravity of the moment, the European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, arrived at the Council with two clearly structured proposals.
The first, considered the preferred option, was the use of frozen Russian assets resulting from EU sanctions. The second, presented as an alternative, consisted of a joint €90 billion loan in the form of eurobonds.
The blockage was not legal, but political. Belgium vetoed the use of the frozen assets. According to EU sources, the veto was driven less by legal concerns—fully addressed by the EU—than by the fact that the assets are held on Belgian territory and, until recently, by a financial institution that has generated substantial profits from their custody.
Within the Commission’s negotiating circles, it was widely assumed that the Belgian prime minister would eventually lift the veto. He did not.
The Meloni factor and the collapse of consensus
The biggest surprise came from the position adopted by Giorgia Meloni. Contrary to expectations, the Italian prime minister chose to back the Belgian stance, thereby breaking the existing consensus among the rest of the EU partners on the use of frozen assets.
This move effectively killed the first option politically and forced the activation of the second: the joint loan. In Brussels, the prevailing interpretation is that Meloni’s manoeuvre responded to a logic of external balancing, linked to her relationship with Washington and her desire to maintain privileged channels with Trump. However, her ultimate objective was not achieved: the EU moved forward nonetheless—and did so without Italy.
Enhanced cooperation: moving forward without unanimity
To make the loan possible, the EU resorted to the enhanced cooperation mechanism, following the refusal of Hungary, Czechia, and Slovakia to participate in the financial instrument.
This mechanism allows a group of Member States—at least nine—to advance a common initiative within the EU’s institutional framework without unanimity. It does not fragment the Union, but it prevents a minority’s vetoes from paralysing strategic decisions.
Its use at this Council is highly significant. It opens a pathway towards the geopolitical maturity of the European project: when strategic interests are at stake, the EU can act without being held hostage by governments aligned with Moscow or by short-term national calculations.
On this occasion, Putin’s internal allies demonstrated their real inability to block a key decision.
Frozen assets remain a strategic card
The Council conclusions also contain an element of major significance: frozen Russian assets do not disappear from the EU’s strategic horizon. Should Russia fail to financially compensate Ukraine for the damage caused once peace is achieved, the EU explicitly reserves the right to use them.
This gives Europe substantial room for manoeuvre to play an active role in Ukraine’s reconstruction using large-scale resources of its own. Such a scenario directly clashes with Trump’s interest in unilaterally leading the process and gaining access to Ukraine’s strategic assets—raw materials, gas, grain, or infrastructure.
The political message is unequivocal: there will be no peace designed without the EU, and no reconstruction without Europe.
Mercosur: a tactical victory
Meloni also played a significant role in the second major dossier addressed at the Council: the Mercosur agreement. In this case, she aligned herself with Emmanuel Macron, who is under strong domestic pressure from French farmers and livestock producers and leads a politically weakened government.
Together, they succeeded in delaying the signing of the agreement until January. A tactical victory for Paris—but not a strategic one.
The Council conclusions make it clear that the text negotiated by the Commission remains fully valid. In fact, the Commission held confidential talks with Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who publicly stated that this was the last opportunity to conclude the agreement.
Lula was given clear assurances that the agreement would be signed in January. For now, the treaty is not at risk. The postponement reflects a tactical decision intended to give France time to prepare the domestic political ground for ratification.
A Commission at its limits—and an EU that moves forward
The final balance of the European Council is revealing. The Commission has manoeuvred to the fullest in an extraordinarily fragmented political context, under intense external pressure—from the United States, China, and Russia—all of which openly seek to exploit internal EU divisions.
All this coincides with the rise of Eurosceptic forces within several European governments, precisely at a time when acting as a credible geopolitical actor is most necessary.
This Council did not resolve all tensions. But it delivered a crucial conclusion: when the EU decides to move forward, it can do so. Even without unanimity. Even under pressure. Even against its own inertia.
That is why, rather than an ordinary summit, it was the European Council at which the Union began to behave like a mature geopolitical actor.