Ursula, gravedigger of Europe ?

(My 2 cents : remove the question mark ! )

Translated from https://bam.news/politique/europe/ursula-fossoyeuse-de-l-europe? - By Marcan for BAM! Belgian Alternative Media

It is fashionable in Europe to call Trump or Putin authoritarian lunatics. But what about the President of the European Commission?

Opacity, non-compliance with procedures, waste, nepotism, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, censorship, interference in elections… Ursula von der Leyen, for whom no citizen voted, collects abuses with complete impunity. If the results had been there, we could have shown a little leniency, but Europe is objectively going backwards on all the fronts essential to its future: competitiveness, inflation, strategic orientations, growth, debt, birth rate, health, education, intra-European relations, energy, credibility on the international scene, loss of influence, … the list is long and the bill steep.

More concerned with her interests and her power, in contempt of the principles of transparency and governance, Ursula von der Leyen has tarnished the image of her office. His authoritarian, unrealistic and irresponsible decisions give the appearance of a bloated, disconnected and deleterious European institution. In this context, his presidency could paradoxically play into the hands of the Eurosceptics.

McKinsey, the son and the magic smartphone

Before becoming President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen served as Germany's Minister of Defence from 2013 to 2019. During that time, she was already involved in a controversial affair concerning the awarding of consulting contracts to external companies, including McKinsey and Accenture, without transparent tendering.

The case, known as the "Berateraffäre" (consultants' affair), involved contracts worth several hundred million doses. Allegations of favoritism and mismanagement of public funds quickly emerged, prompting the Bundestag to launch a parliamentary inquiry to shed light on the practices.

The case also took a new turn when it was revealed that Ursula von der Leyen's son, David von der Leyen, worked for McKinsey. The opposition and the press did not fail to highlight this conflict of interest.

A particularly troubling element of this case was the destruction of evidence. Indeed, during the investigation, it was revealed that Ursula von der Leyen's work phone had been erased before being handed over to investigators. The Ministry of Defense justified this deletion of data by a "standard procedure" applied when the phone was returned. However, this explanation did not convince either the investigators or the public. The German opposition denounced this act as a potential obstruction of the investigation, questioning the transparency of the minister in the management of this crisis.

The affair left a lasting stain on his ministerial mandate, fueling doubts about his ability to govern transparently and responsibly.

In countries like Norway or Iceland, such controversy would probably have ended his career, but within the European Commission, it has clearly not been an obstacle to his rise to the presidency.

Green deal or bad deal?

Under the presidency of Ursula von der Leyen, the European Green Deal aimed to make Europe the first carbon-neutral continent by 2050. But this ecological ambition has had deleterious effects on the economy, particularly for industry.

The ecological transition has been accompanied by new environmental taxes, notably through the expansion of the carbon market to the transport and construction sectors. Households have seen their energy bills increase, while companies have suffered higher production costs. The carbon tax at the borders, supposed to protect local industry, has not been enough to preserve European competitiveness, even leading to relocations.

Financing the Green Deal has relied on massive debt, including through the €750 billion NextGenerationEU recovery plan. While large companies have benefited from green subsidies, small and medium-sized enterprises have struggled to absorb the costs of this transition.

The automotive industry has suffered particularly badly. The ban on combustion-engine cars from 2035 has put thousands of jobs at risk, while Asian manufacturers have taken advantage of the opportunity to strengthen their presence in Europe. To avoid a collapse of the industry, the Commission finally had to back down, offering additional deadlines and temporarily adapting certain environmental standards, but the damage is done, with job losses in the sector running into the hundreds of thousands.

In the real estate sector, the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) imposed costly renovations on homeowners, making it harder to own and rent. Property prices rose, worsening housing insecurity. Under pressure, the Commission relaxed some rules to allow Member States to adapt.

These policy changes, in addition to the lost investments and additional costs incurred in adapting to the new directives, give an impression of amateurism and a blatant disconnection from economic and social reality.

Energy, inflation and competitiveness

European energy policy under Ursula von der Leyen was also marked by the controversial operation of the electricity pricing mechanism, based on the principle of "marginal pricing". This system requires that the price of electricity on the wholesale market be determined by the production cost of the last source of energy needed to balance supply and demand, often the most expensive.

By systematically aligning the price of electricity with the highest production cost in the energy mix, it distorts competition and mechanically leads to an increase in energy prices. The situation has become particularly disastrous with the surge in gas prices, notably due to the war in Ukraine.

European companies, particularly those in energy-intensive sectors, have seen their production costs explode, harming their competitiveness against American and Asian competitors, who often benefit from cheaper energy. Households, for their part, have suffered a dizzying increase in their electricity bills, reducing their purchasing power even further.

Personal data

On July 10, 2023, the European Commission adopted an adequacy decision on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, facilitating transfers of personal data between the European Union and the United States.

The decision has drawn criticism, notably from Max Schrems and his organisation NOYB, who argue that the new framework is similar to previous agreements struck down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). They plan to challenge the decision before the CJEU, arguing that US laws, in particular Section 702 of FISA, still allow for mass surveillance without effective remedies for European citizens.

The European Parliament has also expressed reservations, adopting a resolution in May 2023 calling on the Commission not to adopt the adequacy decision until the recommendations of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) have been fully implemented.

Pfizergate

While Ursula von der Leyen seems to have little regard for the privacy of Europeans, she seems much more concerned about protecting her own data, even when it concerns negotiations governed by transparency rules.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Commission negotiated major vaccine contracts with pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer. These negotiations involved billions of euros of public funds and involved the health future of millions of citizens. However, Ursula von der Leyen found herself at the heart of a controversy related to text messages exchanged with Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer. These messages, which could have shed light on the conditions of negotiation of the vaccine contracts, were never made public. Worse, they were allegedly deleted on the pretext that they did not constitute "official documents".

The case took on international proportions when the New York Times filed a lawsuit against the European Commission to obtain the publication of the exchanges between Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla. The American daily highlighted the lack of transparency surrounding these negotiations, calling into question the legitimacy of a presidency of the European Commission that nevertheless advocates transparency and accountability.

However, this is not the first time that Ursula von der Leyen has found herself at the heart of such a controversy. As mentioned above, during the "Berateraffäre" affair at the German Ministry of Defense, she had claimed ignorance, while promising not to repeat this mistake. An already fragile justification at the time, which has become untenable today, revealing more impunity than innocence.

”Eur-opacity”

Furthermore, Ursula von der Leyen has been criticised for bypassing the usual process for negotiating vaccine contracts with Pfizer. Normally, such negotiations should have been conducted by the dedicated team of the European Commission, with increased transparency and the involvement of Member States. However, by contacting Albert Bourla directly via SMS, she bypassed the usual procedures, raising concerns about the respect of governance rules and the fairness of the process.

This choice to negotiate outside the usual institutional channels also deprived Member States and MEPs of an overview of the exact terms of the contracts, in particular regarding prices, quantities delivered or liability clauses. This opacity has fuelled suspicions of favouritism or lack of rigour in the management of colossal public funds.

The European Parliament itself has faced obstacles when it tried to exercise its right of democratic control. Access to the contracts negotiated with Pfizer was severely restricted, with documents redacted, allowing only partial and truncated reading of the information. MEPs were only allowed to consult these documents in secure reading rooms, without the possibility of taking their phones or copying information, making any democratic control virtually impossible. This opacity has fuelled a growing sense of impunity at the top of the European institutions.

"Maladministration"

This situation has led the European Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, to open an investigation for "maladministration". Her role, as the European Union's ombudsman, is to examine cases where EU institutions or bodies may have breached the principles of transparency, accountability or good governance.

In this case, the investigation aimed to determine whether the European Commission had respected its obligations regarding the retention of official documents and whether the deletion of text messages between Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla constituted a breach of transparency rules. Emily O'Reilly pointed out in particular the lack of clarity on how the Commission manages the electronic communications of its most senior officials, thus raising questions about the capacity of the European institutions to be held accountable.

Despite its recommendations to strengthen transparency and prevent such incidents from happening again, the European Commission's response remained insufficient in the eyes of many observers, fueling the feeling that the European institutions are struggling to apply to themselves the principles they advocate.

56 billion wasted! Between August 2020 and November 2021, the European Commission signed 11 contracts with eight vaccine manufacturers, enabling the acquisition of up to 4.6 billion doses of COVID vaccines, at a total estimated cost of almost €71 billion. This is equivalent to almost ten doses per EU inhabitant, raising questions about the reason for such a volume for a vaccine that is supposed to be effective...

However, of these 4.6 billion doses purchased, only 981 million were actually administered to European citizens, or barely 21% of the doses. In other words, 79% of the doses purchased, or 3.6 billion doses, never found a buyer.

This monumental imbalance is also reflected in financial terms: of the €71 billion spent, almost €56 billion was wasted.

Despite this already considerable waste, the European Union continued to place new orders. In May 2021, an additional contract for 1.8 billion doses for the years 2022 and 2023 was signed with BioNTech/Pfizer.

In January 2025, the European Commission, via HERA, signed a new framework contract with Moderna for the acquisition of an additional 146 million doses

Baldan, the unwanted lobbyist

In April 2023, Frédéric Baldan, a Belgian lobbyist filed a criminal complaint in Belgium against Ursula von der Leyen. The charges included allegations of interference in public office, destruction of official documents, corruption and conflict of interest related to the vaccine contract negotiations with Pfizer. ​

Baldan’s complaint focused on text messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. Shortly after filing her complaint, Baldan's accreditation as a lobbyist with the European Parliament was withdrawn.

Heiko, the fulfilled husband

Heiko von der Leyen, husband of President Ursula von der Leyen, has been serving as medical director at Orgenesis Inc., a US biotech company specializing in cell and gene therapies, since December 2020.

In 2022, the Italian subsidiary of Orgenesis joined a gene and cell therapy project, using technology comparable to that of RNA vaccines. This project received European funding of 320 million euros. Heiko von der Leyen had been elected to the supervisory board of this project but resigned after the media highlighted his conflict of interest.

This is not the first time that Ursula von der Leyen has been criticized for her nepotism. As mentioned above, during the "Berateraffäre" affair, suspicions had already emerged concerning contracts awarded to McKinsey, where her son David worked at the time.

DSA and censorship

Censorship during the health crisis was particularly aggressive and provided an opportunity for institutionalization, notably via the DSA (Digital Services Act). Many citizens and independent media outlets, including BAM, have been censored on several occasions, while publishing testimonies of victims, scientists and professors, as well as information that has proven to be perfectly accurate.

Officially, this is about fighting "fake news", but in practice, it amounts to censoring or shadow banning publications and comments that do not please the Commission. Only carefully selected agencies funded by the Commission hold the truth and the right to censor.

Let us also recall that in 2022, the European Union banned the broadcasting of several Russian media outlets, accusing them of relaying Kremlin propaganda. On the other hand, the anti-Russian propaganda broadcast all day long on European media does not seem to pose any problem. In principle, freedom is not about knowing who is right or wrong, but about letting everyone decide for themselves what information is relevant to them.

But the Commission does not stop there: von der Leyen now wants to "vaccinate" Europeans against fake news: teach citizens to distinguish official information from "fake news"... In other words, teach them to think in the right direction, the one decided by the Commission.

"Democratic shield"

The "democratic shield", which officially aims to protect elections from foreign interference by allowing, among other things, their cancellation. In reality, this tool mainly allows an election to be canceled if its result does not please the Commission. It is therefore an instrument of direct interference by Brussels in national elections.

The Romanian example perfectly illustrates this problem: Having come out on top in the poll, Călin Georgescu is accused of having benefited from TikTok videos financed by Russia. The Constitutional Court then cancels the election. We will learn that in reality, the TikTok videos had been paid for by the National Liberal Party in order to weaken a competitor. In February, he was arrested by the Romanian police while trying to register his candidacy for the new elections in May… His arrest sparked protests in Romania. Thousands of people gathered in Bucharest to protest his indictment and the cancellation of the presidential election, expressing their discontent with the authorities’ decisions. ​

Călin Georgescu was eventually released under judicial supervision with strict conditions. These include a ban on leaving the country and the obligation to report regularly to the judicial authorities. In addition, he is banned from using social media during the investigation. If his guilt has not been established, this effectively constitutes interference in the electoral process.

In reality, the Commission, already undemocratic in its constitution, is using its power to strengthen its grip, in disregard of freedom of expression and the most basic democratic principles.

Sanctions fiasco

Since the Russian intervention in Ukraine, the European Commission has adopted a series of economic sanctions against Moscow. These measures were aimed at weakening the Russian economy and limiting its ability to finance the war effort. Among the most notable sanctions are the embargo on coal and most Russian oil, the cap on the price of Russian oil destined for third countries, as well as the ban on imports of luxury goods and industrial goods from Russia. The EU has also imposed strict export restrictions to Russia, including on dual-use goods, sensitive technologies, high-tech products, as well as on the industrial, energy, chemical, plastics and aviation and space sectors.

While the Russian economy, after a 2% recession in 2022, has rebounded with growth of 3.6% in 2023 and 4.1% in 2024, the European Union is struggling to return to significant growth. After growing by 3.5% in 2022, growth fell to 0.4% in 2023 and just 0.7% in 2024.

Sanctions against Russia have had a direct impact on energy prices in Europe. In 2022, gas prices jumped by 200%, leading to a 70% increase in the cost of electricity for European households. Although gas prices stabilised in 2023, they remained on average 100% higher than before the crisis. This energy inflation contributed to a generalised rise in prices, worsening the difficulties of households and reducing the competitiveness of European companies.

These figures singularly call into question the effectiveness of European sanctions. While they initially affected Russia, it has managed to reorient its economy and strengthen its internal resilience. It has managed to maintain its exports by redirecting its oil to countries not aligned with the sanctions. India has significantly increased its imports of Russian oil, taking advantage of reduced tariffs. This oil is then refined in India before being re-exported to Europe.

Similarly, Saudi Arabia has stepped up its imports of Russian fuel oil, a strategy aimed at limiting its own crude oil refining for domestic consumption. This allows the kingdom to free up more of its crude oil for export to international markets, including Europe. Ultimately, Europe finds itself in the paradoxical situation of financing the war on both the Ukrainian and Russian sides.

This situation illustrates once again the disconnect between the geopolitical ambitions of the European Commission and the economic realities faced by European citizens. Moreover, it shows a very poor assessment of the resilience of the Russian economy.

The exorbitant cost of war

Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the European Union and its Western partners have mobilized unprecedented financial resources to support kyiv. To date, the European Union and its Member States have provided Ukraine with total aid estimated at €132 billion.

In addition, Ukraine is facing massive destruction of infrastructure, with damage estimated at over $500 billion. Its reconstruction, which will take several decades, could exceed $1 trillion, a cost that Europeans could be required to finance in large part.

In human terms, the toll is even more dramatic. Out of a million victims, more than 300,000 Ukrainians and Russians have lost their lives since the beginning of the conflict. Ukraine has seen a significant part of its working population decimated on the battlefield or forced into exile, fleeing violence and uncertainty.

While the West’s strategy has aimed to isolate Russia diplomatically, the latter has strengthened its ties with the BRICS and expanded its partnerships in Africa. Many countries in the Global South are reluctant to condemn Moscow, pointing to the failure of European diplomacy to mobilize global support.

The big losers

This is not about judging the moral aspects or the responsibility of each side, but about assessing the concrete result of the decisions taken by the European Commission under the auspices of Ursula von der Leyen.

While Russia has paid a heavy price, it has nevertheless achieved several of its strategic objectives: recovering Russian-speaking areas, significantly weakening the Ukrainian army, and keeping Ukraine out of NATO.

For its part, China has strengthened its geopolitical and economic influence by accessing cheap Russian resources, consolidating its alliance with Moscow, and diverting Western attention from its own ambitions, particularly in Taiwan.

The United States, although it did not allow Ukraine to win the war, managed to pull through. It increased its arms and gas sales, while taking advantage of a weakening of European competitiveness.

In addition to Ukraine, which is emerging drained and amputated, Europe appears to be the big loser: competitiveness in decline, persistent inflation, loss of international influence, exorbitant reconstruction costs, a break in economic exchanges with Russia and increased energy dependence on the United States.

While criticism is always easier in hindsight, the fact remains that the EU committed itself fully to a conflict by maintaining the illusion of a victory that never came.

Of course, Russia can be designated as the aggressor, but it would be reductive to claim that the Ukrainian problem dates back to February 24, 2022. The European Union failed to prevent a war that was in the interest of neither Europeans nor Ukrainians. Worse, the Europeans might not be invited to the negotiating table. This is a strategic failure. This is a bitter strategic, political and diplomatic failure.

General Ursula

If there is one quality to be recognized in Ursula von der Leyen, it is her ability to take advantage of a crisis to mask her previous mistakes and appropriate illegitimate powers.

While the Trump administration called for a cessation of hostilities, believing that Europe should prioritize diplomacy to end the conflict, Ursula von der Leyen unveiled an €800 billion plan to strengthen European military capabilities and continue to provide massive support to Ukraine.

Everything seems to indicate that Ursula von der Leyen does not intend to recognize her failures and has chosen to flee forward, even if it means pushing Europe even further into a quagmire that many agree is hopeless. Without the US, it is totally illusory to claim that a victory or even a status quo is still possible in Ukraine. Any continuation of the war will inevitably be at the expense of the Ukrainians and the Europeans. In reality, the EU wants to continue supporting Zelensky, who will have no choice but to sign with the United States or disappear anyway.

By taking on the role of warlord, Ursula von der Leyen has definitively linked her fate to the disastrous outcome of a policy for which she had become the standard-bearer. If for von der Leyen it is a question of her political survival, for Europe it looks more like an inexorable descent into an impasse from which it will reap, at best, only disillusionment, and at worst, a war that it will not be able to win.

Of course, European countries have every interest in strengthening their strategic independence. How can they claim to defend their interests without being able to ensure their own security? Germany had a bitter experience of this with the explosion of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, an event that seriously compromised its competitiveness and fueled its inflation, the two fundamental pillars of its policy since the end of the Second World War. It is not even excluded that the war in Ukraine could have been avoided if European countries had really been independent of American interests.

But, once again, Ursula von der Leyen seeks to appropriate new powers, taking advantage of a catastrophic situation for which she is also responsible.

Marcan for BAM!