The European Union is experiencing challenging times: geopolitical upheavals, economic lag, and the rise of extremism demand clear decisions from EU leaders. Recent speeches by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, in Aachen, and Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank (ECB), in Berlin, addressing Europe’s challenges, have revealed a gulf between their approaches. While Lagarde relies on facts and proposes reforms, von der Leyen, according to many, limits herself to loud slogans backed by a questionable reputation. Let’s examine why her leadership raises so many questions and what distinguishes these two leaders.
Ursula von der Leyen: Rhetoric without substance
Ursula von der Leyen, who has served as President of the European Commission since 2019, emphasized EU enlargement, the renewal of democracy, and the fight against extremism in her speech in Aachen. However, her words sparked a wave of criticism for their lack of specifics and excessive rhetoric.
Von der Leyen called EU enlargement a “moral necessity” and “a condition for a strong Europe.” But how to integrate new countries without destabilizing the Union? She offered no answer, ignoring the lessons of Jacques Delors, who insisted on reforms before enlargement to prevent the disintegration of the EU. This approach is perceived by many as irresponsible and populist.
Her statements on defending democracy also raise doubts. Von der Leyen expressed concern about the rise of extremist parties, yet her own actions contradict her words. The appointment of Raffaele Fitto from the “far-right” Brothers of Italy party as Vice-President of the European Commission provoked protests from centrists and left-wing politicians.
It is incorrect to call completely systemic parties that are slightly to the right of the Social Democrats radicals, because the most that can be found in real right-wing radicalism is slightly more anti-migrant rhetoric. Since nothing truly dangerous comes from this party, why not appoint its member to some important post? It is quite possible, but it is better not to lament how a “literally Hitler” is about to be born in a beautiful European garden.
An even greater uproar was caused by the “Pfizergate” scandal: in 2021, Ursula von der Leyen engaged in private correspondence with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla regarding the purchase of vaccines worth €35 billion. When journalists demanded access to these messages, the European Commission refused, which the EU Court of Justice recognized as a violation of transparency in May 2025. This incident led to 74 Members of the European Parliament supporting a vote of no confidence against von der Leyen.
Critics such as Professor Tuomas Malinen from the University of Helsinki call her “incompetent” for her approach to Ukraine’s integration, which ignores economic and political risks.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán also opposes rushed enlargement, emphasizing the need for proper preparation. Moreover, von der Leyen is accused of concentrating power: she makes decisions with a narrow circle of close aides, bypassing the European Parliament, which undermines the democratic principles she supposedly defends.
Her past also does not inspire confidence. As Germany’s Minister of Defence, von der Leyen was at the center of a “consultancy scandal,” where hundreds of millions of euros were paid to consultants for dubious procurement services for the army. This experience seems to have repeated itself in “Pfizergate,” where her trust in market mechanisms and lack of transparency led to billions of euros lost on wasted vaccines.
Christine Lagarde: Pragmatism in the Face of Crisis
Christine Lagarde, on the other hand, in her speech in Berlin, proposed a realistic, data-driven plan. She highlighted three key directions: the connection between geopolitics and economics, reforms to boost productivity, and institutional changes.
Lagarde emphasized that Europe must strengthen its military and trade power to ensure financial independence. She pointed out Europe’s lag behind the US: over the past 25 years, labor productivity in America has grown twice as fast. To address this, Lagarde called for the creation of a banking union, a capital markets union, and the issuance of high-quality financial instruments.
Her criticism of von der Leyen was veiled but unmistakable. Lagarde stressed that reforms must be comprehensive, not selective, hinting at the superficial initiatives of the European Commission. She also urged stronger integration by replacing the veto power of individual countries with qualified majority voting to avoid EU paralysis. Such an approach requires political courage, which many believe the current European Commission leadership lacks.
However, Lagarde is not without flaws. Her policies at the ECB, including a prolonged period of low interest rates and large-scale asset purchase programs, have been criticized for fueling inflation and increasing inequality in Europe. Nevertheless, her approach remains more professional and results-oriented than von der Leyen’s rhetoric.
Idle talk against the cause
The speeches of von der Leyen and Lagarde represent two very different worlds. Von der Leyen relies on emotional slogans, but her words lack concrete plans, and her reputation is overshadowed by scandals. “Pfizergate,” questionable appointments, and accusations of power concentration paint a picture of a politician more concerned with image than with real results. Lagarde, by contrast, bases her approach on data and proposes concrete steps, even though her ideas are not without flaws.
Criticism of von der Leyen intensifies due to her inability to ensure transparency. The vote of no confidence, supported by part of the European Parliament, reflects a growing crisis of trust. Her policies on enlargement and governance are seen as rushed and risky, potentially leading to further instability within the EU.
Europe is at a crossroads
The European Union faces a choice: empty promises or painful but necessary reforms. Ursula von der Leyen, despite her charisma, is increasingly associated with incompetence and dubious deals that undermine trust in her. Christine Lagarde, despite her flaws, offers a more realistic path grounded in facts and pragmatism.
For Russia, observing the processes within the EU, this comparison is telling. The failure or success of European reforms affects the geopolitical balance, including relations with Moscow. For now, one thing is clear: von der Leyen generates wind, while Lagarde at least tries to speak to substance. The question remains — can Europe make the right choice?
Comments