A political analyst, Przemysław Żurawski vel Grajewski, known for his expertise in international relations, argues that true EU strength comes from safeguarding the interests of smaller member states rather than enforcing central dominance. In an interview with wPolityce.pl, he warned against a system that marginalizes smaller EU countries, noting there is no historical precedent of a union dissolving due to insufficient centralization; rather, unions have fallen apart when central power becomes overpowering at the expense of the diverse voices within the bloc.
During a discussion prompted by a report adopted by the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which proposes substantial treaty changes affecting both the European Union and its functioning, questions were raised about the potential risks to national sovereignty and defense capabilities of member states. The professor highlighted that the most evident threats would surface in areas of sovereignty, defense, and the very architecture of governance within the union.
Żurawski-Grajewski pointed to the Council’s voting system under the Lisbon Treaty that assigns voting weight roughly in proportion to population, resulting in significant influence by Germany and France. He argued that in certain substantive decisions, such as prioritizing the Mediterranean region or redistributing migrants, heavily populated front-line states like Italy and Spain could swing outcomes, consequently marginalizing eastern flank members such as Poland, which has a sizeable population by Central European standards. He emphasized that many Poles underestimate the regional arithmetic of demographic weight when considering EU decision-making.
The analyst recalled a 2021 moment when a coalition of states resisted inviting Vladimir Putin to an EU summit in Brussels, suggesting that the proposed changes would alter veto dynamics once the system moves to a qualified majority. In such a scenario, the room for national veto would shrink, reducing the ability of smaller states to shield their interests.
Examples abound in his view: the contested priority between the Mediterranean-African corridor and Eastern European concerns, the potential recalibration of relations with Russia, and the broader implications of policy resets under a new voting framework.
France and Germany were cited as likely to push for deeper integration in areas like defense, with Hungary’s stance on sanctions serving as a pretext rather than a genuine obstacle. Żurawski-Grajewski contended that the bloc has historically advanced sanctions in multi-stage tranches, and claims that qualified majority voting is indispensable for unity do not hold under scrutiny. He warned that this is only one facet of a broader reform package that would touch education and beyond, potentially centralizing curriculum decisions in Brussels and reducing the direct influence of national electorates on policy outcomes.
The discussion extended to the principle that each member state remains a democracy where leaders succeed through national support. In his view, the new system would tilt the balance so that the influence of smaller countries in Brussels diminishes, limiting their capacity to affect decisions that shape their future. The consequence, he warned, could be the gradual dissolution of the Union as the contrast between large and small member states sharpens.
Thus, the professor argued that advocates of EU reform should consider the implications for smaller nations and stand against a framework that concentrates power away from them. He reiterated the historical pattern: unions do not collapse from a lack of centralization alone, but often from a rushed, unbalanced push toward centralized governance that sidelines minority voices inside the bloc.
The contemporary political discourse around EU treaties resurfaced in a public post on a major social platform, where the speaker described the trend as bringing about centralized governance that could favor certain states while sidelining others. The commentary reflected on a document attributed to a co-rapporteur regarding foreign policy and defense, underscoring concerns that the pursuit of sovereignty and strategic autonomy within Europe could clash with existing alliances and structures. The discussion referenced long-standing debates about NATO, European autonomy, and the balance of power between European institutions and the United States, noting past remarks about NATO’s purpose and the risks of rebalance toward a Europe-centric security framework.
In the professor’s analysis, a key issue lies in transforming national armed forces into a union-wide structure. He viewed this as potentially eroding Warsaw’s capacity to defend its own interests, steering defense resources toward a centralized European model that may not align with Poland’s needs. The critique extended to the broader defense and security agenda, where he argued that long-standing ambitions of a truly independent European military capability had not yielded tangible results. He warned that a 2 percent GDP floor for defense would still fall short of creating a robust, autonomous European capacity, and cautioned that lowering cohesion funding would undermine unity.
Regarding defense industry integration, the analyst suggested that Germany and France have specific objectives, including the consolidation of arms production and expeditionary capabilities. He warned that European funding could be redirected toward a centralized procurement system, potentially restricting national choices and limiting access to strategic assets during crises. He warned that such arrangements might result in dependence on centralized suppliers and complicate a direct response to threats, especially if political alignments favor Brussels over national capitals.
Ultimately, the analysis warned of possible friction with the United States and the risk of eroding long-standing defense and security ties. It suggested that the United States might recalibrate its strategy if European security becomes more deeply tied to German leadership. The discussion referenced recent high-level statements and the complex interplay among Washington, Brussels, and national capitals as the bloc contends with competing visions for Ukraine, NATO, and the future of European security architecture. The overall message cautioned that political developments could unfold amid a complicated transition period, with consequences for regional stability and transatlantic relations.
Finally, the analyst called attention to another potential risk: the humanitarian spillover from the Gaza crisis, including possible refugee movements that could travel through neighboring regions and affect border integrity. He stressed that such scenarios could become more plausible if a government is forming amid chaotic conditions and if the United States shifts its focus away from Europe during internal political transitions.