From the outset, Kallas’s appointment as High Representative and Vice President was cast as bold and symbolically significant. The Commission’s website emphasises her responsibilities in “strengthening Europe’s security and defence … developing a more strategic approach to our neighbourhood, working closely on relations with candidate countries and the Eastern Neighbourhood.”

 

Kaja Kallas and the Erosion of European Diplomacy: Why the EU Needs a Reset at the Top

Ricardo Martins

 

Yet insofar as diplomatic performance and coherent argumentation are concerned, the record already displays noticeable weaknesses that suggest she is ill-equipped for the demanding role of shaping a credible EU foreign policy on the global stage, as I explain in the following topics.

Weakness of argumentation and inconsistencies

In her confirmation hearing and subsequent statements, Kallas has repeatedly emphasised the need for the EU to impose a “higher cost” on China for its support of Russia, asserting that “without China’s support, Russia would not be able to continue its war with the same intensity”.

Kallas is, in multiple respects, underperforming in the role. The EU is paying a reputational price while its foreign-policy chief repeats bold slogans... 

While this rhetoric may appeal to some audiences, it reduces complex issues to simple cause-and-effect claims without offering a clear or detailed strategy. For example, when speaking of China’s “unfair competition” or structural imbalances, she uses broad brush-terms rather than referencing specific geoeconomic mechanisms or institutional levers.

Kallas often describes complex geopolitical issues like the Russia-China-Iran-North Korea alliance in alarmist terms, such as “weaponising interdependencies” or “systemic rival,” as if the West does not shape alliances too. Yet she rarely explains clearly how the EU plans to act together. In diplomacy, clarity matters. Big statements may grab attention, but without concrete plans or internal support, they make the EU look weak rather than strong.

Lack of visible diplomatic gravitas or profile at major tables.

A core requirement of the High Representative is to project European power and influence, to sit at major tables and represent the EU as an equal global actor. In practice, however, Kallas does not yet appear to have achieved this.

While she co-chaired the EU-China Strategic Dialogue on 2 July 2025, it was alongside China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and the agenda remained vague: calls for reciprocity, condemnation of China’s support for Russia, and human rights concerns.

Chinese Mission to the EU’s commentary swiftly accused the EU side (i.e., Kallas) of “ideological bias without basic historical common sense” and of damaging the EU’s own interests. This shows that, rather than shaping Beijing’s stance, the EU is letting China control the narrative. It seems that EU diplomacy now relies only on lecturing, a practice no longer accepted in the Global South.

Meanwhile, there are reports of diplomatic affronts. As an example, I mention the cancellation by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio of a meeting with Kallas upon her arrival in the U.S. Such incidents underline that the EU’s top diplomat is not being treated on parity with counterparts from major powers, which raises questions about how the EU is perceived globally.

Inexperience, scale, and legitimacy issues.

Kallas’s background as former Prime Minister of Estonia, a small country of around 1.3 million, often characterised as “the size of a medium city in China or the Global South,” raises questions about her suitability for the EU’s most visible foreign-policy role. While national leadership experience is valuable, the leap from a small-state head to the full spectrum of global diplomacy demands a different set of competencies and skills.

Critics point to her being relatively “inexperienced in foreign affairs” at the highest level before taking on this position. An EU top diplomat pointed out that Kaja Kallas is ‘acting like a prime minister.’

At the end of her term as prime minister, 66% of Estonians said Kallas should resign. While national political performance is not determinative of global competence, the optics matter for legitimacy in multilateral settings.

Diplomatic style and public-presentation concerns

Beyond substance, diplomacy is also about style: balance, command, nuanced messaging, and emotional calibration. Critical observers have noted that Kallas’s public pronouncements in interviews sometimes present her as visibly unsettled or unsure, undermining the aura of diplomatic confidence.

For instance, in a high-profile U.S. television interview (on Face the Nation), she appeared emotionally unsteady and conveyed a sense of victimhood rather than assertiveness. Her unclear speech, vague arguments, and lack of strong messaging make her seem less credible as a global leader in the digital age.

Selective diplomacy and double standards

Another line of critique concerns selective focus. Sometimes Kallas appears laser-focused on Ukraine support, while giving relatively restrained attention to other issues, such as the genocide in Gaza. In fact, she has not taken any concrete measures against Israel in the face of war crimes and genocide being committed.

This may be understandable within the European political context, but it opens her to accusations of double standards and narrow strategic thinking: she is undermining Europe’s authority to criticise other nations and ruining Europe’s moral authority and soft power.

In an era of multipolar challenges, whether in the Middle East, Indo-Pacific, or Africa, a top EU diplomat must demonstrate a credible global horizon, not just one predominant geopolitical fixation.

Reflection of the EU’s wider diplomatic malaise

Beyond her individual performance, Kallas may be a symptom of the EU’s broader decline in diplomatic weight. The bloc often struggles to agree internally and to speak with one voice. The EU’s institutional machinery and member-state divergences enable Kallas’s pronouncements to remain hollow. Without follow-through, the EU risks being seen as a rhetorical giant but with no real diplomatic strength.

In this sense, the problem goes beyond Kallas herself. It reflects a deeper institutional weakness. The EU wants global influence but lacks the strong networks—jeopardized by its double-standard moral stances—as well as a lack of defence unity, intelligence capacity, and diplomatic weight to back its words. Kallas faces a difficult task, but so far she has not shown the skill or authority needed to change this.

Why it may be time to consider a replacement

If the EU truly wishes to boost its global standing, rebuild diplomatic credibility, and diplomatically compete with the likes of China, Russia, India, the UAE, or Turkey, it would benefit from a foreign-policy chief who brings three core capacities: proven diplomatic networks across major powers, gravitas at major negotiation tables, and a track record of forging durable alliances beyond narrow agendas.

At present, after more than a year in her position, Kallas’s performance doesn’t convincingly show all three.

Her rhetoric sounds bold but lacks proper expression, both in their voice and body language, sound argumentation, and detailed strategic planning. Her appearances hint at uncertainty rather than the determined confidence of a global actor. Her underlying institutional backing seems to lag behind the rhetorical claims of European unity and values.

The diagnostic question for EU leaders is, do they believe that continuity under Kallas will allow the bloc to transition into a world of high-stakes diplomacy and contestation, or would a fresh figure, perhaps from a larger member state or with longer, solid global diplomatic experience, signal a more credible ambition?

In sum, Kallas is, in multiple respects, underperforming the role. The EU is paying a reputational price while its foreign-policy chief repeats bold slogans. The spectacular failure in taking measures against a genocide, the cumulative effect of inconsistent messaging, diplomatic rebuffs, the lack of substantive leverage, and the absence from the main negotiation tables, is eroding Europe’s claim to act as a relevant, autonomous geopolitical actor.

For an EU seeking to “think big” in the emerging multipolar era, it may be time for the bloc to consider new leadership at the top of its external affairs portfolio: someone seasoned, better positioned to articulate and execute a bold, credible foreign policy. However, knowing a bit about how Brussels works, this is unlikely to happen. Kallas will probably stay, and the EU’s foreign policy risks becoming even less bold and more irrelevant.

 

Ricardo Martins—Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics

https://journal-neo.su/2025/11/10/kaja-kallas-and-the-erosion-of-european-diplomacy-why-the-eu-needs-a-reset-at-the-top/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.