Welcome back to Off the Record, coming to you from Brussels.

So, it happened. Donald Trump and the Republicans were trounced in the US midterm elections. Not merely beaten, but crushed. 

The Democrats swept back into control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, captured a string of governorships and even turned traditionally Republican strongholds such as Texas, Kansas and South Carolina blue.

Voters routinely punish the party in power in midterms. But this was something else: a blue wave that delivered a damning verdict on a president whose name was not on the ballot, but whose presidency was.

For months, Americans had been warning that they were struggling with the cost of living. Grocery bills and petrol prices kept rising, while Trump dismissed concerns about affordability as a hoax. His promise to keep America out of foreign conflicts had also unravelled, with the US embroiled in an unpopular war with Iran and no obvious exit strategy. 

Despite a much-trumpeted ceasefire agreement over the summer, under which Trump promised the unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global oil supplies, the strait remains closed.

The US may have bombed the hell out of Iran, to borrow the language of MAGA, but Tehran has shown that controlling a strategic chokepoint can give it considerable leverage over the world's largest military power.

Neither Trump's much-heralded Venezuelan oil nor his controversial decision to lift sanctions on Russian diesel – a measure that revealed how far he was prepared to go to bring down prices at the pump – made much difference.

The Democrats, meanwhile, found a message that resonated. 

Despite their divisions over issues such as Israel, they focused on the widening gap between the fortunes of Trump's wealthy inner circle and those of ordinary Americans. It worked. They also appear to have recognised the limits of woke politics, shifting the emphasis from identity issues towards more traditional Democratic priorities, including affordable healthcare.

So, what does it mean for Europe?

For starters, the elections have demonstrated that MAGA is far from invincible.

Indeed, its attempts to extend its influence across Europe have produced decidedly mixed results. There is a running joke in Brussels that the worst thing that can happen to an aspiring Make Europe Great Again populist – and they come in all shapes and accents – is to receive an endorsement from JD Vance, Trump's vice-president. Viktor Orbán could testify to that.

It's a joke, but it captures a wider problem for Washington. The ambition to reshape European politics, set out in the administration's controversial National Security Strategy last year, has encountered considerable resistance.

MEGA initially welcomed Trump's war on woke and his tough line on migration. His tariffs on European goods, threats against allies and insults? Not so much. Just look at Giorgia Meloni, the original Trump whisperer.

That's the politics. As for policy, Europeans don't expect much to change.

“It would be naive to think that the transatlantic relationship will undergo a fundamental reset while Trump remains in office,” one European official told me this week. And there's another problem. Domestic political turmoil rarely improves foreign policy. If anything, it makes it more volatile.

Another European official warned against relaxing now or assuming that the Democrats will simply sweep back into the White House in 2028 and sort everything out. Trump's comeback taught Brussels a lesson in complacency. For the EU, the strategy remains unchanged: engage on security, de-risk on the rest.

Would a Democratic administration undo Trump's tariffs? Unclear. Would it reverse the US security pivot away from Europe and towards China? Not really. Europe will have to handle its own defence – the nice way or the rough way.

The one area where Europeans need the US is Ukraine. Trump's peace talks have gone nowhere, but his decision to cut financial aid has had enormous consequences for Europe, which is now practically alone in footing the bill for the largest war on the continent since World War II.

Brussels understands that any peace deal will require a US commitment to binding security guarantees. This is the so-called American backstop: a credible commitment that Washington would help defend Ukraine alongside its European allies if Russia attacked again. Without it, any peace agreement risks being little more than a pause before the next war. 

Such a guarantee would be a game-changer. But it depends on Washington being willing to make that commitment. A future Democratic president might be. Trump, so far, hasn't. And the midterms can't square that circle.

Speaking of talking to the Russians – or rather, who should speak to Russia in Europe's name – it's one big mess.

I've long argued for a European envoy, and defended António Costa's outreach phone call in June, even if it proved fruitless, because Europeans have to speak for themselves. Talking to Russia does not mean bowing to Putin or throwing Ukraine under the bus. That's hyperbole, and it's counterproductive.

But an envoy needs a clear political mandate, not Chinese whispers. 

As it stands, this ultra-delicate dossier is being handled by a puzzling cast of players: the Coalition of the Willing; the E3 (Britain, France and Germany); Ursula von der Leyen and her sherpa, who has somehow become involved in the talks; Costa; the Eastern Europeans, led by Poland, who are adamant about having their views represented; and the EU's High Representative, Kaja Kallas, who wants to be involved but is being shut out.

Then there are the Nordics, with Finland's Alexander Stubb playing a prominent role, alongside Norway's Jonas Gahr Støre. Norway isn't even an EU member, but it is a major donor to Ukraine. Yet, who is in charge? Take your pick. 

The confusion prompted an angry letter from Meloni to Costa this week, in which she vented her frustration at the lack of direction, which she described as unacceptable. Meloni is keeping an eye on the polls and cannot afford to look like she's out of the loop, but she makes a fair point.

Europe cannot complain about Washington negotiating over its head while failing to agree who should speak on its behalf. This week's informal EU summit in Dublin is an opportunity to put things right. Leaders need to set aside their egos and love of headlines, agree on a credible name, and give that person a clear political mandate. The cacophony already looks like amateur hour.

Lastly, Euronews hosted its annual EU Enlargement Summit this week, where I sat down with Georgia's Prime Minister, Irakli Kobakhidze, for an interview that was rather musclée, as the French would say.

I received plenty of messages from viewers and readers afterwards. Some were touching and genuinely moved me. Others were critical; some were flat-out personal attacks. It's OK, it comes with the territory. But beyond the reactions, let's get into the substance.

Around 80% of Georgians want their country to join the European Union, an aspiration enshrined in the constitution. Yet the ruling party unilaterally halted accession talks, as the European Commission warned of serious democratic backsliding across the board – in the judiciary, civil society and the media. The Commission reiterated its concerns in a new report this week.

I asked Kobakhidze seven times how he intended to re-engage with Brussels. He will have to make the first move, or the process will remain stuck. He said he was ready to talk, while also suggesting that Brussels is full of bureaucrats and that its legal assessments are a political tool.

My advice? Watch the interview and judge for yourself. My job is not to tell our readers what to think – they're far too smart for that – but to ask informed questions.

Thank you for reading Off the Record. You can email me at maria.tadeo@euronews.com

— Maria Tadeo