UNUSUALLY for a European Union summit, this one was supposed to wrap up early. "We're hoping to be done by nine o'clock," said one British official cheerfully, as proceedings kicked off yesterday evening in Brussels. But it was closer to 1.00am by the time the club's 28 leaders clambered wearily into their limousines. There turned out to be rather a lot to discuss.
The European Council summit, the first ever to be held in August, was arranged last month after the EU's leaders failed to agree on the appointment of two senior positions: the president of the Council, who oversees meetings and tries to find common ground among leaders, and the high representative for foreign affairs. In the days and weeks leading up to last night Herman van Rompuy, who holds the former position, worked the phones hard to arrive at something close to a consensus. It worked: the jobs discussion was concluded crisply (see below). 
It proved a little trickier to find agreement around two weightier matters: how to kickstart the sluggish European economy, and how to respond to Russian revanchism in Ukraine. The first issue was not on the prepared agenda last night, despite Europe's litany ofeconomic woes. But Matteo Renzi, the energetic Italian prime minister, who is keen tocounter the German-led austerity-first approach to public finances in the euro zone, eventually persuaded his colleagues to attend a jobs summit he will host on October 6th. That, along with a meeting of the European Central Bank's governing council on Thursday in Frankfurt, may set the tone for Europe's response to its economic challenges as its new officials settle in. But the apparent resistance of some leaders to Mr Renzi's proposals shows how tricky the terrain remains.
The Ukrainian issue dominated discussions in Brussels yesterday, and not only at the summit. Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine's president, was glad-handed by pretty much every notable in town before announcing that Ukraine was "close to the point of no return", which he defined as "full-scale war". He added that if strife in Ukraine led to Russia cutting gas supplies in winter, the strife would be a bigger problem than the gas. Yet he did not go so far as some European leaders in calling for deliveries of arms to Ukrainian forces battling Russian-backed rebels. After the summit Angela Merkel, Germany's chancellor, and François Hollande, the French president, emphasised that they saw no military solution in Ukraine.
Instead the leaders have given the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, a week to draw up a list of new sanctions that might be applied to the Russian economy. These will probably be extensions of a round of measures taken last month, which targeted Russia's energy, finance and arms sectors. It is, to put it charitably, unclear what difference such action may make to the thinking of Vladimir Putin, Russia's president. Only today he ominously raised the issue of eastern Ukraine's "statehood". Those looking for a more robust response may need to look to a NATO summit in Wales this week, which will consider what military options may be available to the West, including the stationing of assets in Poland. 
Mrs Merkel noted that details of the new sanctions were not discussed at the summit. This is probably because they remain contentious. Although the differences between EU members on Russia have narrowed, particularly since the downing of the Malaysian Airlines plane over eastern Ukraine in July, splits remain: Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Cyprus are reported to have demurred at the proposal for fresh sanctions last night.
The developments in Ukraine did not, however, challenge the remorseless logic of the EU's job-distribution machine. The leaders appointed Federica Mogherini, Italy's foreign minister, as the EU's high representative for foreign affairs, and gave the job of running the Council to Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister. Ms Mogherini, whose candidacy had for some time been aggressively pushed by Mr Renzi, fulfilled the requirement to have a European Socialist (and preferably a woman) in one of the top jobs; Mr Tusk satisfies the aspirations of the central and eastern European accession countries of 2004 to obtain high European office.
The appointment of a man from a country that has adopted a hawkish posture towards Russia may also have mollified those states, such as the Baltics, who worried whether Ms Mogherini could be relied upon to fight their corner. Yet Dalia Grybauskaitė, Lithuania's president, reportedly abstained from the vote on the high representative, denying Ms Mogherini the right to claim the unanimous support Mr Tusk enjoyed. Ms Mogherini will have a lot of sceptics to win over when she takes office. 
Most likely it will not be Ukraine that determines whether she is able to pull that off. Ms Mogherini, who has served as Italy's foreign minister for barely six months, would probably not have won the job had merit been the sole consideration, but her appointment may say more about big countries' determination to retain control over crunchy foreign-policy issues than it does about any supposed European spinelessness. Cathy Ashton, Ms Mogherini's predecessor, never fully convinced her own critics (and has been largely absent on Ukraine), but scored some successes on second-tier issues, notably the Balkans and Iran's nuclear programme. That may set the template for assessing Ms Mogherini's time in office.
It will be fascinating, meanwhile, to observe how Mr Tusk takes to his new job. Mr Van Rompuy, his predecessor, won praise over his five years in office for his success in building consensus among leaders, particularly during the high drama of the euro-zone crisis. Mr Tusk may seek to apply a different set of skills. He will be expected to bring the clout that comes with having run a large EU member to the job—and, presumably, would not have given up the Polish premiership if he considered the presidency to be little more than a glorified secretarial role. The emergence of Mrs Merkel, a close ally of Mr Tusk's, as Europe's undisputed empress will bolster his position, and Britain should also be a natural partner, notwithstanding spats over the EU budget and the rights of Polish migrants in Britain.
A final word on Britain. In June David Cameron, the prime minister, was broadly considered to have played his diplomatic hand badly when he forced, and lost, a vote on the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as the new president of the commission. Mr Cameron's pledge to call a referendum on Britain's EU membership in 2017 has rattled nerves here, and Britain has certainly lost influence in Europe under Mr Cameron's premiership.
But there are a lot of people in Brussels keen to keep Britain happy. Last night both Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Tusk said satisfying British concerns would be one of the EU's top priorities in the years ahead. Mr Juncker has already said dealing with "the British question" will be among his five priorities. An early test will be the job Mr Juncker gives to Jonathan Hill, Mr Cameron's nomination for Britain's commissioner. Details should become clear the week after next.