L’estate dell’umiliazione europea

Europe entered the summer with the prospect of a transatlantic divorce looming as the futures of Ukraine, Nato and trade remained up in the air. With their beach holidays beckoning, European leaders may now be taking a sigh of relief. The US president who called Nato obsolete, promised to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours and declared the EU a foe, has instead taken their side — for now.

But to placate Donald Trump’s instincts, Europe has had to bow down and pay up, no fewer than three times. First for Nato, pledging hundreds of billions to additional defence and security spending. Then for Ukraine, committing to paying the US for weapons Ukraine needs. And this week for trade, allowing the US to unilaterally multiply tariffs even as Europe promises more than $1.3tn in purchases of American energy and weaponry, and in investments on US soil.

European negotiators can point out that US tariffs for many other countries are higher still, that European product and safety standards remain in place, that US energy is a desirable alternative to Russian energy, that weapons purchases are already booked under Nato plans, that European investments into the US economy happen anyway and that the headline figures of EU purchases are aspirational. Europe may be paying an acceptable price for trade stability, provided Trump does not change his mind and the remaining grey areas, including steel and pharmaceuticals, are spared punitive tariffs.

But Europe cannot hide from the fact that the Trump administration has bullied it into submission. The leading multilateral free trade block in the world has failed to stand up for trade. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen was even reduced to painting Europe as the villain, parroting the false Trump narrative of zero-sum trade. European countries together lack the economic strength, the military power and the shared worldview to collectively stand up for common values and interests. Europe cannot conduct a trade war with the US because it is divided. It cannot afford one because it is weak. It cannot play the art of the Trump trade deal, mixing geopolitics, hard power and ego, into the technocratic process for which the EU is designed. America knew this. The rest of the world knows it now. Europe’s relief is born in impotence and made of humiliation.

Psychologically, will this forced appeasement finally push Europe to take itself seriously as a geopolitical power, or will it instead entrench European division and dependence? The signs are not very promising. European countries are committed to spending more on defence and security, but incentivising common national procurement is the most European it gets. In the meantime, three and a half years into a war of invasion, Europe is still incapable of producing the critical weapons for Ukraine.

Deepening the European internal market as a gravitational geopolitical force in energy, defence, communications and finance has been powerfully advocated in influential reports but is gaining little political traction. Addressing industrial decline is increasingly bringing back the past of national state support, bypassing European market integration. Mobilising more common European funds, perhaps the easiest way forward, is still a taboo, as recent discussions on the next EU budget have once again demonstrated.

The single biggest European development of the year is the re-emergence of Germany as a military actor, with a five-year plan to spend more than €600bn on defence and security. But tellingly, the Merz government embraces a “Made for Germany” philosophy, forgoing the opportunity to put a new Germany at the heart of a coalition that could form the bedrock of a future European defence union.

In the same vein, the recent Lancaster House Agreement between the UK and France is a bilateral “entente industrielle” of old, enabling both countries to occupy a position of national strength in a Europe of security and defence, but not a building block for a bigger proto-European project. Jean Monnet said that “Europe will be forged in crises and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises”. His fellow EU founding father, Paul-Henri Spaak, on the other hand, observed that “there are only two types of states in Europe: small states, and small states that have not yet realised that they are small”. If Europe’s humiliation is to end, its leading nations must remember Spaak and relearn Monnet.

The more I read about the deal the less I think it’s as “humiliating” as is being claimed. Many of the main exports are now exempt and have better percentages than even American car makers currently have for example, making them the most competitive on the US market. Other things like pharmaceuticals are exempt, and the big stuff like strong tech regulation all stays in place. The pledged investments are a nothing burger as the EU already invested 200bn in the US and since there are no timelines set, this 600bn will simply be reached naturally. The defense and energy spending will happen anyway, so nothing new under the sun as EU buys LNG necessarily regardless of trump, and weapons similarly because of rearm and Ukraine.

So basically, stuff that was going to happen anyway has been made too look important, but there are no real deadlines, so no practical damage. Most products will have some form of tariffs, but the important stuff is either exempt or actually now discounted compared to all/many competitors. Also we should not forget that the EU does have some tariffs in return anyway, more around 5%. In return they avert big short-term problems with the economy, and the NATO/security/Ukraine fallout that would come with it, and all tech regulation and independence in that regard stays intact.

I am not saying this is good, let’s be clear. It should of course be overturned whenever commonsense comes back to the US, but I feel that if you look at the details it is not as bad as the headlines want you to believe. Especially as it keeps the US onboard for Russia, and more importantly, taking a lot of heat dealing with China. And we should remember that tariffs are essentially a tax for Americans, and they only hurt Europeans if the offset is so big that domestic competitors in the US will win. With a relative difference of 10% at best (but again it’s actually in the EUs favour now compared to US competotors for cars etc.) I am not sure the hit will be as big for EU companies and most will be a minor tax for US consumers.

EDIT: This sub really needs to stop being so kneejerk doomerist about everything, and look at things critically. Also just claiming some crazy digital service retaliation is just stupid. The EU cannot afford and does not want a huge fallout with the US right now. This is simply reality. It seems they got off very light if you look at the details, which is much more important than grandstanding. Of course longterm exposure needs to be managed to avoid this in the future, but this populist doomerism is stupid.

‘Financial Times’

This sounds like a bunch of bankers that are pissed off because they still need to follow rules and regulations.

Just look at state of the markets and then talk about “humiliation”. Tariffs announcement did nothing to lift depressed US market. Unlike MAGA cult followers, businesses do understand how Tariffs work and they do realize that US is the loser and will keep being a loser until Loser Of The Year stays in the WH.

The most humiliating thing was that she had to fly to Brexit Britain to agree the deal.

Anyone still denying that the anglo-American media has an anti-European agenda after the recent barrage of insanely over the top rage and clickbaity titles and articles is honeslty blind to reality imho. It’s so obvious that these publications are spinning an extremely negative narrative about Europe at every given opportunity.

Make it a decade. Ursala has just started her term.

This sub turned into usa propaganda very fast, absurd take.

r/BuyFromEU

Everybody, be cool! It’s like a crazy fat bastard with makeup is threatening to shoot himself in the foot with a 45 Magnum and spill blood stains on our shoes in the process. Now, a deal has been reached for the lunatic to use a 9mm instead. But the people think this is humiliating and ask for our leader to instead threaten to shoot herself in the foot with a dessert eagle to, maybe, prevent the lunatic from shooting his foot with a 45, at best, or at worst show some sovereignty with that desert eagle.

I hate that we’re still in this halfway system with the EU where we basically have no say. Who ever wanted this VdL witch to be in charge of anything at all?

Perhaps people finally realize how weak the EU really is, and accept that it is something which must be solved.

Because the EU has zero power over its member states, it cannot negotiate with the US, China or even russia or Turkey, without being at a huge disadvantage.

Trump can threaten the EU with tariffs, safe in the knowledge that there is no way in heck that Van Der Leyen can get all 27 countries in the EU to agree to levy retaliatory tariffs.

The EU *must* federalize, or it will remain a joke, a helpless plaything for the real powers.