Europe succumbs to Trump

BrusselsAutonomy and sovereignty. These are two words that the European Union and European leaders repeat. until they are emptied of contentOn paper, these concepts guide most of the measures presented by Ursula von der Leyen's European Commission and which, among others, explain the continent's massive rearmament. The goal is to end its subjection to such unreliable partners as Vladimir Putin's Russia (energy dependence), Xi Jinping's China (trade dependence), and Donald Trump's United States (commercial and military dependence). But when it comes down to it, the European bloc is taking blind blows and is not moving towards the independence it yearns for, especially with regard to the American power.

This week, the contradictions and limitations of European leaders have become evident. On the one hand, Europe's Atlantic allies accepted Trump's imposition of spending 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense at the NATO summit in The Hague without much thought. And, on the other hand, they agreed on conclusions at the European Council in which they propose to increase their military capabilities and stop being at the mercy of the protection that the Pentagon has offered in Europe since the end of World War II.

Beyond the increase in military spending, the EU has allowed itself to be sidelined from the geopolitical scene. The United States wants to force negotiations between Moscow and Kiev, even if it is to the detriment of Ukraine's interests, and the European bloc has been completely relegated to a secondary role. It is the power that has provided the most aid to Kiev, and yet it is limited to following Trump, who is not exactly a great defender of Ukrainian sovereignty and European security.

This was also evident in this week's leaders' meetings in The Hague and Brussels. At the NATO summit, Zelensky was sidelined and only invited to participate in informal meetings. Even the conclusions agreed upon by the allies removed reference to those approved last year regarding "Ukraine's irreversible path to NATO," a language intended to provide security guarantees for Ukraine. On the other hand, they took advantage of the European Council, in which Trump obviously does not participate, to reaffirm their firm commitment to Zelensky. In fact, the Ukrainian president participated in the meeting remotely, and a large part of it focused on how to continue sanctioning Putin's regime.

They have also not raised their voices against Trump's attack on Iran. The EU above all called for a return to diplomacy and to sit down to negotiate to avoid an escalation of the conflict, but in no case was it even remotely critical of the Trump administration's decision. Quite the opposite. Von der Leyen, for example, has emphasized above all that the objective must be for the Persian country to "never obtain the atomic bomb" and limits herself to blaming Iran for the instability of the Middle East, as the White House or the Secretary General of NATO insists, Former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Regarding the trade war, there are already countries advocating urgently accepting an agreement with the United States, even if it is not the best option for the European Union. Germany is pushing hardest in this regard. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz he ordered haste in the European Council the European Commission and its counterparts to conclude a trade pact as soon as possible and "save German companies" that export to the US power, especially automotive companies.

He even hinted that he would be willing to sign an unbalanced agreement. That is, the US would maintain the 10% additional tariffs it already temporarily applies to the EU, while Brussels, in turn, would not present any countermeasures. The only one who objected was French President Emmanuel Macron, who called for a "balanced" consensus with the White House.

Save face and move on.

The intention, as several European leaders have publicly hinted, is to weather the current situation by any means necessary and, at the same time, prepare for a future Europe that will once again find itself in a position of strength on the international stage. This is the only way to understand the attitude of European leaders toward Trump: to save NATO, on which they depend for defense, and to try to bring Trump onto their side in the war in Ukraine and in the conflicts in the Middle East.

In fact, the initial reaction of European leaders to the Republican leader's threats was quite forceful. Von der Leyen promised that she would not back down in the face of the trade war initiated by Washington and the Alliance's European partners; even the most Atlanticist declared that it was necessary to "separate" from the Pentagon.

However, over time, the New York tycoon toned down his stance against everything and everyone he had previously criticized, especially Volodymyr Zelensky and the European Union. And here, the member states and Brussels saw a window of opportunity to save face: they bit their tongues and returned to Trump's more conciliatory rhetoric. However, the price they paid has been tossing off one toad after another on rearmament, trade, and international relations.

The EU dreams of a future with more autonomy and sovereignty to stop depending on the US and be able to have their say, regardless of who's in the White House. For now, European leaders are still in the discussion phase about how to one day achieve this goal, and in the meantime, even if it's because they have no other choice or don't know how to play their cards better, they find themselves succumbing to Trump.