In a significant turn of events, France’s Prime Minister has declared a “dark day” for the European Union, criticizing the latest tariff arrangement with the United States as a form of “submission” to U.S. demands. Commentators have scrutinized EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen’s handshake with President Donald Trump, characterizing it as a gesture of capitulation.
The situation reflects Europe’s heavy dependence on the United States, extending beyond mere trade issues.
In line with President Trump’s rhetoric, Von der Leyen described the recently solidified agreement—which imposes a 15% tariff on most European exports, a 10% increase from previous levels—as “huge.” Her staff quickly communicated to the press that this deal is the “biggest trade deal ever.”
A month prior to this agreement, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte endeared himself to Trump by portraying him as a “daddy,” underscoring a pattern where European leaders prioritize maintaining relationships over defying an unpredictable American administration.
“It’s not only about the trade. It’s about security. It’s about Ukraine. It’s about current geopolitical volatility. I cannot go into all the details,” asserted EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič to reporters.
His comments followed the decisive hour-long meeting that finalized the deal, which took place after President Trump concluded a round of golf in Scotland.
The strategic gravity of U.S. support has intensified following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with fears escalating that, should Vladimir Putin prevail, he may target neighboring European countries next.
In response to these security concerns, European nations are procuring U.S. weaponry to aid Ukraine, with some even prepared to send their military defense systems abroad and replace them with American equipment when it becomes available.
“We’re going to be sending now military equipment and other equipment to NATO, and they’ll be doing what they want, but I guess it’s for the most part working with Ukraine,” President Trump stated, expressing ambiguity about America’s commitment to NATO.
There exist apprehensions in Europe regarding a potential drawdown of U.S. troops, with the Pentagon anticipated to announce a reduction by October. Currently, approximately 84,000 U.S. military personnel are stationed in Europe, providing a critical deterrent against potential adversaries, notably Russia.
Despite these geopolitical intricacies, President Trump is imposing tariffs on NATO allies under the justification of U.S. security interests. This reasoning often strikes European leaders as irrational, particularly from their side of the Atlantic.
“The EU is in a difficult situation because we’re very dependent on the U.S. for security,” remarked Niclas Poitiers from the Bruegel research institution in Brussels.
He added, “Ukraine is a very big part of that, but also generally our defense is underwritten by NATO,” emphasizing the critical intersection of trade and security.
The reluctance to engage in a significant conflict with the United States on trade issues is evident, as Poitiers pointed out that the European Union appears to lack the willingness for the kind of confrontation that might have been needed to recalibrate its trade position with the U.S.
Consequently, part of the tariff agreement stipulates a commitment from Europe to purchase American oil and gas. Over the course of the enduring Russia-Ukraine conflict, the EU has strived to reduce its dependence on Russian energy, although some countries, like Hungary and Slovakia, have yet to diversify their energy suppliers.
“Purchases of U.S. energy products will diversify our sources of supply and contribute to Europe’s energy security. We will replace Russian gas and oil with significant purchases of U.S. LNG, oil, and nuclear fuels,” Von der Leyen stated during her remarks following the deal in Scotland.
As Europe endeavors to reduce its reliance on Russian energy, it confronts the ongoing struggle to diminish its dependence on U.S. security assurances as well.
Trump’s administration has signaled a pivot towards prioritizing issues in Asia and the Middle East, which raises concerns among European allies about maintaining robust U.S. involvement in their defense strategies.
In light of these geopolitical shifts, European leaders recently agreed at a NATO summit to dramatically boost defense spending over the next decade, aiming to ensure their security while preserving U.S. engagement.
The nuances of the diplomacy involved in these talks came to light with private messages being made public. For example, Rutte told Trump in a private text message, “Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win,” a message that Trump shared widely on social media.
When pressed about the implications of Trump revealing their exchange, Rutte dismissed any embarrassment, stating: “I have absolutely no trouble or problem with that because there’s nothing in it which had to stay secret.”
During her interaction with Trump, Von der Leyen appeared poised, though some observers noted her demeanor was more reserved. She did not challenge Trump’s assertion that only America was extending aid to Gaza, despite the EU’s standing as the most substantial aid provider to the Palestinians.
With President Trump’s threat of 30% tariffs looming over European exports—unclear whether it was a genuine threat or a game of brinksmanship—the 15% tariff may have been regarded as a manageable cost in the face of a looming trade dispute, especially amid the backdrop of Europe’s most significant war in decades.
“In terms of the economic impact on the EU economy itself, it will be negative,” Poitiers noted. “But it’s not something that is on a comparable magnitude like the energy crisis after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or even COVID.”
“This is a negative shock for our economy, but it is something that’s very manageable,” he concluded.
Ultimately, how long this precarious entente between the EU and the U.S. will endure remains uncertain.
image source from：abcnews
