{"id":369988,"date":"2025-08-24T15:04:20","date_gmt":"2025-08-24T15:04:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/369988\/"},"modified":"2025-08-24T15:04:20","modified_gmt":"2025-08-24T15:04:20","slug":"finita-la-comedia-the-european-union-in-trumps-hands","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/369988\/","title":{"rendered":"Finita la Comedia: The European Union in Trump\u2019s hands"},"content":{"rendered":"

This week\u2019s trip of a group of European leaders across the Atlantic, the disclosure of the details of the EU\u2019s economic capitulation to the United States, as well as Moscow\u2019s attempts to reconcile with Washington, prompt reflection on the current global balance of power. Which players are truly manoeuvring on the world chessboard, and which stand proudly on the field but have already lost their freedom of action\u2014or are about to be exchanged? Considering that this concerns both global powers and blocs, these shifts are also important for the further development of the situation in the South Caucasus.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A strange summit in Washington<\/strong><\/p>\n

The appearance on Monday, August 18, of a group of European leaders at negotiations in Washington seemed extravagant. Representatives of several EU countries, the bloc\u2019s leadership, and the UK\u2019s leader arrived not for a multilateral summit. Officially, the trip was described as showing support for Ukrainian President Zelensky in his talks with Trump. History has never seen such a brazenly paternalistic approach and doubt cast on the competence of the leader of an independent state.<\/p>\n

The explanation that European leaders were sincerely supporting the Ukrainian leadership\u2014which had previously found itself in an awkward situation at the White House\u2014falls apart immediately. The Europeans had plenty of opportunities to provide such support, and they never used them.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As Clausewitz\u00a0noted<\/a><\/strong>, \u201cWar does not arise suddenly; its preparation cannot be the work of a single moment.\u201d The same is true for the Russian-Ukrainian war. Before Russia\u2019s invasion, the European Union had about ten years to actually assist its allies in Kyiv. The Russian-Ukrainian confrontation had been escalating gradually. They could, for instance, have admitted Ukraine into the EU or armed it.<\/p>\n

After 2004, the EU admitted \u201cwhomever and whenever it deemed necessary,\u201d but no such exception was made for Kyiv. The track record on military assistance is no better. Even after the war began, Kyiv was supplied mostly with outdated equipment. Last year, the wealthiest European countries\u2014Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany\u2014offered <\/a><\/strong>Kyiv a hundred Leopards that couldn\u2019t even fire. The Ukrainians refused. Overall, there is little reason to believe in the sincerity of these leaders\u2019 support.<\/p>\n

An alternative version is that the Europeans went to Washington to continue tugging at the geopolitical rope with the U.S., firmly telling the American leader that they would not allow him to negotiate with Putin on Ukraine. Brussels tried to create that impression, but the photographs of the leaders with meek expressions ruined it. Nevertheless, on Tuesday, August 19, unofficial information <\/a><\/strong>appeared in the media that a dozen European countries\u2014primarily France and the UK\u2014might send their troops to Ukraine \u201cto provide security guarantees.\u201d It seemed that the EU had genuinely begun to play its own game.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Two days ago, the head of the European Union\u2019s diplomatic service, Kaja Kallas, stated<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>in an interview with the BBC that Ukraine should not cede territory to Russia under any future agreement, and that \u201cthe strongest security guarantee is a strong Ukrainian army.\u201d All of this sounds admirable, but it is demagogic in light of Europe\u2019s actual actions so far. Kallas then \u201cwavered\u201d when it came to the EU\u2019s current and future steps. She admitted that there are no \u201cconcrete steps\u201d to deter Russia and once again spoke of a \u201ccoalition of the willing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kallas herself has no connection to this coalition: after all, it is not some global structure involving the EU. No\u2014the idea is that instead of the EU, another group of states would act, which can be called a \u201cnew Entente.\u201d Since last year, Paris and London have been trying to form it, with the involvement of Warsaw and Berlin.<\/p>\n

However, Kallas explicitly said that the participants of the \u201ccoalition of the willing\u201d must decide for themselves what guarantees they will provide to Kyiv and how to act. She washed her hands in the name of the European Union. And once again the question arises\u2014what, then, were the European leaders and the EU\u2019s top officials doing at the White House on Monday?<\/p>\n

Envoys to Trump<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even before Kallas\u2019s interview, familiar rumours resurfaced among observers following the Washington talks\u2014namely, that the Europeans, even together with the UK, cannot take any independent action on Ukraine without the U.S.<\/p>\n

On Wednesday, August 20, even Politico\u2014usually sympathetic to the Euro-liberal elites\u2014doubted<\/a> <\/strong>the possibility of sending European troops to Ukraine. It cited an insider from the Brussels bureaucracy: \u201cGiven how politically weak Macron and Starmer are, it\u2019s hard to even imagine how this plan could be implemented. These are difficult times, also economically.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moreover, the problems are not limited to the French president and the British prime minister. In Germany\u2014a key country for such an operation\u2014the situation is no better.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, while in Washington, promised to\u00a0deploy <\/a><\/strong>German troops on Ukrainian territory. This is not surprising: in his inaugural speech, he declared that he would make the German army \u201cthe strongest army in Europe,\u201d and earlier he had succeeded in lifting restrictions on the growth of public debt to attract credit for military needs.<\/p>\n

However, sending German troops to Ukraine requires parliamentary approval. Immediately after Merz\u2019s statement, it became clear that all parties in the German parliament oppose such a decision. Even influential circles within the ruling coalition and Merz\u2019s own party are against it. The only exception is the Greens, with their \u201ctrivial\u201d rating. In other words, it is unlikely that such a decision can be pushed through.<\/p>\n

New elections won\u2019t help either. Even worse, they could destabilise Germany\u2019s political system. Merz\u2019s own approval rating fell from 36% in June to the current 30% after his first hundred days in office. Meanwhile, the rating of his main opponents\u2014the opposition party Alternative for Germany (AfD)\u2014is rising. By mid-August, it reached 26%, while the popularity of Merz\u2019s Christian Democrats dropped to 24%. In response, the authorities deployed state security agencies, and immediately after news of AfD\u2019s rising rating, the party\u2019s regional organisation in Brandenburg was declared extremist.<\/p>\n

Thus, the authorities continue to pressure AfD, which was recognized as extremist at the federal level back in May. These steps are laying the groundwork for its ban, a highly risky move given AfD\u2019s mass support. In such a situation, Berlin has little bandwidth for Eastern Europe. And even Napoleon in 1812 only marched on Russia after mobilising Germans for the campaign\u2014they made up at least a quarter of his army.<\/p>\n

The EU and Russia compete for Trump\u2019s attention<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thus, in Washington, the Europeans could not argue with Trump. They went there to ask him not to abandon them in a position where they had virtually no moves left in the game they had set up in Eastern Europe. Their ideologically rigid stance had pushed all their pieces into the corners of the global chessboard. It was precisely the doctrinaire platform of the Euro-liberals that deprived them of the ability to take strategically effective steps, even in their confrontation with Russia, which has been the essence of EU foreign policy in recent years.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

There were countless options. For example, engaging with China, Russia\u2019s most important partner. And what about China! In fact, the EU had cut off its own avenues for maneuver even toward Belarus, Russia\u2019s closest ally.<\/p>\n

By refusing to boycott this country\u2014which had always kept itself distant from Russia\u2019s war in Ukraine\u2014he could have secured safety for Ukraine from the north, freed up Polish forces, and made it more difficult for Russia to continue the war. After all, the conflict began once Russian troops gained access to Belarusian territory after 2020. But such tasks are not for Euro-liberals. The people in power in European capitals are of a different mold, hiding their inability for strategic thinking behind liberal dogmatism.<\/p>\n

These party appointees, now in power, play simple-minded games. For example, they imagine that Trump can be \u201cbought\u201d with certain concessions and that he will act on the EU\u2019s side against Russia. Unlike most Euro-liberal leaders, however, Trump has extensive experience in strategic planning and leadership, proven over decades of business and political activity. They are simply incapable of manipulating him due to the difference in weight classes.<\/p>\n

On Thursday, August 21, some details of the July trade agreement between the EU and the U.S. were finally published, showing that Trump had already secured huge concessions from European leaders without giving them anything coherent in return.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

No one is rushing to disclose all the details of the agreement concluded between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and President Trump. However, new data published on Thursday confirms suspicions of the EU\u2019s capitulation.<\/p>\n

Brussels has committed to removing all tariffs on American industrial goods imported into EU countries and to giving priority access to American agricultural products and seafood on EU markets. At the same time, Brussels accepted the 15% U.S. tariffs on European imports to the United States. The EU also agreed to participate in America\u2019s campaign against Chinese industry\u2014formalised as a joint defence of markets from \u201cexcess capacities\u201d (a euphemism for Chinese competitors).<\/p>\n

This comes in addition to previously announced EU commitments regarding massive purchases of American weapons, AI chips, LNG, oil, nuclear fuel (in quantities exceeding the EU\u2019s actual needs), and much more.<\/p>\n

To understand just how cornered the EU feels and why it is making such concessions, note this: not only China, but even India confidently refused similar \u201cdeals.\u201d It is hardly surprising, as they have not lost their freedom of manoeuvre in international politics, unlike the EU. A couple of weeks ago, China and the U.S. extended <\/a><\/strong>their trade truce for another three months and continue negotiations. China did not make concessions, and Trump is not only willing to keep talking with Beijing, but has also refrained from imposing punitive tariffs on China. He clearly considers the Chinese a more serious partner than the Euro-liberals.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the latter went all in, giving the U.S. everything they could. The American leadership, demonstrating business acumen, took what was offered and formalised it on paper. Then, again showing strategic vision, it went on Friday to negotiate with its second partner, eager to align with the Americans\u2014that is, Russia.<\/p>\n

Seeing this, European leaders had no choice but to rush to Washington on Monday, remind Trump of the concessions they had made, and beg for at least some assistance on the Ukrainian issue. Meanwhile, this part of the EU\u2013U.S. deal likely was never formalised. It may have existed only in the imagination of the European elites.<\/p>\n

In summary: the U.S. is successfully exploiting the strategic anxieties of both the European Union and Russia, obtaining concessions from each. By relying on military solutions to disputes in Eastern Europe, Moscow, Kyiv, and Brussels have cornered themselves. No one currently has a military solution: as calculations <\/a><\/strong>from recent days show, since the fall of 2022, Russian forces have captured less than 1% of Ukrainian territory. Kyiv has also failed to conduct successful counteroffensives in that time.<\/p>\n

At the same time, none of the parties has even attempted political solutions to escape the deadlock. In fact, no one offers even a minimally acceptable prospect to opponents or the population in controlled territories. All prefer to seize land without people, forcing the latter to flee.<\/p>\n

The same strategic weakness is observed on the international stage. Neither Russia, Ukraine, nor Europe has been capable of bold strategic moves that would allow them to break the current stalemate. The entire strategy of Euro-liberals, Kyiv, and Moscow now hinges on Washington. These players remain on the global chessboard only nominally: they block each other and are incapable of more.<\/p>\n

Global politics and the future of the world are now being shaped by other powers\u2014for example, the U.S. and China.<\/p>\n

The same is true for the South Caucasus. In this situation, Azerbaijan\u2019s regional policy\u2014benefiting from improved relations with the U.S. under Trump and stable cooperation with China\u2014gains new opportunities. This primarily concerns regional integration and the restoration of the historical unity of the South Caucasus.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"This week\u2019s trip of a group of European leaders across the Atlantic, the disclosure of the details of…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":369989,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5174],"tags":[23355,7503,7502,2000,299,5187,1699,23356,23359,466,23358,23357,23354],"class_list":{"0":"post-369988","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-eu","8":"tag-analysis-of-azerbaijan","9":"tag-azerbaijan","10":"tag-baku","11":"tag-eu","12":"tag-europe","13":"tag-european","14":"tag-european-union","15":"tag-important-news-of-azerbaijan","16":"tag-international-experts","17":"tag-interviews","18":"tag-interviews-with-azerbaijani-analysts","19":"tag-news-from-baku","20":"tag-news-of-azerbaijan"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115084359868282787","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369988","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=369988"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369988\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/369989"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=369988"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=369988"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=369988"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}