Tough times for the EU: Empty threats and hasty attempts to please Trump An inevitable decline?

Ahead of Trump's victory, Donald Tusk, a prominent liberal politician and former President of the European Council, suddenly began sounding like a commentator from Russia Today, declaring the end of American dominance in Europe. Following his lead, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola called for the creation of a European military alliance "in addition" to NATO, which remains heavily reliant on the US.

However, the European Union is unlikely to challenge anyone, especially the US It simply lacks the will and the power to do so—both of which are being drained by Washington. The EU has also trapped itself in a geopolitical dead-end, shaped by its own ideologically driven policies, from which it will take decades to escape. The emerging global order will be defined by new leaders, but the EU is unlikely to play a meaningful role in this reshaped world

Wants to, but can’t

The EU’s liberal establishment lost by going all-in against Trump and realizing too late that there was nothing they could do to change course. Neither in Brussels nor in key European capitals were there any backup plans for what to do if Kamala Harris, desperately supported by European liberals, lost. Upon acknowledging the loss, Donald Tusk dramatically wrote on social media: " Some claim that the future of Europe depends on the American elections, while it depends first and foremost on us. On condition Europe finally grows up and believes in its own strength."

European Parliament President Roberta Metsola echoed Tusk's message in an interview with El Mundo, expanding it to a new area. She stated that the EU must prepare "for anything, regardless of what happens [in the US]," and more specifically, spoke about "creating a true union for security and defence, a union that would complement NATO." This came after NATO's stern warning to those attempting to create military alliances without American involvement! However, the talk of preparing for a "second coming" of Trump had already surfaced: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, after being reappointed in July, declared that during her second term, she would turn the EU into a military alliance.

This will require the EU to adopt a tougher stance toward Washington, as it will affect the most crucial area—the military sphere—where the US seeks to maintain its dominant position and will not tolerate even friendly competitors gaining strength. Meanwhile, the current EU leadership has repeatedly shown its inability to stand up to the Americans, even on less significant issues. For instance, when President Biden systematically began luring European businesses across the Atlantic through subsidies and incentives under controversial laws aimed at combating inflation and supporting the semiconductor industry (the so-called "CHIPS Act"), Brussels hesitated to take logical, firm countermeasures and effectively capitulated.

The results are evident—European businesses have been leaving for America year after year. For example, in October, the leadership of German company Siemens announced that, in recent years, it had hardly invested in its home country and had no intention of doing so now, claiming it was economically unfeasible. Where is Siemens taking its business? It's an open secret—the company just bought another American firm, Altair, for $10 billion. Once again, this is not about expanding the German company in the US, but about reducing its presence in Europe and shifting its operations across the Atlantic.

Brussels never dared to argue with President Biden, who remains weak yet generally friendly toward Europe's liberal elites. But what will happen with a far more determined Trump in the White House? Just a couple of weeks ago, EU leadership threatened to impose high tariffs on American imports if he were to return to power—assuming Trump's return would end any hope of reaching trade agreements. However, the threat was issued rather timidly—leaked to the media.

EU’s future buried in Eastern Europe

A harbinger of the European Union's impending capitulation to Washington came in the form of a shift in stance by French President Macron. He swiftly sent Trump a congratulatory telegram, expressing his willingness to work together "for greater peace and prosperity," despite previously making no secret of his opposition to Trump's re-election.

Things took an even more interesting turn. It was expected that the "New Europe" countries, particularly the Baltic states, would respond to the re-election of the American president with yet another round of radical pro-American statements, starting with announcements of how much of their GDP (largely dependent on subsidies) they were already spending on military expenses (primarily on products from the US defence industry). However, Macron, who in recent years had repeatedly called for a "sovereign Europe," outdid them all. Just hours after Trump's election, the French president declared: "I have just spoken with the chancellor. We will work towards a more united, stronger, more sovereign Europe in this new context – by cooperating with the United States of America and defending our interests and our values."

Macron was undoubtedly guided by his political instinct, which told him it was time to jump off the European liberal ship. The situation is clear: aside from political will, the EU currently lacks the strength and strategic capacity for decisive actions in foreign policy. The break in relations with Russia was mostly symbolic, with politicians who were not well-versed in these matters leading the charge. For example, German Economy Minister and Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck — a specialist in German Romantic literature with no managerial experience — confidently claimed in Qatar that Russia's energy supplies could be replaced by Qatari resources. Yet, just a couple of years later, Germany's legendary chemical industry is in decline. It's not just that Russia is irreplaceable as a source of raw materials; the real issue is that the EU never seriously explored alternatives — primarily from the Caspian and Central Asia.

The rise of professional political activists has effectively ended the possibility of serious policymaking. Additionally, their efforts have pushed the EU to the brink of war with Russia, at a time when the US is stepping back from that very edge. Under Biden, the US made no secret of its intentions to shift focus from Ukraine to confronting China. The financial burden is being shifted onto the EU, and in recent months, US officials have repeatedly stated that NATO membership for Ukraine is not on the table in the near future.

Meanwhile, officials from various EU countries — from Poland to France — have sporadically discussed sending troops to Ukraine or deploying their air defence systems for its protection. The day of Trump's election was marked by another significant event — the collapse of the ruling coalition in Germany, specifically over the issue of increasing support for the Ukrainian government. Even the liberal Free Democratic Party, which holds the finance minister's portfolio, opposed sending billions to Kyiv when the German budget already faces a massive deficit and the economy is slipping into recession. Further escalation in the confrontation with Russia threatens both Germany and the EU.

At times, it feels as though, just like the death of the mythical Koshchei was hidden in an egg on a distant island, Europe's fate is tied to the lands to the east of its borders. Both World Wars, fought on the eastern part of the continent, destroyed all European empires and transferred global dominance into the hands of the United States. Not into the hands of the opponents of these empires, not Russia or the Soviet Union or anyone similar, but into the hands of the transatlantic imperial power.

There is no mysticism here. The inability of European powers to secure stability in the region connecting a small European peninsula with the vast expanses of Eurasia has inevitably impacted their future. Communications are lost, access to markets and raw material sources diminishes. This is happening again, but following a familiar pattern.

The Soviet curse

This is evident even in macroeconomic indicators, although GDP data distorts the reality of the real economy. Last week, Eurostat proudly announced a narrowing of the economic growth gap between the EU and the US — to just three times. In the third quarter, the US economy grew by 2.8%, while the EU's economy grew by 0.9%. Similar figures were reported in the previous quarter — 3% and 0.6%, respectively. The real sector in the EU is essentially stagnant, as seen most clearly in its most developed country, Germany. Even official estimates suggest that Germany's GDP will shrink by 0.2% for the year. Berlin attributes this to the intensifying trade disputes between the EU and China, but refuses to acknowledge that without cheap resources from Russia, Germany's economic profitability is declining.

However, the economic growth rates and other indicators of the US (such as its massive debt) also appear lacklustre compared to China's performance. Even by Western estimates, this year China's economic growth (4.8%) is set to nearly double that of the US (2.8%, according to optimistic Western projections). The difference lies in the fact that, unlike China, which has successfully transitioned its economy to a new technological paradigm, Europe (and the US) merely watched as manufacturing capacities moved to other countries.

Instead of fostering intensive development through the construction of new industries and a fundamentally new economy, the "collective West" succumbed to the temptation of extensive growth. The collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc allowed the West to profit by reallocating resources and markets without creating fundamentally new industries. In this way, the West fell victim to the "Soviet curse" — after its victory in the Cold War, it seized easy gains but missed the chance to build a truly prosperous future.

At present, the US is economically "devouring" Western Europe — luring its advanced industries and innovations to America and forcing Europe to switch to more expensive energy sources from the US However, this process is not infinite. It is somewhat mitigated by the fact that Western Europe is itself economically "devouring" Eastern Europe, from which significant human resources have been drained, and its industries have been reduced to a minimum. A vivid illustration of this process came in October when President Zelenskyy announced that he was offering the West exclusive access to Ukraine's natural resources to prevent Russia and China from reaching them.

In addition to the general proposal, Zelenskyy emphasized there is also a "secret appendix" available to "certain partners." In other words, the transfer of Ukrainian subsoil resources to Western allies is being discussed in exchange for help in the war. However, this deal will not significantly benefit the EU, given its lack of resources to implement the first phase of this exchange — helping defeat Russian forces, without which the second phase — taking control of Ukraine's natural resources — would be impossible.

To sum up, regardless of the trajectory of future global developments — excluding, unfortunately, the likely scenario of a nuclear war leading to the destruction of humanity — certain trends can already be observed. First and foremost, the inevitable decline of the global West is becoming apparent, with the EU and its military counterpart, NATO's European component, particularly faltering. This does not mean the complete disappearance of the West, nor a total rejection of Western culture, science, technology, or even the English language. Western countries will remain on the world stage, and their cultural achievements will continue to form the foundation for the future development of human civilization.

For example, after the decline of Ancient Greece and the empire of Alexander the Great, Greek culture persisted for centuries across regions from Afghanistan to Libya. Following the fall of the Roman Empire, successor states did their best to preserve its legacy, and Latin endured until the 19th century. The new world will be shaped by China and other non-Western nations, with much of European culture, science, and technology preserved, but it will still be a fundamentally different world.

Whatever happens, the contours of the world will be defined by new countries, mostly unconnected to the "collective West." The European Union has almost no chance of playing a significant role in this process. The United States is in a better position, especially if it avoids rigid opposition to the changing world order and instead seeks to integrate into it. The transformation of the global balance of power in this direction has been visible for quite some time. To recognize it, one only needs to critically analyze the situation — a task that, unfortunately, many ideologically-driven proponents of European and Euro-Atlantic integration in non-Western countries are unable to undertake. A case in point is Armenia, whose prime minister until the last moment was showing support for the anti-Trump stance of his liberal European allies. Then Armenian nationalists began to argue that, since Pashinyan had faltered, French President Macron would fix things for the Armenians, as he supposedly had good relations with Trump...