We have a deal, dear viewers - on Sunday evening, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump negotiated a deal between the two largest economies on the planet (if we count the European Union as a single economy, and not a conglomerate of 27 national ones)!
The main parameters of this deal include:
- 15% tariffs on goods that the EU exports to the US, and zero tariffs in the opposite direction
- The EU will purchase energy resources worth 750 billion US dollars from the US over the next 3 years
- The EU has committed to investing 600 billion US dollars in the US economy, including for the purchase of military equipment
These agreements were announced as a success not only by Trump (logically), but who knows why, and by Von der Leyen. Given that from a European perspective they do not look favorable at all.
On the first point, the EC President clearly believes that 15% import duties for the US are a success compared to the 30% initially requested by the American president, but it is omitted that the analogous duties for the UK are 10%. And the UK has a population 6.6 times smaller and a GDP 5.2 times smaller than that of the EU. So much for the importance of the EU on a global scale - now also as an economic factor...
On the second point, Ursula von der Leyen boasted that now Europe will be able to replace Russian oil and gas. So far so good, but why should it do it with the more expensive (both in terms of extraction and transportation costs) American oil and gas, instead of, for example, with those from the Middle East? And it is no wonder that some of the "American" energy resources turn out to be from the Middle East, only traded by American companies...
On the third point, Trump is killing two birds with one stone. After imposing on NATO allies an increase in military spending to 5% of GDP in the coming years, he is now "ensuring" that part of this money will go to the American military-industrial complex, instead of to the European ones.
A miracle and fairy tale deal - "a horse for a chicken". Even the chicken is hard to see.
The task asks why such "unbalanced" agreements are reached? That they are even presented as a success...
The short (and simple) answer is that when a businessman and a bureaucrat negotiate, the outcome is clear. But let's not limit ourselves to that.
The pragmatic answer could be that the EU is entering these negotiations from a worse starting position than the US. At the time when Bulgaria had just become a member of the EU, it had a total GDP approximately equal to that of the US. And now the "scissors" have seriously opened in favor of the US, and this is far from being due only to Brexit - $19.99 trillion for the EU plus $3.84 trillion for the UK is quite a gap compared to $30.51 trillion for the US (according to IMF forecasts for 2025).
A gap that has come about as a result of the "green" nonsense imposed precisely by the Brussels administration - especially since Ursula von der Leyen has been at the head of the EC. Nonsense that at the same time in the US was greatly toned down or completely absent (such as "carbon calculations").
Another possible answer is "better an unprofitable deal than a trade war". Okay, but isn't the trade balance currently in the EU's favor? And if it comes to mutual "bullying" with tariffs, who would lose more?
I came up with an optimistic theory, according to which these big concessions by Von der Leyen to Trump (she would have fought for "zero to zero" tariffs, what happened?) were made in exchange for some commitment from the US, which has not been made public yet. For example, far more active American support for Ukraine. I wish it were something like that, but somehow I can't believe it, looking at the "body language" during their joint press conference.
And there Ursula von der Leyen looked (and sounded) pathetic. Which is bad for her, but even worse for us, the citizens of the European Union.
Because with her statement she betrays our interests. And confirms the thesis that she is completely unfit for the position she holds.
When Trump says that "the EU was created to hinder the US", he is somewhat right - as far as the past is concerned. The European Union started as the European Economic Community with the idea of being a successful economic competitor to the United States. Which is happening to a large extent, but at the same time the European leadership allows for a serious military dependence on the US, which has mutated into a feeling of geopolitical vassalage.
And this dependence of the Brussels mainstream on Washington, which reached the point of de facto recognition of its "leading role" during Joe Biden's term, now seems to be mechanically transferred to Donald Trump. And they were supposed to show him "where the crabs hibernate"... Funny, if it weren't disastrous for us.
And as for Donald Trump and his negotiating skills - let's see if he can negotiate a deal with China. And with what parameters...