When I first wrote Choosing Strategy over Surrender in EU-US Trade Deal for The Brussels Times earlier this month, I warned that Europe faced a historic inflection point.

By Collins NWEKE

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

I postulated that the EU is either to negotiate as an equal partner or risk institutionalising dependency. Within a couple of months, the newly concluded EU-US trade deal confirms both the scale of that choice and the high cost of avoiding it.

A deal dressed as balance

European leaders are celebrating this agreement as a strategic win for both sides. The talking points are clear:

• Washington will lower auto tariffs, though only after Brussels legislates equivalent cuts.
• From September, the US will apply Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariffs on sensitive sectors like aircraft parts, chemicals, generics, and scarce resources.
• There’s a pledge to cooperate on digital trade, steel and aluminium market protections, and secure supply chains.

These provisions are positive, but they form only part of the picture. Beneath the veneer of balance, lies a structural asymmetry that Brussels cannot afford to ignore.

At the heart of this deal, the EU has conceded three major advantages to the United States:

1. Tariff Concessions Without Equivalent Gains. Europe will eliminate tariffs on all US industrial goods and grant preferential access to American seafood and agriculture. In return, Washington offers limited and conditional tariff relief. This is hardly the reciprocity politicians told their constituents that Europe had promised.
2. Energy Dependence Hardwired. By committing to purchase $750 billion worth of US liquefied natural gas, oil, and nuclear products, the EU locks itself into American energy infrastructure for years to come. This is at odds with Europe’s ambition for strategic autonomy and its green transition objectives. Stated differently, Europe cannot preach strategic autonomy while legislating strategic dependence. Autonomy over time from Russian gas? Maybe, but dependency on the US.
3. Technology Sovereignty Compromised. The agreement mandates EU purchases of at least $40 billion in US AI chips, embedding dependency on an American-dominated technology ecosystem precisely when European AI initiatives are struggling for traction.

Investment flows and transatlantic capital drain

EU firms will invest $600 billion in US strategic sectors by 2028. Open investment can spur collaboration. But it also risks hollowing out Europe’s industrial competitiveness. Washington, meanwhile, secures preferential inflows into energy, AI, and advanced manufacturing. These are exactly where Europe needs to build resilience.

In my earlier op-ed, I noted how the US leverages its soft power to frame trade disputes as partnerships. That dynamic persists today. After years of tariff wars and fractured alliances, Washington is succeeding in embedding its energy exports, tech products, and capital markets into Europe’s economic core. All of these are under the banner of renewed transatlantic harmony. I am tempted to ask if it could be that this deal secures short-term harmony but risks long-term sovereignty?

The deal cannot be undone without political upheaval. But Brussels can still act to mitigate vulnerabilities:

• Diversify energy supplies beyond US hydrocarbons, prioritising renewables and partnerships with North Africa, Norway, and the Eastern Med.
• Accelerate European AI and semiconductor ecosystems to avoid perpetual tech dependence.
• Negotiate enforceable reciprocity clauses in future trade deals to rebalance concessions.
• Deepen strategic ties with Africa and ASEAN to avoid a binary US-China trap.

In my previous op-ed this summer, I called on Europe to choose strategy over surrender. Today, it seems Brussels has opted for a transactional peace that trades policy independence for economic predictability.

This is not fatal. But it is consequential. Europe must now answer a more uncomfortable question: Can the EU still claim strategic autonomy when its energy, technology, and capital flows are hardwired into American priorities? This is because partnerships that rest on imbalance are dependencies waiting to be exposed.

Original article: brusselstimes.com