EDITORIAL: The EU may have averted a damaging trade war with the United States, but in doing so it has once again exposed the limits of its own strategic autonomy.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The hurried agreement reached with President Donald Trump – a 15 percent tariff across EU exports in exchange for steep energy and investment pledges – has been spun as a diplomatic success in Brussels. Yet the broader picture suggests a reluctant capitulation dressed in the language of stability.

At its core, this deal reflects a familiar European instinct: contain the immediate fallout, defer structural reform. Faced with the prospect of across-the-board 30 percent tariffs by August 1, the European Commission moved quickly to secure a “framework accord” that trims the damage but doesn’t eliminate it.

On paper, key sectors like autos and pharmaceuticals have been spared harsher treatment. In practice, however, European exporters will still face a tariff regime significantly more punitive than the one in place before Trump returned to office.

The accompanying commitments – USD 750 billion in energy imports and $600 billion in additional investment from EU firms – raise further questions. These are staggering figures, especially in light of the current fiscal constraints many member states are navigating. More importantly, the pledges appear more political than operational for now. What mechanisms will enforce them? What sectors will they affect? And what levers, if any, will Europe retain in future negotiations?

Criticism from within the bloc has been immediate and sharp. France called the agreement a “dark day”, Hungary framed it as humiliation, and even industry groups in Germany – arguably the deal’s most vocal backer – questioned the long-term cost of accepting new tariffs. That divergence highlights a deeper challenge: the EU’s internal economic fragmentation continues to hamper its ability to present a coherent front when it matters most.

What’s notable here is less the outcome than the pattern. This is not the first time Brussels has opted to absorb pressure from Washington rather than confront it. The underlying logic – prioritising the transatlantic relationship to protect Europe’s economic fabric – has remained intact for decades. But the assumptions that supported that logic are eroding fast.

Trump’s worldview, centred on bilateral leverage and zero-sum outcomes, runs counter to the EU’s multilateral instincts. That tension isn’t new, but it is now sharpened by a global environment where supply chains are more politicised, energy flows are more transactional, and technology competition is more strategic. In that context, the EU’s position looks increasingly reactive.

Indeed, much of the reaction from Brussels has framed the deal in binary terms: either this compromise or a full-blown trade war. That framing itself suggests a lack of leverage. The bloc remains economically powerful, but it still lacks the instruments – both institutional and political – to translate market size into bargaining strength.

The concept of strategic autonomy has been central to European rhetoric since at least 2016. Yet each time the need to demonstrate it arises; the result is a recalibration rather than a redefinition. What this deal underscores is that the EU still lacks the confidence to negotiate with the United States on equal footing when the stakes are highest.

The agreement may have shielded millions of European jobs in the short term, but it has also signalled to Washington, and the world, that Brussels remains unwilling to pay the upfront costs of independence. If the goal is to build a resilient and autonomous Europe, that reluctance will have to change. Sooner or later, avoiding escalation will no longer be an option.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Original article:  www.brecorder.com