Has the EU backed down?

In an article by Gojko Drljača, it is stated that Europe is prepared for an unrealistically fast resumption of the ratification process of the trade agreement with the United States, following until recently unthinkable threats from Donald Trump, as well as a series of entirely inappropriate political provocations.

“This is a ratification process that was only recently formally suspended precisely because of open U.S. political aggression toward Greenland and Denmark. Fundamentally, the EU agreed to a highly unfavorable trade deal, as well as a series of other concessions to the MAGA administration, because some leaders were desperate to have the unpredictable Trump as a powerful ally in continuing the confrontation with Vladimir Putin’s regime,” Drljača explains.

He writes that it now appears the EU still prioritizes Ukrainian interests over European ones, ignoring the interests of European taxpayers—citizens and businesses alike.

“This raises the question of whether the EU has adopted a model of instant political self-humiliation/flattery as a strategic modus operandi. This thesis is not cynicism but recognition of the facts,” he notes.

The author points out that Europe’s willingness to cater to the increasingly bizarre demands of the MAGA president has, for example, become a topic shocking even to experienced political scientists, such as Nathalie Tocci.

Speaking about the “golf diplomacy” between President Aleksander Stubb and the U.S. president, she said: “I find it deeply uncomfortable,” adding that “Alex” is a close friend of hers.

“Equally humiliating is Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni smiling while Trump praises her appearance. No less undignified was NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte calling Trump ‘daddy,’ or German Chancellor Friedrich Merz giving him his grandfather’s birth certificate,” Drljača notes.

All this flattery, he argues, comes at a high cost for European taxpayers, but it seems some EU leaders believe no price is too high if it allows them to continue the war in Ukraine.

Trade agreement without real guarantees

This is part of a broader trade and investment agreement that President Ursula von der Leyen and the U.S. president presented in July 2025 after a meeting in Scotland.

EU leaders now again show readiness to return to the fundamentals of this agreement, even though the White House has made it clear that it primarily wants to receive European money, while the responsibility for the conflict in Ukraine on Europe’s behalf was never formally assumed.

Dependence as a deliberate strategy

European military, financial, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine has so far exceeded 140 billion euros, while the United States has provided an additional more than 170 billion dollars.

But the key difference is not in the amounts, but in the structure: Europe finances the war but does not control it. Command, intelligence, and strategic levers remain firmly in American hands.

At the same time, the EU has agreed to the permanent deployment of tens of thousands of additional troops on NATO’s eastern flank, increased defense spending toward the target of at least two percent of GDP—which for the Union means more than 350 billion euros annually—and has accepted a long-term energy reorganization in which American LNG has become a key replacement for Russian gas, at significantly higher costs for European industry, the article notes.

“All this has been done with one strategic goal: to preserve the United States as the leading military power and main ally, because European political elites believe that without Washington, it is impossible to continue the confrontation with Vladimir Putin’s regime in Ukraine. In other words, the EU has consciously accepted deep military, energy, and industrial dependence to maintain U.S. presence and willingness for confrontation with Moscow,” the article concludes.