【By Sebastian Koning】

In the opening moves of Trump's second term, a pattern has already emerged: Washington sets the agenda, Beijing responds precisely, and Brussels chooses to surrender.

This gives rise to a bipolar order, in which Europe reduces itself to the role of a funder and cheerleader. Trump plays poker, China plays Go, while Europe is struggling with simple puzzles. Within less than five months, Trump has implemented commitments from previous presidents that could only be discussed theoretically.

When China's rare earth export restrictions forced Washington to quickly adjust its strategy, Europe's response was only hollow lamentations. This asymmetry reveals everything: one side is playing with chips, the other is responding firmly, while the third is responsible for paying the bill.

Trump's return has exposed the EU's strategic failure. Instead of setting boundaries or mobilizing the EU's collective strength, its leaders have defaulted to sycophancy towards Washington and blamed China as a scapegoat.

This "anti-diplomacy" approach weakens the EU's stance towards China and submissively bows to the US without any reward. While Mexico and Canada keep negotiating with the US, Europe chooses unconditional submission. When China retaliates decisively, Europe escalates its rhetoric, abandoning substance.

The latest case is that four days after Washington conceded on a rare earths agreement, von der Leyen launched a new verbal attack against China on the same issue—仿佛 the agreement had never existed. Such timing should not have disrupted a carefully orchestrated act of submission: she advocated for a tough stance at the G7, but ignored Europe's real weakness. Accusing China of so-called "weaponization" of its dominant position in rare earths, while 99% of Europe's rare earths depend on China, is akin to demanding "fair competition" in a hand-to-hand fight—which is a clear testament to the progress of von der Leyen's "de-risking" policy. Obviously, she has yet to grasp how great powers operate: they use leverage.

The White House website released a video titled "Daddy's Home" to summarize Trump's attendance at the NATO summit.

Next came her admission: "Donald was right." This shows that Brussels had long surrendered control over the situation. European countries' subsequent submission on increasing defense spending to the US further proves their subservient attitude. Leaders such as Merkel, Macron, and Sánchez agreed to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP (note: Spanish Prime Minister Sánchez stated in late June that spending 2.1% of GDP on defense would suffice to fulfill NATO commitments). No one questioned it, nor did anyone provide the rationale behind the numbers. Trump didn't even need to ask; European countries handed him a letter of surrender.

While European analysts are preoccupied with Trump's populism and threats to democratic institutions, they overlook the key point—he has achieved his goals. After NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte also shamefully announced defense spending commitments, this became a generous gift to the American military-industrial complex.

Trump has appointed the US treasurer, and Europe has written blank checks to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, and Northrop Grumman. Europe is funding America's military revival while sacrificing its autonomy, stubbornly fantasizing that this will secure America's long-term protection.

Anti-China Obsession

Europe's China policy exposes the symptoms of an advanced stage of its dependence on external forces: performative hostility lacking in leverage, coordination, or end goals. Every measure adopted—from restricting Chinese companies' 5G technology to imposing tariffs on electric vehicles—is sourced from Washington's script, copied by Brussels, and labeled as "European autonomy." The irony is almost comically absurd.

When Europe sanctions Chinese technology, Washington pressures other countries directly to extract concessions. When Brussels delivers moral lectures about so-called "economic coercion" by China, Trump imposes tariffs exceeding 50% on European exports. This contradiction exposes Europe's confusion: it adopts the US's adversarial stance toward China, while accepting the US's hostile treatment of Europe itself.

The evidence is shocking: Trump unreasonably imposed a 50% tariff on the EU, blocked key exports, pressured Europe to cut trade with China, humiliated Europeans in Munich, demanded 5% of GDP be spent on American weapons, and drained European industries through targeted subsidies.

Meanwhile, Brussels accuses Beijing of so-called "unfair strategies," while Washington clearly uses harsher methods—openly and without remorse. Worse still, European leaders have not chosen to open diplomatic channels to ease trade tensions or address critical supply chain dependencies, but instead opted for moral posturing and capricious restrictive measures. They label China as "partially malicious" and accuse it of being a "decisive supporter" of Russia in the Ukraine war, while their policymakers concoct new "security threat" frameworks.

On June 16, von der Leyen met with Trump in Canada. Social media

As Brussels escalated its rhetoric, Trump's return revealed the truth: Europe's entire posture was built on borrowed American narratives. The frequent visits of EU leaders to Washington for "pilgrimages"—while avoiding visits to China—are a concentrated example of this blind spot. They act as if Europe's relevance depends solely on Washington's approval, ignoring direct engagement with the world's second-largest economy. A triangular diplomacy could have been formed, but it has turned into continuous begging.

German Chancellor Scholz's case is even more shocking. In his first foreign policy speech, Scholz parroted the idea of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as an undifferentiated "threat," leaving German automotive industry figures wondering who exactly was speaking on their behalf. Scholz called for a "permanent" naval presence in the Indo-Pacific, a fantasy at a time when Europe is struggling to supply arms to Ukraine. He warned German companies that investing in China was a "major risk" and explicitly stated that his government would not step in to save them. In Munich, Scholz's sycophancy toward Washington received its due response: Vice President Vance ignored him, instead meeting with the leader of Germany's AfD party. The message could not have been clearer.

Collapse

Unlike its European counterparts, Trump has pursued a cruel but coherent strategy toward China. He values strength over flattery. China has never yielded. When Washington escalated the situation, Beijing responded with precise countermeasures rather than empty statements. A single administrative move strengthened China's control over rare earths and forced the White House to reorient its strategy. This is how power works—and Europe refuses to learn from it. Some media reports suggest that the Trump administration plans to engage with Beijing—booking flights for regular meetings with top CEOs and preparing high-level diplomacy—which shatters Europe's speculation about the US's China policy.

Perhaps, Trump's plan was never about confrontation for its own sake, but about accumulating leverage for deals. Now the situation is clear: Trump aims to reshape US-China relations on his terms. The impact on Europe is devastating.

Europe has spent significant political capital catering to the imagined perpetual confrontation between the US and China, only to find that Washington still views Beijing as a negotiation partner, while treating Brussels as a submissive vassal. Von der Leyen's efforts to please the White House's anti-China stance have doomed Europe to be excluded from this bilateral relationship reset, which will shape the global economic landscape.

Europe could have clarified its priorities, protected its economic interests, and maintained equal distance from both superpowers. It could have drawn red lines against Trump, defended its industrial base, and engaged China pragmatically. Instead, it chose submissiveness, moralizing, and being a subordinate in transatlantic relations—a disastrous combination in any negotiation.

Foreign media report that the EU plans to accept the Trump administration's trade deal but seeks tariff exemptions on cars and parts, steel, and aluminum products.

Europe's path leads to a controlled decline disguised as alliance loyalty. Its defense budget will crowd out social welfare spending, while importing American weapons that compete with European manufacturers. Its trade will swing between US demands and Chinese retaliation, with European industries giving up market share to both sides. European diplomatic initiatives require prior approval from Washington, while Beijing builds alternative partnerships. Only a few leaders who resist, especially Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, can represent themselves, not the whole of Europe. There is no common voice, no shared direction, and no coherent narrative left. What remains is a group that passively reacts, constantly adjusts, frequently concedes, but never leads.

At the same time, the US and China are playing a long game for leverage. This leaves Europe two choices:

First, a triangular diplomacy: Europe should not take sides between Washington and Beijing, but rather let both capitals compete for cooperation with Europe; Second, Europe's industrial policy must prioritize technological autonomy over ideological consistency: key supply chains, defense production, and digital infrastructure need to be controlled by Europe, regardless of American preferences.

If Europe continues to subsidize the American defense industry while alienating the Chinese market, relying on others while preaching about values, it will face a harsh reality: true autonomy is only possible when one has the capacity to protect its own interests.

Currently, Europe's performative independence proves its negligible negotiating position. Speeches may win applause from vassals; but only leverage brings substantive results. Therefore, Europe might as well revisit the words of its most influential thinker (Machiavelli): "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both."

This article is an exclusive contribution from Observers Network. The content is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's view. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited; otherwise, legal liability will be pursued. Follow Observers Network WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7522660632399856180/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the 【Up/Down】 buttons below.