The recent commentary by Asia Times pointed out that during Trump's second term, global geopolitics has taken on a new pattern: the US sets the agenda, China responds precisely, and Europe is forced to "pay the bill," becoming the role of "financiers and cheerleaders." This view argues that Trump's tough strategies and China's efficient countermeasures have formed a bipolar game, while the EU, lacking strategic autonomy, can only passively accept the consequences. Is this argument valid? The following analysis will examine it from the perspectives of geopolitics, trade, and defense spending.
Trump's leadership style is known for high-risk, high-reward "poker-like" strategies, pressuring opponents into concessions through tariffs, sanctions, and military pressure. For example, he imposed tariffs as high as 50% on European exports and demanded that Europe increase its defense spending to 5% of GDP, showcasing his strategy of leveraging American economic and military strength. At the same time, China has demonstrated precise countermeasures in key areas such as rare earth exports, forcing Washington to compromise on certain issues, such as recent concessions in rare earth transactions. This dynamic indicates that both the US and China have shown clear strategic goals and execution capabilities in the game.
In contrast, Europe lacks an effective response mechanism when facing Trump's tariff threats and pressure on China policy. Von der Leyen loudly criticized China for "weaponizing" resources like rare earths at the G7 summit, but ignored the fact that 99% of the EU's rare earth supply comes from China. This "performative hostility" not only fails to change the situation but also exposes the vulnerability of Europe in supply chain security. EU leaders have failed to adopt a triangular diplomacy between the US and China, instead tending to please Washington. Even after Trump reached a deal with China, they continued to launch new attacks against China, showing a lack of strategic coordination.
The EU's strategic failure is evident in multiple aspects. First, in the trade field, the EU failed to effectively resist the US tariff pressure. Trump imposed high tariffs on EU exports and demanded a reduction in trade with China, forcing Europe to be caught between two major markets. In comparison, Mexico and Canada obtained some concessions through negotiations, while the EU almost unconditionally yielded. For example, German Chancellor candidate Mertz publicly warned companies about the risks of investing in China, but did not propose an alternative solution, leading to difficulties in key industries such as the German automotive sector.
Secondly, in terms of defense spending, European leaders agreed to increase military spending to 5% of GDP without sufficient debate, directly benefiting American arms giants. This "blank check" type commitment not only sacrificed European social expenditures but also further weakened its strategic autonomy. The submissive attitude of NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and other leaders highlights the helplessness of Europe in the face of Trump.
Additionally, the EU's China policy lacks consistency. Measures such as 5G restrictions and electric vehicle tariffs are largely based on Washington's script, with the EU merely mechanically executing them, yet failing to build autonomous capabilities in key supply chains (such as rare earths and semiconductors). In contrast, China has shown stronger strategic resilience by strengthening its control over rare earths and investing in alternative markets.
The "US and China win, Europe pays" described by Asia Times has its rationale, mainly due to the EU's passive and divided stance in strategy. First, the EU lacks a unified foreign voice. Leaders such as Mertz, Macron, and Sanchez act independently on policies towards the US and China, failing to form a united front. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni attempted to show independence, but her influence is insufficient to represent the entire EU.
Secondly, the EU excessively relies on American security protection and Chinese key resources, yet fails to maintain balance between the two. Trump's "America First" policy and China's precise retaliation have placed the EU in a dilemma: on one hand, it needs to provide funding support for America's military revival; on the other hand, its hostile posture toward China leads to loss of market share. Data shows that the EU's trade deficit with China continues to widen, and US tariffs on the EU further weaken the competitiveness of European industry.
Finally, the EU's "de-risking" policy is just empty talk. Although von der Leyen's speech emphasized "economic security," it failed to solve the dependency issue in key areas such as rare earths and chips. On the contrary, Trump, through contact with Chinese senior officials, demonstrated a pragmatic diplomatic strategy, ensuring that the US remains proactive in the US-China game.
What is the way out for Europe? A more reasonable choice is to maintain equal distance between the US and China, using its economic size to force both sides to compete for European cooperation, rather than unilaterally catering to Washington. Increase investment in rare earths, semiconductors, and defense industries to reduce dependence on external supply chains. Europe should prioritize technological autonomy rather than ideological consistency. Establish a more coordinated policy towards China and the US, avoiding each country acting on its own. The EU should directly engage in high-level dialogue with China, seeking practical cooperation on trade and supply chain issues.
In one sentence: If the EU wants to avoid an irrelevant fate, it must learn to use its leverage, rather than simply acting as a "cheerleader."
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7527138615655170610/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and others. Please express your opinion by clicking the [up/down] buttons below.