【By Zhang Jingjuan, Observer News】Since January 20, when the unconventional Trump returned to the White House, his controversial policy measures have caused strong shocks in the international community. Under the "America First" philosophy, this U.S. president has withdrawn from multiple international organizations and multilateral mechanisms, launched an all-out tariff war, and led to a fragmented international order.
The Asia Times published an opinion article on July 1 with the title "In Trump's Game, China and the U.S. Are Winners, While Europe Pays the Bill," stating that a pattern has emerged at the beginning of Trump's second term: the U.S. sets the agenda, China responds precisely, while Europe chooses to yield. The result is the formation of a bipolar order, with Europe playing the role of a financier and cheerleader.
The article's author, Sebastian Contin Trillo-Figueroa, a geopolitical analyst based in Hong Kong who specializes in Eurasian relations, said that within just five months, Trump has achieved defense spending commitments that previous presidents only discussed in theory. When China's rare earth export restrictions forced Washington to quickly adjust its strategy, Europe could only express hollow lamentations. This asymmetry reveals everything: one bloc uses leverage, another responds with determination, while the third is responsible for writing checks.
Trump's return exposed the strategic failure of the EU. Trillo-Figueroa believes that when Mexico and Canada took measures to respond, Europe unconditionally complied; when China took decisive countermeasures, Europe only shouted slogans and gave up substantial interests.
European Commission President von der Leyen, during the G7 summit, advocated a tough stance but ignored Europe's real vulnerabilities. On one hand, she accused China of "weaponizing rare earths," while on the other hand, she relied on Chinese rare earth resources.
The article states that they also abandoned resistance in terms of defense spending. According to the NATO summit declaration published on June 25, NATO member states' leaders reached an agreement on future military expenditure targets, deciding to increase annual defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035.
"Trump didn't even need to open his mouth to demand it, and they handed over their surrender letter voluntarily," the article wrote. While European analysts were engrossed in discussing Trump's populism and its threat to democracy, they overlooked the key issue—that he was precisely achieving his goals.
This commitment by NATO is essentially a gift to the American military-industrial complex. Trump found his "cashier," and Europe handed blank checks to American companies like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. While funding America's military revival, Europe sacrificed its own autonomy and clung to the illusion that "this would secure America's permanent protection."
June 23, 2025, The Hague, Netherlands, the venue of the NATO summit. IC photo
The article pointed out that Europe's policies toward China, from 5G restrictions to electric vehicle tariffs, all originate from the U.S. script, which has been copied in Brussels and rebranded as "European autonomy."
Meanwhile, European leaders rushed to visit the United States, neglecting direct engagement with the world's second-largest economy. They acted as if Europe's relevance depended solely on American approval. What could have been a triangular diplomacy ultimately turned into a one-way plea.
Trillo-Figueroa wrote that Trump adopted a cold yet consistent strategy toward China. He valued strength rather than flattery. When the U.S. further increased tariffs on China, China made precise counterattacks. China strictly controlled rare earth exports, forcing the U.S. to readjust its strategy. That is how power games should be played, but Europe refused to learn.
The Nikkei Asia reported on June 28 that U.S. officials are preparing plans for President Trump's visit to China, and Trump may lead a delegation of dozens of CEOs to visit China later this year.
Trillo-Figueroa said this completely shattered Europe's imagination of the U.S. approach to China. Perhaps the U.S. strategy was never about confrontation for the sake of confrontation, but about accumulating bargaining chips to obtain agreements. Now the truth is clear: Trump wants to reshape Sino-U.S. relations according to his own will.
The impact on Europe is devastating. It has spent political capital, bet on long-term U.S.-China confrontation, and chosen sides, only to find that the U.S. still sees China as a negotiation partner, while treating Europe as a compliant party.
The article argues that Europe is heading down a path of manipulation and decline. Defense budgets will drain social expenditures, imported American weapons will directly compete with European domestic manufacturers; trade will waver between U.S. demands and Chinese countermeasures, causing European industries to lose market share in both major markets; diplomatic initiatives must first gain U.S. approval, while China builds alternative partnerships.
Trillo-Figueroa wrote that Europe now faces two options: First, implement a triangular diplomacy—Europe should not choose sides between China and the U.S., but let both countries compete to cooperate with Europe. Second, European industrial policies must prioritize technological self-reliance over ideological alignment: critical supply chains, defense production, and digital infrastructure need to be under European control.
He warned that if Europe continues to subsidize the American defense industry and distances itself from the Chinese market, while talking about values on one hand and relying on others on the other, it will eventually face harsh reality. True autonomy requires the ability to defend one's own interests.
April 2, local time, Trump signed an executive order at the White House announcing so-called "reciprocal tariffs." White House video screenshot
After Trump announced on April 2 the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" on countries and regions around the world, he declared on April 9 a 90-day delay in imposing "reciprocal tariffs" on certain trading partners, maintaining a 10% "base tariff" during this period, while pressuring trading partners to complete trade negotiations with the U.S. by July 8. In May, Trump again threatened to impose a 50% tariff on imports from the EU starting June 1, then quickly "retracted" the threat, stating that the tariff implementation date would be postponed to July 9, giving both sides more negotiation time.
As the deadline for the tariff suspension approaches, Canada recently announced that it would abandon the digital services tax to advance trade negotiations with the U.S. The EU also made a "clear concession," stating it would accept the U.S. 10% base tariff, but sought exemptions in key industries.
According to Bloomberg, the EU is willing to accept a trade agreement with the U.S., including a 10% base tariff on many goods exported to the U.S. However, the EU hopes the U.S. will commit to reducing tariff rates in key areas such as pharmaceuticals, wine, semiconductors, and commercial aircraft. Sources said the EU also urged the U.S. to grant quotas and exemptions to reduce the 25% tariff on cars and car parts, as well as the 50% tariff on steel and aluminum.
EU officials listed four possible scenarios that might occur before the July 9 deadline: 1) reaching an acceptable asymmetric agreement. 2) the U.S. proposing an unacceptably imbalanced agreement. 3) extending the deadline to continue negotiations. 4) Trump exiting the negotiations and increasing tariffs. Sources said that if the fourth scenario occurs, the EU is likely to take comprehensive retaliatory measures.
To date, among the U.S. allies, only the UK has reached a limited trade agreement with the U.S.
This article is an exclusive article by Observer News. Reproduction without permission is prohibited.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7522033442876604928/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author and readers are welcome to express their opinions by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.