Western elites have already determined the fate of the EU

May 29, 2025

Hugo Dionísio

Donald Trump’s return to the scene accelerates the decline of U.S. hegemony.

 

The recent pressure from Donald Trump on the European Union, with an abrupt increase in tariffs and their near-immediate suspension—apparently following a phone call with the President of the European Commission—clearly demonstrates the immense pressure the U.S. exerts on the EU, the role it has assigned to the bloc, and the impulsive, erratic nature of the policies pursued by the White House.

It is futile to claim that what is currently labeled as “democracy” is a political regime where a single individual, driven by stubbornness, obstinacy, and recklessness—coupled with ignorance and lack of culture—can send the entire hegemonic financial system into turmoil, while the supposed “checks and balances” of American democracy fail to function. This is pure idealism.

The reality is that Donald Trump’s return to the scene accelerates the decline of U.S. hegemony. Paradoxically—or perhaps not—the self-inflicted wounds to the U.S. economy cause the most pain in the European Union. Every blow Trump deals to U.S. credibility hits the EU hardest! The most alarming part is that no one seems willing to acknowledge the source of the pain or even locate the wound. This blindness, typical of weak and utterly mediocre leaders like Macron, Starmer, Merz, or Von der Leyen, is leading the European Union—and especially its member states—toward a disaster as predictable as it is diligently concealed. However, as we will see, amid all this, the economic and social catastrophe unfolding in fast forward will be the least of our worries.

If international capital already struggles to lend money to the U.S., disillusioned by its declining global dominance, why should the EU follow the same path? Like other nations and entities, it should begin preparing for a post-U.S., post-dollar future, which, though delayed, will inevitably arrive. But that is not what happened.

Days after the phone call between Von der Leyen and Trump—during which she likely promised increased purchases of gas, weapons, oil, treasury bonds, and other overpriced goods the U.S. is pushing onto its “partners” and “allies”—news emerged that “member states approved the SAFE loan instrument worth 150 billion euros to strengthen European defense capabilities”.

The instruments created by Von der Leyen’s Commission, with grandiose names like “SAFE” and “ReArm Europe,” share a common trait: deepening dependence on the U.S., further indebting EU countries, and hastening their march toward the abyss.

To say that “the European Commission welcomes the agreement reached in the EU Council on the Security Assistance Facility for Europe (SAFE)” is as redundant as claiming that António Costa, Portugal’s former prime minister with a stable absolute majority, fought for the Portuguese people and prevented the President from handing the country over to the far-right, reactionary, and ultraliberal forces. The cowardly behavior of the current President of the European Council in the face of the judicial coup against his government not only secured his place in the Council but also revealed his “special aptitude” for the role. Thus, it is no surprise that the Council accepted the European Commission’s proposal, with António Costa acting as the broker of the deal.

150 billion euros for weaponry, of which only 65% must be spent on EU-made products, served to appease Trump and cowardly buy two more months of calm. Given that Trump’s retreat was not genuine—he merely suspended what was already suspended—we can only conclude that this was a maneuver to placate the European public. After all, if the EU suddenly announced it would spend an additional 150 billion on weapons amid rising fascism and Nazism fueled by deteriorating living conditions, it would be hard to justify. Even harder to explain would be why a supposedly anti-Trump EU would purchase over 50 billion euros worth of arms from him.

The scheme is plain to see: faced with the U.S. debt market crisis and Trump’s need to calm markets and attract foreign currency—like the euros the EU has in abundance (alongside Saudi Arabia or Qatar)—he dangled the false threat of tariff hikes, giving the EU a pretext to release the funds. In return, Trump merely had to distance himself from Vladimir Putin, as when he claimed, “Putin is crazy.” A grand circus to deceive the gullible. The EU urgently needs weapons to deliver to Ukraine, and to do so, it must first buy them. Once in national stockpiles, no one will track them. Thus, yet another “donation” to the Kiev regime is made—tens of billions of euros under the guise of European rearmament.

Regardless of who initiated this, the situation underscores the EU’s inescapable dependence on the U.S., its deepening despite formal rhetoric, and the insatiable U.S. demand for the EU to sacrifice itself to save the empire. And the EU does not resist. Instead, it sinks alongside it.

Mario Draghi’s report, The Future of European Competitiveness—A Competitiveness Strategy for Europe, directly highlights the EU’s dependencies:

• Dependence on critical raw materials (China and others): The EU imports >90% of essential raw materials for green and digital technologies, such as lithium, cobalt, and rare earths, primarily from China (70-90% of global refining).
• Technological dependence (U.S. and Asia): In semiconductors, 75-90% of advanced chips are manufactured in Asia (Taiwan, South Korea), while the EU has no chip factories below 22 nm (the U.S. and Asia dominate 3-5 nm processes). In AI and cloud, 85% of the EU market is controlled by Amazon, Microsoft, and Google (U.S.), with China leading in AI patents, while the EU lags.
• Energy dependence (Russia, U.S., and Middle East): After the Ukraine war, the EU replaced Russian gas with LNG from the U.S. and Qatar, but at 3-5 times the price. It also relies on China for 80% of solar panels and EV batteries.
• Defense industry dependence (U.S.): 78% of EU defense purchases in 2022-2023 were from non-European suppliers (63% to the U.S.). The EU uses 12 different tank models, while the U.S. standardizes to one.
• Export market dependence (China and U.S.): China is the EU’s largest trade partner, but also an industrial competitor.

Although these dependencies are identified in the report commissioned by Von der Leyen, Draghi’s proposals to reduce reliance on the U.S. are far more timid than those targeting China. Moreover, the European Commission is not following these solutions. For example, the EU is not investing in domestic chip production, preferring to fund U.S. factories on European soil—a strategy Trump is now reversing. In digital platforms, the EU focuses more on regulating California-based companies than creating its ecosystem, surrendering digital sovereignty and control over the minds of Europeans.

While Draghi proposed diversifying suppliers (e.g., agreements with Africa and Latin America), deliberately omitting Russia and the importance of price competition, Von der Leyen has ignored even these suggestions. Instead, she has deepened energy dependence on U.S. LNG and other vulnerabilities. The EU continues to neglect homegrown chip production, opting to finance U.S. factories in Europe—a strategy Trump is dismantling. In digital platforms, the EU prioritizes accommodating California-based companies under European law over building its own ecosystem, relinquishing digital sovereignty and control over its citizens’ minds. The EU grants this access to the U.S. and then feigns surprise when American political struggles are mirrored in European politics.

Any initiative for competitive EU production is hindered by its dependence on expensive energy and industrial outsourcing, which prevents it from competing with integrated value chains like China’s. The SAFE instrument proves the EU has no intention of freeing itself from U.S. arms dependence, imposing a brutal economic burden on Europeans, who pay more for what others buy cheaply.

Meanwhile, economic indicators do not lie: we arrived here because of these decisions. Ursula von der Leyen’s rise in the EU not only reflects Germany’s destructive role in Europe but also the degeneration of German national and cultural pride, projected onto the EU. If von der Leyen is an agent of sabotage for European economies, Merz is no better, nor is Scholz. Merz’s latest move was proposing EU sanctions on Nord Stream—infrastructure paid for by the Germans, which guaranteed their competitiveness. The confiscation of Gerhard Schröder’s accounts and the persecution of journalist Alina Lipp show that democracy in Germany has long been extinguished.

The persecution of electoral candidates (like Georgescu), electoral fraud (Romania and possibly Germany with BSW), the ostracism of non-compliant countries (like Slovakia), EU funding of USAID—typical of dictatorships meddling in others’ affairs—and the judicial coup against Marine Le Pen prove this EU learns nothing from its mistakes. While interfering in elections and imposing draconian rules on smaller nations, Von der Leyen announces she will “mobilize” 800 billion euros from national budgets, displaying authoritarianism, arrogance, and utter disregard for member states’ development needs. If the proportion of this 800 billion destined for the U.S. matches the SAFE instrument, we understand why Trump “suspended” the tariffs.

The anemic growth of major EU economies in 2024 (with the exception of Spain, none reached 0.5% per quarter), the replacement of the U.S. by China as the top trade partner (notably since 2022), and the EU’s fall to third-largest global economy (in 2008, its GDP surpassed the U.S.’s) reflect the accelerated decline under Von der Leyen’s “reign”—a de facto U.S. CEO in the European Commission. Housing, energy, and healthcare crises, alongside brain drain, complete the bleak picture.

Under Durão Barroso, the EU became the world’s third-largest economy, but under von der Leyen, the gap has widened drastically. Before the EuroMaidan coup (2011), the EU’s GDP rivaled the U.S.’s, and in 2008, it was higher). But if GDP can be misleading, what about the housing, energy, and healthcare crises, or the emigration of skilled labor (dubbed “talent”)? How can these be solved when Von der Leyen and her aide António Costa merely apply prescribed recipes, deepening dependence on the U.S. while silencing dissent and scapegoating China and Russia? Was it not these very dependencies that propelled the EU to the world’s largest economy in 2008?

German reunification, the euro, and the Lisbon Treaty were steps in instrumentalizing the EU for Wall Street and Washington’s agendas, which dominate European capitals. The picture could not be starker: during the second Iraq War, it was Schröder, Chirac, and Hollande who prevented the EU from joining the madness. In Portugal, Durão Barroso hosted the launch of an illicit, illegitimate war—an aggression responsible for a million deaths. The attack, even then, was on Europe itself. Back then, it was about rescuing the petrodollar, countering the advantages the EU gained from Iraq’s decision to sell oil in euros instead of dollars.

An EU with the world’s largest GDP was capable of resisting collaboration in its own destruction. The “European” role in this aggression was played by Tony Blair’s UK and Durão Barroso’s Portugal. The latter, like António Costa more recently, paid for his ticket to the European Commission. By the time Barroso left in 2014, the EU was a shadow of its former self. His tenure saw the “Arab Spring,” which destabilized the Maghreb, the destruction of Libya in a proxy war where the U.S. fought Russia and China, and France fought Italy. For the U.S., it was about oil; for France, neocolonialism in Africa, threatened by Gaddafi’s pan-African vision. Italy, Libya’s major trade partner, suffered the most, losing access to Libyan gold reserves intended for a pan-African currency to replace the CFA franc.

One of the EU’s most important engines was damaged, and with Syria’s destruction—also aided by Barroso’s Commission—the floodgates of migration burst open, overwhelming traditional destinations (Libya, Iraq, Syria…). The EU had already lost ground to the U.S. economically and fell behind in the digital race, irreversibly sidelined in the 21st-century competition for AI and digitalization. Instead, Barroso handed everything to the U.S. That was his purpose.

Von der Leyen has not only continued but deepened this trajectory, as did Juncker. Just as Barroso let the EU join wars (against Libya and Syria) that harmed it, Von der Leyen allowed the U.S. to exploit Ukraine to control and permanently derail Europe from global competition. Expensive gas and raw materials, a divided EU, and a slide into authoritarianism, dictatorship, and fascism to suppress dissent—fascism does not need fascist parties, only fascist policies—have left the EU instrumentalized by war and militarism. Today, the U.S. assigns the EU the same role once given to Africa and Latin America: a dumping ground for U.S. energy, weapons, and trade surpluses.

Von der Leyen’s dozens of “strategies,” “acts,” and “pacts” have accelerated this decline, bringing us to the brink of something far graver. If the European economy is decomposing, potentially dragging the EU down with it, perhaps all we can do is hope it happens quickly. The bellicose signals from northern and central Europe suggest that the instrumentalization of European nations by the continent’s major powers, if realized, could give Germany and the UK (whose people Starmer betrayed by reapproaching the EU and dismissing Brexit) what they need to attack Russia once more—80 years after World War II.

The signs are unmistakable. In Portugal, news highlights Finland’s “marvelous bunkers,” now numbering over 5,000, with construction mandates extending to residential buildings. In the U.S., bunker sales are booming, a multimillion-dollar business thriving on fear. In Switzerland, once neutral but now tarnished by freezing Russian reserves and endorsing sanctions, bunker inspections are ordered, with claims it is “not for war”. Perhaps they aim to launch a multimillion-dollar bunker vacation business, I jest. In Germany, bunkers are being prepared for “wartime”.

In short, minds are made up, and the fate is sealed. The path is toward war, and swiftly, reserving for our youth—only the wealthiest—a “spectacular” life in golden cages called bunkers. Perhaps the fiction of Silo will become reality. Peace, happiness, poverty alleviation, and violence prevention are absent from the plans of those in charge. Money is being spent to construct our own destruction, paradoxically.

Amid all this, who can claim that the EU’s economic disaster—and that of the entire West—is the worst of our troubles?