Eve here. Below we explain how Andrew Korbyko sided with the new “framework” deal between the EU and the US. He is not alone in this view.
Sub-representative Twitter takes:
What did you talk about “saving Europe”?
For years, Brussels told us that the EU was over. I heard sermons about “strategic autonomy” and “open but asai-loving trade.”
The 2025 trade contract is not a denial – it is a surrender. 15%… pic.twitter.com/jbx4o0vfc1
– Daniel Hoovert🇫🇷🇵🇱 (@arrogance_0024) July 28, 2025
The EU has just added what appears to be the most ridiculous trade deal in history with the US.
Will the EU pay a flat 15% tariff and hard work to pay hundreds of billions for privilege?
It’s a big win for the big don and a demonstration of the idea of von del Rears Cabal pic.twitter.com/hwwti46okr
-Chay Bowes (@boweschay) July 27, 2025
Pathetic. After exempting US multinationals from global minimum tax, the EU is in the trade cave
This type of fear tor never stops and rarely ends well
Our international economic relations system requires urgently radical reinvention
-Gabriel Zucman (@gabriel_zucman) July 27, 2025
Trade deals from EU Thomas Fuzzy surrender to the US:
On Sunday, the European Union and the US ultimately imposed a 15% tariff on most EU exports to the US, ultimately and ultimately on trade agreements. The agreement was avoided by Washington even more severe 30%, but many in Europe call it an overwhelming defeat or unconditional surrender for the EU.
The reason is easy to understand. The 15% tariff on EU goods in the US is significantly higher than the 10% that Brussels wanted to negotiate. Meanwhile, as Trump himself boasted, the EU “opened up ESIR countries with zero tariffs” to American exports. Importantly, EU steel and aluminum will continue to face 50% tariffs when sold to the US market.
This asymmetry seriously disadvantages European producers and raises the costs of strategic industries such as automobiles, pharmaceuticals and advanced manufacturing. This is the sector that underpins the EU’s $1.97 trillion transatlantic trade relationship. The so-called “rebalance” measures have been forced to clearly tilt the US favourable arena and absorb the higher costs of maintaining access to the American market.
Worse, the EU is working to increase US investment of $600 billion, long-term energy purchases of $700 billion, and increased US military hardware procurement. This further strengthens Europe’s structural dependence on the US energy supply and military resources.
The political response in Europe is poignant. French miner Benjamin Haddad labeled the agreement as “imbalanced,” noting that while French spirits were secured for exemptions, he deeply disliked the overall hair. The president of EU Commision’s Ursula Von Der Leyen tried to present the deal as a practical, complete completeness to avoid an all-out trade war, but few were convinced. As geopolitical commentator Arnaud Bertrand observed in X:
In exchange for all the concessions and extraction of their wealth, the EU will get… nothing. This does not even remotely reinsert the type of contract made by two equal sovereign authority. Rather, it appears to be the type of equal treaty that colonies were imposed in the 19th century. Except this time, Europe is on the receiver side.
Explains why EU-US trade transactions are a complete fiasco in Marine Le Pen via machine translation from vzglyad.
The trade contract between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and President Donald Trump was a political, economic and moral blunder, Marine Le Pen said.
She explained that the deal was a political fiasco as the 27-member European Union received a more favorable term than the UK…
The contract became an economic fiasco as France, ruled by patriotic enforcement, never plunged, and the committee adopted asymmetric provisions.
“The hundreds of billions of euros of gas and weapons must be imported annually from the United States, a surrender to French industry, our energy and military sovereignty,” continued Le Pen.
She saw a moral fiasco in the fact that French peasants were once again sacrificed at the altar of Beayond on the Rhine.
From William Murphy of Great Trade Swindle: How US and EU “trading” exhibit corruption at the heart of neoliberalism:
These languages always obscure their own features. “Regulatory integrity” sounds technocratic, but in reality it means harmonizing standards downwards – at the expense of food safety, environmental protection and global rights on the altar of “competitiveness.” When the White House boasts of its “opening market,” what they are truly celebrating is the erosion of the last remaining barriers, slowly with capital race at the bottom. EU consumers will soon find chlorinated ticukon on supermarket shelves, but US workers face new pressures to embrace European instability and low wages to “compete.” The winners are the nations, but the shareholders – the same financial elite who spent a generation catching workers against each O’Her across the border.
Since this is a scam, it is timing that is grotesque. At the moment when the climate crisis needs to demand a radical decline in fossil fuel production, the deal is locked into decades of expansion extraction. When inequality reaches the extremes of golden age, it further excites the architect of inequality. And just as Democrats collapse under the weight of corporate capture, it holds even more power over unelected trade courts hearing businesses will sue the government to regulate them. The mechanism is always the same. If honestly exists, austerity, privatization, ecological vandalism – change to “innovation” or “partnership” and praise the media chorus.
Now, to korybko.
Andrew Kolibko, a Moscow-based American political analyst, specializes in the global systematic transition to multipolarity in the new Cold War. He holds a doctorate degree under the umbrella of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Originally published on his website
This result puts the US on the path to restore monopolar hegemony through a second biased trade contract, as it is likely that the view would then be set in America before it finally takes over Asia.
The European Commission’s Ursula von der Leyen has said that the EU will charge 15% tariff on most imports, pledged to buy $700 billion in US energy exports, invest $600 billion in the US economy, will only have EU steel exports and aluminum exports at 50%, and will disagree with the EU. An alternative to this Lopsid arrangement was for Trump to impose a 30% tariff he was threatened by August 1st.
The EU’s macroeconomic strength has weakened significantly over the past three.5 years. This is the result of anti-Russia sanctions that had solidarity with the US over being the most chepp and reliable energy supplier to date. Therefore, it was already at a serious disadvantage in future trade wars. Sunday’s results came in hindsight to fait compliment during the late summit of the recent recent summit, as Trump has not reached a massive trade deal with China since taking office.
The final result is that the EU has subordinated itself as the largest state of Vassar in the United States. US 15% tariffs on most imports reduce EU production and profits, making recession more possible. Bullock’s commitment to buying more expensive US energy will result in more UONUS at that event. Similarly, the looting of purchasing more US weapons undermines the “Liam Europe Project.” This combines the effects of bond concessions that further command EU sovereignty further reduces its sovereignty over the United States.
This allows the US to press for better terms in ongoing trace negotiations with others. On the North American front, Trump envisions reaffirming US hegemony over Canada and Mexico through economic means. If he is subordinate to Brazil, everything between it and Mexico lines up naturally. This series of deals and last week’s series with Japan strengthened Trump’s hands with China and India.
I would ideally hope to replicate his Japanese and European success with two Asian anchors that will jointly re-emphasize one-third of humanity, but it cannot be taken by those who have graned to do so. The best chance Trump would like to force them into Lopsid arrangements would require him to place the US in the most advantageous geo-economical possible position during consultations.
“Sino-Indo’s rivalry “shapes Trump’s anti-Russian secondary sanctions decision” as explained in the previous analysis, and as the US’s “Kissingerian triangulation policy determines the future of trade talent most significantly.” If he fails, Trump may not impose 100% tariffs on China or India, but subs are still expected. Nevertheless, this “global west” along with Japan, the EU and perhaps “fortress America” on his side, could segregate the United States from Konsen’s submarines.
Therefore, the grand strategic importance of the EU, where the EU is subordinated, as the largest Vassal state of the United States, is to place the United States on the path to restore monopolar hegemony through sequential trade transactions. There is no guarantee that the US will succeed, and while a series of trade deals with major economies will only partially restore US-led unipolarity, Trump’s moves still represent an existential threat to multipolarity.
