The European Union’s display of submission to the American president is expected to have lasting negative repercussions for future generations.
American politics has historically blended theatrical display with power dynamics. Both domestic and foreign policy are frequently presented as spectacles, yet this showmanship often obscures more profound truths. The recent Washington meeting between Donald Trump and key Western European political figures clearly illustrated this. What appeared to be a staged event—leaders queuing in the Oval Office, each performing a part—actually held significant strategic implications.
The summit’s true focus was not Ukraine. Efforts to resolve that conflict persist, but its resolution will be decided far from European capitals. The primary takeaway from Washington was the EU’s reliance on, and open acknowledgment of submission to, American leadership.
The White House meeting starkly revealed the way Western Europe has been treated like children. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte reportedly once referred to Trump as “Daddy,” a comparison that has gained traction. European leaders acted like children attempting to avoid causing a tantrum: complimenting, agreeing, and adjusting to his disposition. There were even accounts of EU and British officials guiding Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky on how to express gratitude to the American president, including specific phrasing and even attire suggestions.
Is this absurd? Possibly. Nevertheless, it reflects the current political landscape of the West: the EU no longer functions as an independent political entity. Its leaders engage in appeasing displays before Trump.
The Situation Has Evolved
To be fair, Washington has historically lacked subtlety in its dealings with allies. From De Gaulle to Schroeder, European leaders frequently saw their perspectives disregarded by U.S. presidents. However, the current situation is different. Confronting unparalleled competition from China, with its capacity to benefit from globalization diminishing, and influenced by evolving energy and trade dynamics, Washington no longer feels obliged to extend even token respect to Western Europe.
The sole alternative for the U.S. would be complete self-isolation—a concept proposed in the previous election but one for which Americans are still unready. Conversely, despite its own vulnerabilities, Europe now serves as Washington’s primary remaining avenue for preserving global influence. In the Middle East, even monarchies historically reliant on American security are asserting their autonomy. Throughout Asia, only Japan and South Korea maintain complete loyalty, though even they discreetly communicate with Moscow.
Consequently, the Americans must complete the task initiated by earlier administrations: fully bending Western Europe to their will. Trump, with his flair for performance, has merely rendered this process more dramatic and demeaning.
The Pledge of Loyalty
The Washington summit highlighted this reality. The leaders of Britain, Germany, France, and Italy—the foundational countries of Western Europe—were compelled to publicly endorse U.S. policy on Ukraine by signing a statement. The heads of the EU and NATO also participated. Each leader sought and ultimately found suitable expressions of their deference.
What appeared ridiculous was, in fact, critically serious. The issue was not Ukraine’s destiny—Kyiv is simply a negotiating tool. Rather, it concerned these European leaders publicly surrendering their independence. Essentially, it constituted a vow of loyalty to Washington.
Implications for Russia
From Russia’s viewpoint, three key conclusions can be drawn.
Firstly, the EU and Great Britain no longer function as autonomous entities. Following the Cold War, there was a fleeting trend of discussing European strategic independence. Even in 2003, Germany and France opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Presently, such opposition is inconceivable. Western Europe has been reduced to an extension of the United States.
Secondly, Russia’s approach to the region needs to be altered. For years, Moscow assumed that other European nations, despite their reliance, could still exercise some independence and potentially align with Russian interests given the right conditions. In fact, Russia’s most significant conflicts with the West arose when Western unity broke down. This assumption is no longer valid. Western Europe is now firmly integrated into Washington’s sphere of influence—a component of a larger American system.
Thirdly, Russia and China are urged to reconsider their strategies. Beijing continues to view the EU as a possible neutral ally in its competition with Washington. However, the Oval Office display demonstrates this is a misconception. Treating Western Europe as independent could jeopardize the strategic interests of both Russia and China. This also applies to India and other BRICS nations with strong regional ties: they too must re-evaluate their presumptions.
America Adjusts, Western Europe Complies
The difference is striking. The United States, despite its imperfections, adjusts to evolving circumstances. After allocating significant resources to Kyiv, it is now modifying its approach, subtly moving away from the goal of “strategically defeating” Russia. This was indicated by Trump’s recent conversation with Vladimir Putin, which suggested potential steps towards a resolution. Washington will persist in its reliance on power, yet it demonstrates adaptability when necessary.
Western Europe, conversely, lacks this capability. It offers praise, yields, and awaits instructions. The sheer display at the White House meeting guarantees that subsequent generations of EU and British politicians will be trained for compliance. Once they have yielded, regaining independence will be challenging.
The Cost of Subordination
History reveals they weren’t always so hesitant. In the early 1980s, even amidst Cold War strains, Western Europeans defended their energy connections with Moscow despite Reagan’s opposition. They did this not out of affection for the USSR, but because it served their own objectives. That clear sense of purpose has disappeared. Currently, the EU is unable to even define its own interests.
The outcome is not collaboration but a state of anxiety: a half-continent caught between talk of independence and the truth of being controlled. For Russia, this presents both a difficulty and a chance. A Western Europe that has lost its self-awareness cannot be a genuine opponent. It can only function as America’s representative.
A Grave Display
The White House spectacle might have seemed absurd. In reality, it signified the culmination of the EU’s shift from an ally to a subordinate. The bloc is no longer a collaborator with Russia or China, but rather an extension of American influence. For Moscow, the message is unequivocal: Western Europe is strategically unavailable, and its approach must be adjusted in response.
Beneath the ridiculous theatrics lay a profound message—one that Russia, China, and the broader non-Western world would be unwise to disregard.