On the facade of the Turnberry golf course, between the Scottish Greens and the handshakes of hand, Europe and the United States They avoided a commercial war with an agreement that has been received with relief, but with considerable skepticism. As a headline, diplomatic victory sounds, but energy reality hides much greater complexity.
The tariff pact. Donald Trump described the agreement as “the greatest of all”, announcing it from his Scottish resort. For his part, Ursula von der Leyen stressed that they had avoided reaching 30 %tariffs, which Washington had threatened to impose if an agreement was not reached before August 1.
The agreement establishes a 15% tariff On European exports to the United States, accompanied by investment and import commitments that seek to “rebalance” a historically asymmetric commercial relationship. However, among the headlines a figure stands out: 250,000 million dollars annually in European Liquefied Natural Gas Purchases (LNG), Petroleum, coal and even US nuclear fuel. And there begins the problem.
Does the United States have the capacity? The answer, As the journalist Clyde Russell has analyzed in ReutersIt is a clear “no.” In 2024, the total value of the United States energy exports to the European Union – including raw, gas, coal and refined products – was approximately 65,000 million dollars. To reach 250,000 million promised, they should quadruple.
Even if Europe bought 100 % of US exports of crude oil, gas and coal – and no other country received a single drop of American energy – it would continue to be well below the objective. Russell He has described it As “an illusion”, comparable to the failed “phase 1” agreement between Trump and China in 2019, when energy purchases of 200,000 million were promised that were never fulfilled.
So what is motivation? The explanation is more in politics than in logistics. The EU has preferred to avoid an escalation that threatened to paralyze its industrial exports, especially in sensitive sectors such as motor, pharmaceutical or semiconductors. As Columnist Pierre Briançon has explained in Reutersit is a “chapter disguised as success.” The new 15 % tariff multiplies by ten the previous average (1.6 %) and is not accompanied by equivalent tariff concessions by the US, beyond some specific sectors such as aviation or certain chemicals.
Meanwhile, the European bloc also promises an additional 600,000 million dollars in direct investment in the United States during Trump’s mandate, including armament purchases. All this in a context of increasing tension by war in Ukraine, the dependence of NATO and American pressure on European technological regulations.
From Moscow to Texas. One of the key justifications presented by Von der Leyen is that this energy turn reinforces European independence with respect to Russia. As pointed out in The Telegraphimporting US gas and oil will allow the continent “to free itself from Russian energy blackmail.”
However, As several diplomats cited by Financial Times have pointed outThis also means a deeper dependence on an unpredictable and volatile trade partner. “Trump knows exactly where our pain threshold is,” an ambassador confessed to the British newspaper. In fact, it is not the first time that Trump threat directly to the EU with punitive tariffs if there are no immediate concessions.
In addition, the London medium has detailed That the EU had a retaliation package worth 93,000 million euros, but was never activated due to lack of internal consensus. Germany, Ireland and Italy pressed to soften measures and protect national interests. Brussels’s “commercial bazuca” never shot.
A word flies over: renewable. This energy turn also puts the European ecological transition under pressure. The pact does not mention concrete commitments in renewables, and on the contrary, Trump took advantage of the summit to load against wind energy, describing it as “the most expensive energy form” and a “scam”, As the Telegraph has collected.
This raises a contradiction: while Brussels promotes projects such as Invest ai To create chips gigafactories and boost green digitalization, at the same time compromises astronomical sums on fossil fuels. A dissonance that, As the expert Mujtaba Rahman recalled in statements to Nyt“It reflects European concern for other geopolitical scenarios rather than for energy coherence.”
Are they winning time? To ask ourselves, this is the first thing that comes to mind: it seems that Europe has bought time. Time to avoid immediate reprisals, to keep Trump moderately satisfied, and for the next administration – be it or not – redesign the rules of the game. A strategy that reminds the “Run the Clock” with which China sailed the 2019 trade war.
Meanwhile, neither 250,000 million exist, neither gas flows yet, nor are the details closed. As The journalist Tim Wallace has summarized: “What seems like a tactical victory today, tomorrow can reveal its strategic cost.”
Image | Unspash
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings