So, France calls it a "Dark Day". French Prime Minister François Bayrou didn’t hold back this year when the so-called “framework” trade agreement was inked between Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump. “It is a dark day,” he said, “when an alliance of free peoples, brought together to affirm their common values and to defend their common interests, resigns itself to submission.” And frankly, it’s hard to disagree. The new deal means the Europeans will pump a staggering $600billion investments into US, throw another $750billion at the US energy sector, and—just in case that wasn’t enough—America slaps on a juicy 15% tariff on European exports.
“Submission” is the word Bayrou used, venting on social media about how a long-standing alliance now looked more like surrender than solidarity. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, always the straight-talker, went further: “It wasn’t a real deal. It was Donald Trump eating von der Leyen for breakfast.” You don’t have to squint too hard to see what happened: in Washington’s world, if you’re not at the table, you are absolutely on the menu. Both Democrats and Republicans seem happy enough playing that game.
Europe’s “Unity” Tested Once Again
The wound runs deep for France—it’s not just politics, it’s national pride, the gnawing sense of being stuck on the losing end of the global stick. French Minister for European Affairs Benjamin Haddad kept things diplomatic but didn’t hide his reservations: this US-EU trade deal might give some short-term stability, but it’s nowhere near fair.
Meanwhile, Germany—ever the pragmatist—took a different tack. Chancellor Friedrich Merz was all for the agreement, even giving thanks to von der Leyen and EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič for their negotiating hustle: “This agreement has succeeded in averting a trade conflict that would have hit the export-oriented German economy hard.” He pointed out that the brutal 27.5% auto tariff had nearly been chopped in half. But the undertone? Relief, not triumph.
Mao Zedong once quipped that China suffered because it was “a pile of loose sand.” The phrase still stings, and people love to apply it to the modern EU.
The Old World’s Fractures on Display
Sun Yat-sen nailed it a century ago: China is a nation-state; Europe is a patchwork. Since the Qin and Han, China’s stayed more or less whole as a nation. Europe? Imagine a wild ant nest—red ants and black ants all swarming, just waiting for someone to kick the mound. When the US shakes things up with tariffs or trade deals, all those cracks are exposed again. No united will, no shared backbone—just old rivals forced to share a lunch table.
The EU’s grand plans always seem to unravel at moments like this. With no more colonies to fight about, internal divisions flare, and it’s pretty clear: if Trump decided to press for even more, the EU would probably fold.
China: Not Your “Loose Sand” Cliché
Some are already asking, will America now turn its fire on China? Here’s the real difference: Europe may have been mocked as “Né dans l'injustice, il a fini dans l'opprobre”. Or, “Born in injustice, he ended in disgrace.” That old French dig was meant for imperial Germany, but look at Europe and America today—rivals or not, both built empires on shaky, even shameful, grounds.
But China? Lose the lazy comparisons. While others were tripping over their own divisions, China was busy becoming a mountain, not a sandpile. Maybe, just maybe, the US should realize when it’s time to quit while it’s ahead—because this isn’t yesterday’s China.
Deep Blue
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
At the beginning of the new year, Donald Trump has single-handedly changed the United States, and the global landscape may also be reshaped. First, he declared that as Commander-in-Chief, the President’s authority is limited only by his own morality. Later, he posted an image on his social platform Truth Social with the caption “Acting President of Venezuela”. The New York Times directly questioned: “Does this mean ignoring international law and acting without any constraints to invade other countries?” Regarding international law, Trump stated, “I abide by it,” but made it clear that when such constraints apply to the United States, he would be the ultimate arbiter.
On January 7, 2026, the President signed a presidential memorandum ordering the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations entities and multiple major international agreements. This action is aimed at exiting organizations deemed by the White House to be “contrary to U.S. interests” and a waste of taxpayer funds. The UN bodies to be withdrawn from include UN Women, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the International Law Commission.
Clearly, Trump has a unique blueprint that serves only American interests. He might retort: “What era is this, still talking about international law and core values? Don’t you know the current state of the U.S.? Don’t you know that the U.S. has long been planning drastic actions?”
In April 2020, retired U.S. Marine Corps officer Mark Cancian proposed a bold strategy. The National Interest reported: “With a coastline of 9,000 miles and the world’s second-largest merchant fleet after Greece, including Hong Kong, China has over 4,000 ships. This is not an advantage but a vulnerability. The U.S. could effectively blockade China’s economy by launching a clever campaign, leaving it exhausted.” The suggestion was for the U.S. to emulate 16th-century Britain by supporting privateers—civilian organizations specialized in plundering Chinese merchant ships. Given China’s current military capabilities, it should be able to meet such challenges, so there’s no need to worry. Still, one can’t help but applaud the audacity of such an idea.
Back then, Biden paid no attention to this plan, as the Democrats were still refined and attached great importance to the cloak of universal values. At the same time, Biden, at least nominally, had to pay lip service to the United Nations, because ideology mattered. The U.S. had previously displayed a magical logic: attacking you to save your people, destroying your country to introduce democracy and freedom, imposing sanctions because you’re a dictatorship... Trump cannot be like ordinary advocates of universal values, who always cite international law and classical references. First, neither he nor his team possess such knowledge. Second, pretending to uphold morality can no longer maximize American interests. Third, former adversaries have “risen,” gradually establishing international moral authority. If the U.S. continues to preach benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness, it will only become a laughingstock. After all, Trump has already discarded America’s credibility like trash.
Retired officer Cancian’s plan is exactly the White House’s cup of tea. For context—in the 16th century, Britain supported privateers, civilian organizations that plundered rival nations’ merchant ships. This was essentially the legalization of piracy, with the British monarch issuing “letters of marque” to recruit outlaws for royal service, dubbing them “royal pirates.” These privateers helped Britain destroy the then-dominant Spain at sea, significantly boosting British power and laying the foundation for the Industrial Revolution.
In reality, Trump has already begun “highway robbery” operations, seizing multiple cargo ships in the Caribbean. The White House has also dropped the pretense. Foreign media reported that Deputy Chief of Staff Miller recently declared: “The only permissible maritime energy transportation must comply with U.S. law and national security.” This is no different from robbery—“This mountain is my domain, these trees are my planting; if you wish to pass, leave your toll.” The only difference is that the U.S. is not just a bandit but a pirate. Similarly, Trump and Cheng Yaojin from the Dramatized History of Sui and Tang Dynasties share the title of “Chaos Demon King.”
Next, following the “Trump Gold Card,” Trump could publicly issue “letters of marque,” auctioning them to the highest bidder, and even list them on Wall Street. Their valuation might surpass that of the “Seven Sisters” oil companies—who knows?
