The United States and the European Union stand at a turning point. Their paths are not the same, and their struggles speak to deeper truths about power, progress, and the weight of choices. The U.S. is pouring money into its factories, its machines, and its roads, dreaming of a future built on technology and strength. Europe, on the other hand, is stuck in the mud, tied down by its own rules and disagreements. The distance between them grows wider. But neither is without its burdens: the U.S. faces a tearing apart of its social fabric, while Europe risks being left behind in a world that does not wait.
Since the crash of 2008, Europe’s story has been one of falling behind. Numbers tell the tale, plain and clear. The U.S. economy has grown by over a third in these years. Poland, a rare bright spot in Europe, has grown by 60%, but it is an exception, not the rule. In contrast, major countries like Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are barely climbing back to where they were before the crash.
The future of capitalism and growing business lies in innovation, in the daring to think and build what does not yet exist. Here, too, Europe falters. Out of the 50 most powerful technology companies, only three call Europe home. In the U.S., there are 36. Each year, the U.S. spends €270 billion more than Europe on research and development. China, meanwhile, is taking control of green technology, leaving European industries struggling to keep pace.
Then there is the price of power—electricity, gas, the lifeblood of factories. Europe pays far more than the U.S., making its industries weaker. Its car makers, once symbols of strength, now fight to meet green targets while competing with cheaper imports from China. The balance is tilted, and Europe is losing its footing.
Across the Atlantic, America is rising again. Factories hum, and investments pour in. Trump’s years in office set the stage with high tariffs on Chinese goods. Now Biden continues the work, offering money and tax breaks for clean energy and electric cars. Manufacturing investments have doubled, hitting $140 billion every three months. Jobs are returning, and industries are regaining their strength. But this revival comes at a cost: the trade gap with Europe grows wider, leaving European companies scrambling.
And now, Trump stands on the horizon again, promising more of the same, only louder and harsher. He talks of making America even stronger, of closing doors to China and others, His return can change the game:
- In the U.S., protectionist policies may drive growth, but they will stir conflict with trade partners.
- In Europe, the struggle to recover could grow even harder, with American policies pulling the rug out from under them.
Voices in Europe are calling for action. French President Emmanuel Macron warns that the continent risks falling too far behind, urging bold steps to stay in the game. Mario Draghi, a seasoned economist, has laid out what needs to be done: invest in innovation, lower energy costs, and work together as one economy, not a patchwork of competing nations.
But there is another truth that Europe must face: the only way forward may be to embrace the idea of a United States of Europe. A stronger union, with shared policies and resources, offers a path out of stagnation and toward a future of real power. When nations act alone, their efforts often clash, wasting time and energy. A united Europe could coordinate strategies, reduce duplication, and focus its collective strength where it matters most.
In 2024, the European Union has intensified efforts to harmonize tax policies among its member states, aiming to enhance economic stability and ensure fair competition. A significant development in this endeavor is the implementation of the EU’s minimum taxation directive, which establishes a global minimum tax rate of 15% for multinational corporate groups within the EU.
The EU’s tax coordination initiatives are part of a broader strategy to address issues such as tax avoidance and to create a more integrated economic framework. The European Commission’s Annual Report on Taxation 2024 highlights the importance of aligning tax systems to meet future challenges, emphasizing the need for reforms that promote growth and sustainability.
Tax coordination is a significant step toward unifying the EU’s economic policies, laying the groundwork for a potential “United States of Europe.” While it’s not a guarantee of federalization, it signals that deeper integration is possible when member states see the benefits of collaboration.
Russian Putin has long seen the idea of a united Europe as a threat to Russia’s influence and power. A cohesive European Union, functioning as a single entity like the United States, would have the economic, political, and military strength to challenge Russia on multiple fronts. For Putin, a fragmented Europe—one where nations pursue conflicting interests—is far easier to manipulate and divide.
Supporting right-wing movements within the EU has been a deliberate strategy to achieve this. These groups often oppose deeper European integration, advocating instead for national sovereignty and anti-EU policies. By funding and aligning with far-right parties, Putin aims to amplify their influence, stoke division, and weaken the EU’s unity.
Yet Europe is not putting its money where its future lies. Instead of investing deeply in innovation or solving its energy problems, EU nations are pouring more funds into militarism and defense. The reasons are not hard to find. The war in Ukraine has exposed vulnerabilities and reignited fears of external threats. Countries feel the need to protect their borders, even as they watch NATO take on much of this role. Meanwhile, rising tensions with Russia, China, and even within Europe itself make governments nervous. Defense spending becomes a political tool—a show of strength for voters and a signal to allies and enemies alike.
But the warnings are loud, and the action is slow. Trade deficits with China have ballooned to €291 billion. Factories in Europe produce less and less. If things do not change, Europe may find itself not just behind but stuck, a power in name only.
Neocolonialism wears a new face now, slick and suited, but its methods are as old as greed itself. It tells you the game is fair, that the rules are clear, but it rigs the table in favor of the powerful. For Europe, this game has been brutal. The dream of a welfare state—where the people could count on a safety net, a fair wage, and the right to a life with dignity—has been slowly dismantled. Neocolonialism didn’t come with chains; it came with markets and policies that made the rich richer and left the working class grasping at straws.
When Europe tried to build its union, it dreamed of something strong and united, a promise to its people that no one nation would fall behind. But that promise was chipped away. The global market whispered sweet lies about efficiency and growth while demanding Europe dismantle its protections for workers, cut its investments in public welfare, and open its doors wide to cheap imports. This was neocolonialism—subtle, patient, and devastating. It made Europe dependent on outside suppliers for its energy and technology. It drained its industries of strength and left its people with higher bills and fewer jobs.
Now the talk of a multi-polar world is growing louder. At first, it sounds like a good thing: no single power holding the reins, more balance, more fairness. But for Europe, it feels like being caught between giants.
For the people of Europe, this new world doesn’t feel balanced or fair. It feels like more sacrifices, more tightening of belts. Energy bills rise, wages stagnate, and the jobs that once supported families move elsewhere. The politicians say Europe needs reform, but reform for whom? The ordinary workers, the teachers, the factory hands—they are the ones paying the price for these grand global shifts.
The multi-polar world might mean opportunity for those with power and influence to maneuver through it. But for most people, including Europeans, it means a future where their voices grow quieter, their choices narrower, and their dreams of a better life harder to reach. The welfare state wasn’t perfect, but it was a promise. Neocolonialism, dressed in globalization’s robes, broke that promise.
What you think?