> that is not that huge a difference compared to the USA
It is for the EU.
The EU dislikes the current deprioritization of the Ukraine Conflict by the US, but also recognizes that the PRC is directly providing material support and subsidizing Russia's military industrial complex [0]. That is the red line for much of the EU.
Similarly, for the PRC it's continued support of Russia in their war in Ukraine is also a non-negotiatable [1], and the CCP's foreign mouthpieces continue to reiterate that "the mainstay of EU foreign policy — supporting Ukraine in a conflict to defeat Russia — has turned into a quagmire of sunk costs with little hope of success" [2].
> I am not sure Americans really understand how much trust is already gone
We know. And we don't care.
As long as the EU views Ukraine's territorial integrity as non-negotiable and a large portion of EU states view Russia as the primary national security threat, the US will remain the less bad option than the PRC or Russia.
Both the US and China are aligned in that we view the EU as a junior party that can be pressured [3].
If the EU views Russia as a threat, it will have to accept American vassalage becuase the PRC will continue to back Russia [1].
If the EU views America as a threat, it will have to accept Chinese vassalage, give up Ukraine, and accept Russia as the primary European military power.
Based on the carveouts within the Industrial Acceleration Act, the EU has chosen American vassalage.
Very bold words. I am not even convinced the USA will stay relevant on the world stage, in the long run. Cutting ties hurts, but the process is underway. Also, "vassalage" is a bold word, if the US cannot make the EU give up Greenland or come running to help them in the Strait of Hormuz (there are also other examples). It is almost as if European politicians are playing it smart.
And my question is - are you fine sacrificing Ukraine in return for a Russian and Chinese military umbrella? This is the hard requirement for China to engage with the EU [0].
The answer in Poland, the Baltics, Czechia, and Finland is NO and that Russia is worse and that Ukraine must be supported, and will back the US no matter how transactional we become.
The answer in Hungary, Slovakia, and Belgium [1] is YES and that sacrificing Ukraine for Russia is acceptable.
> if the Chinese support for Russia can be broken, by economical incentive...
China is not interested in breaking with Russia.
Russia helps China put pressure on Japan [0], helps China put pressure on South Korea [1], allows China to expand it's influence in Central Asia [2], acts as a backchannel for China-India diplomatic normalization [3], gives China the ability to access ONG without dealing with Hormuz or Malaccas [4], and allows China to run the Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe railway [5] which continues to supply Europe with no sanctions despite the ongoing war in Ukraine.
On the other hand, the EU is tariffing Chinese goods [6]; signing FTAs with Chinese rivals like India [7], Japan [8], and South Korea [9]; and signing defense pacts with Japan [10], South Korea [11], and India [12] while allowing them to participate in ReArm Europe 2030.
Additionally, China-EU trade only represents a little over 10% of all Chinese trade [13], and is easily replaceable with expanded trade with ASEAN, Japan, South Korea, and India.
China views Russia the same way America views the EU - a weak junior partner who can be bullied. The US is somewhat trying to pull Russia to our side, and China is somewhat trying to pull the EU to their side, but the reality is both the US and China view the EU and Russia as junior partners.
> the Chinese support for Russia can be broken, by ... threat
What threat can the EU give to China? Chinese foreign policy already views the EU as sanctimonious [14], weak [15], and declining [16].
> over short or long the EU needs to build its own military to a strength it can at least work as a strong deterrence for aggressors
Yep.
But that will takes decades, which is why the US and China can both bully the EU with complete impunity today.
Heck, both China [17] and the US under Trump [18] are supporting Viktor Orban because he is a great Trojan horse.
Whenever either the US or China feels the EU is leaning towards one at the expense of the other, they then start breaking EU institutions as a result.
You have a very static view there. In my estimation the US is on the way down, at least economically/financially. Their internal stability is already somewhat broken. It will be hard to continue to project power without real allies and the internal issues they have and will have.
So, if the EU is so much inferior, why did they not buckle in the Greenland issue, but Trump was called back by his puppeteers? Why can they say "no" to supporting the US and Israel against Iran? And if they wanted the EU leaders could go further and match tariffs one by one and nothing serious would happen. The picture you are painting does not account for the facts. The relationship is not between equals but lord and vassal is also not a good fit.
I am not sure about the trade figures in your link [13]. It does not open for me. I seem to recall a significantly higher export volume going to Europe. But anyway, China is going to have their own internal issues with an aging populace, an end to strong economical growth and ever-growing social inequality. They are also too rational (compared to the US) to disrupt good business by mutual bullying (at least overtly and systematically).
It is for the EU.
The EU dislikes the current deprioritization of the Ukraine Conflict by the US, but also recognizes that the PRC is directly providing material support and subsidizing Russia's military industrial complex [0]. That is the red line for much of the EU.
Similarly, for the PRC it's continued support of Russia in their war in Ukraine is also a non-negotiatable [1], and the CCP's foreign mouthpieces continue to reiterate that "the mainstay of EU foreign policy — supporting Ukraine in a conflict to defeat Russia — has turned into a quagmire of sunk costs with little hope of success" [2].
> I am not sure Americans really understand how much trust is already gone
We know. And we don't care.
As long as the EU views Ukraine's territorial integrity as non-negotiable and a large portion of EU states view Russia as the primary national security threat, the US will remain the less bad option than the PRC or Russia.
Both the US and China are aligned in that we view the EU as a junior party that can be pressured [3].
If the EU views Russia as a threat, it will have to accept American vassalage becuase the PRC will continue to back Russia [1].
If the EU views America as a threat, it will have to accept Chinese vassalage, give up Ukraine, and accept Russia as the primary European military power.
Based on the carveouts within the Industrial Acceleration Act, the EU has chosen American vassalage.
[0] - https://ecfr.eu/article/funding-war-courting-crisis-why-chin...
[1] - https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3316875/ch...
[2] - https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202603/16/WS69b7f2e2a310d...
[3] - https://www.economist.com/china/2025/11/17/europe-sees-china...