EU Trump Tariff Response ‘28 Billion Euros Proportional’ Ukraine Ceasefire ‘European Security’

EU Trump Tariff Response ‘28 Billion Euros Proportional’ Ukraine Ceasefire ‘European Security’

​

The European Union announced a ‘28 billion euros proportional’ tax in response to the Trump regime’s steel tariffs, and Ukraine switched to ‘European Security’ in negotiations with the United States.

The European Commission announced on the morning of the 12th a response to the new “unjustified” and “harmful” US tariffs on EU steel and aluminum imports, and announced a response to EU imports from the US.

“The EU’s response could be applied to up to 26 billion euros worth of US exports, reflecting the economic scale of the US tariffs, and the EU’s response will follow a two-stage approach,” said Euraktive. The existing measures expire on April 1, and in response to the latest US tariffs affecting more than 18 billion euros of EU exports, the Commission will introduce a new package of measures for US goods and, after consultation with member states and stakeholders, will take effect by mid-April,” the commission reported on the day.

In a statement on the day, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, “As of this morning, the US has imposed a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports, and tariffs are taxes,” and “In response to the US imposition of tariffs worth 28 billion dollars, we are responding with countermeasures worth 26 billion euros. This corresponds to the economic scope of the US tariffs.”

​

The joint statement on the ceasefire between Ukraine and the US on the 11th stated, “The two delegations agreed to appoint negotiating teams and immediately begin negotiations toward a permanent peace that provides long-term security for Ukraine,” and “The US committed to discussing these specific proposals with the Russian representatives.

The Ukrainian delegation reiterated that European partners must participate in the peace process,” making ‘European participation’ a condition for negotiations.

The New York Times reported that “the statement did not provide details on how a ceasefire could be achieved,” and that “prior to the talks, Ukraine insisted that any ceasefire must include security guarantees, but the statement released on the 11th gave no indication that such guarantees would be provided before the temporary ceasefire took effect.”

​

In a video address to Ukrainians that night, President Zelensky said that the Ukrainian delegation had entered the talks proposing a partial ceasefire that would only include air strikes and fighting in the Black Sea, and that “the U.S. delegation proposed a comprehensive ceasefire.”

​

The New York Times reported that President Zelensky said that a “crucial element” of the talks was a U.S. commitment to resume military and intelligence support, but did not directly link this issue to accepting the ceasefire.

​

Euraktiv reported in a column titled “Europe’s Most Serious Economic Threat Could Come Not “From Within,” as JD Vance (U.S. Vice President) suggested, but “Last month, JD Vance declared that the greatest danger facing Europe today is a “threat from within.” Recent events suggest that the US vice president has turned the tables. Europe’s most serious threat – at least economically – could come from the US,” Thomas Moller-Nielsen wrote on the 11th.

​

“Could the Tesla stock crash trigger a global financial crisis? It certainly could,” he wrote. “It’s hard to reject the view that Tesla stock is primarily a speculative asset. Investors buy or sell stock based on the perception that its owner, Elon Musk, is close to Trump. More precisely, they buy or sell stock based on the perception of other investors’ perceptions of their relationship. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where Tesla’s stock price could plunge even further in the coming weeks.”

​

The column stated that, “In addition to the impact on European stocks (due to the imposition of tariffs on US stocks), Trump’s policies pose two other serious risks to the European economy,” and that “the first is that President Trump’s pledge to impose extensive tariffs could trigger a resurgence of inflation in the US,” and that “this would ultimately force the US Federal Reserve to maintain or even raise interest rates, which would strengthen the dollar and push up EU government bond yields even further, diverting precious public funds from productive investment to debt repayment.”

The column continued, “The second, more serious risk is that the current developments in the U.S. stock market are much worse, and it could be a precursor to a U.S. recession or even another global financial crisis.” The global financial media is predicting that we could repeat the “dot-com crash” of the early 2000s, the current hype surrounding artificial intelligence is playing a similar role to the previous Internet craze, and the so-called “Buffett indicator,” used by U.S. investors such as Warren Buffett to identify market bubbles, is currently at a much higher level than before the dot-com crash or the 2008 financial crisis.

The column stated in particular that "many U.S. stock valuations appear to have little basis in economic fundamentals" and that "despite a more than 40% drop since the beginning of the year, Tesla's total market capitalization is just under $700 billion, which is six times the combined value of the three traditional U.S. automakers: Ford, Stellantis, and General Motors, making it difficult to reject the view that Tesla stock is primarily a speculative asset."

​

Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax law at UCLA Law School, analyzed the “trial to make the tax system much more favorable to the interests of the wealthy” and “discriminatory tax policy for the working class” in a NYT column (February 21) titled “The Real Reason President Trump Is Pushing Tariffs.”

Professor Clausing said, “Trump wants to consolidate his power while shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor and the middle class.” “The poor spend a greater share of their income on things they want or need, including imported goods, rather than saving or investing a greater share of their income than the rich, so tariffs act as a drastically regressive tax. Tariffs were announced as a tax increase for the poor and the middle class to raise money for tax cuts for the wealthy.”

He said, “Because the overseas income of American companies is taxed much more lightly than their domestic income, they encourage overseas business,” and “Tariffs do not send jobs back home, or even support American manufacturing.” No, it's to make the rich richer. To do that, President Trump aims to reduce the tax burden on corporations and the wealthy, and through tariffs, he is doing exactly that," he said.

​