The Deal Europe Never Wanted

European Commission headquarters in Brussels — used here as a symbol of Europe’s forced turn toward India.
European Commission headquarters in Brussels — used here as a symbol of Europe’s forced turn toward India.

Europe does not act becau­se it has a visi­on.
Europe acts becau­se it has no choice—constrained by its own insti­tu­ti­ons and by a world it no lon­ger shapes.

When Pankaj Mishra appeared on the German tele­vi­si­on pro­gram Precht in March 2023, he argued that Germany must free its­elf from its “sleep­wal­king obe­dience” to the United States and assu­me an inde­pen­dent role as a media­tor bet­ween glo­bal power cen­ters. Richard David Precht did not fun­da­men­tal­ly dis­agree, but he empha­si­zed that Germany remains cul­tu­ral­ly, poli­ti­cal­ly, and, in terms of secu­ri­ty, firm­ly ancho­red in the West. The exch­an­ge reve­a­led a deeper truth: Germany can­not sim­ply reinvent its­elf as an inde­pen­dent actor becau­se its stra­te­gic room for maneu­ver is struc­tu­ral­ly limi­t­ed by its place within the European Union and by a glo­bal order it no lon­ger con­trols. This lack of stra­te­gic auto­no­my is pre­cis­e­ly why Europe’s sud­den turn toward India was not a deli­be­ra­te choice but a reac­tion to exter­nal pressure.

Germany would never, of its own accord, have con­side­red nego­tia­ting a com­pre­hen­si­ve free‑trade agree­ment with India. Without the gro­wing unpre­dic­ta­bi­li­ty of the United States under President Trump, such an agree­ment would never have appeared on the poli­ti­cal agenda.

A free‑trade agree­ment with India does not neces­s­a­ri­ly imply an “Eastern ori­en­ta­ti­on.” But when an agree­ment does not ari­se from eco­no­mic logic and ins­tead emer­ges as a reac­tion to the vola­ti­li­ty of the United States, it ine­vi­ta­b­ly takes on a geo­po­li­ti­cal mea­ning that resem­bles an Eastern shift. Not becau­se Europe con­scious­ly turns toward the East, but becau­se it is being pushed away from the West. That is what makes this step so fun­da­men­tal­ly disho­nest. Europe does not act out of affi­ni­ty, sym­pa­thy, or ideo­lo­gi­cal ali­gnment. It acts becau­se it must.

India and the European Union pre­sent their free‑trade agree­ment as an eco­no­mic breakth­rough. In rea­li­ty, it is a respon­se to a glo­bal land­scape that has trans­for­med dra­ma­ti­cal­ly over the past decade.

Negotiations began in 2007 with ambi­tious goals but quick­ly col­lap­sed due to con­flic­ting inte­rests. The EU deman­ded exten­si­ve mar­ket libe­ra­liza­ti­on, while India sought to pro­tect key indus­tries. In 2013, the talks were abandoned.

Between 2013 and 2021, glo­bal power dyna­mics shifted rapidly: the United States began using trade poli­cy as a tool of pres­su­re, China expan­ded its influence, and India posi­tio­ned its­elf as an auto­no­mous power in the Global South. Europe could no lon­ger afford to igno­re India.

When nego­tia­ti­ons resu­med in 2021, they were no lon­ger about tech­ni­cal details but about geo­po­li­ti­cal posi­tio­ning. Europe sought alter­na­ti­ves to the United States and China; India sought part­ners who could sup­port its moder­niza­ti­on wit­hout com­pro­mi­sing its stra­te­gic auto­no­my. Both sides acted out of stra­te­gic necessity.

In February 2025, Ursula von der Leyen and Narendra Modi set a dead­line. At the 16th India–EU Summit in New Delhi, the agree­ment was final­ly con­cluded: a free‑trade zone encom­pas­sing two bil­li­on peo­p­le. Europe gains access to one of the world’s lar­gest growth mar­kets; India gains access to tech­no­lo­gy and investment—benefits it could have recei­ved much earlier.

Germany, mean­while, had long reli­ed on the United States while deepe­ning its eco­no­mic depen­dence on China. India play­ed vir­tual­ly no role. Only the geo­po­li­ti­cal shocks of recent years—U.S. tariffs, the ener­gy cri­sis, sup­p­ly chain disruptions—forced Berlin to recon­sider. Germany, too, is only now chan­ging cour­se: due to the erra­tic tariff poli­ci­es of President Trump, German com­pa­nies are redu­cing their acti­vi­ties in the United States and incre­asing their invest­ments in China, as repor­ted by Der Spiegel.

But per­haps Europe’s real task is to chan­ge its poli­ti­cal cul­tu­re: to stop reac­ting only when pres­su­re beco­mes unbe­ara­ble and to start acting when action is neces­sa­ry. A Europe that deci­des ear­ly would be stron­ger than a Europe that mere­ly responds to cri­ses. Only then could it tru­ly beco­me a shaper of the new world order—rather than its captive.

For more ana­ly­ses on the hid­den forces sha­ping glo­bal poli­tics, see our Hidden Geopolitics series.