For the European Union, these are the last chances to avoid Trump's scenarios.

 The current scenario forces Europe to deeply reflect on its lag in the global landscape, where the gap between the objectives to be achieved and those achieved so far is widening dramatically. While the advance of Chinese trade is a worrying phenomenon, albeit one that has been addressed with sometimes effective tools, the Ukrainian conflict and especially the rise of Trump have led to a gradual reduction in Europe's political role, including economic policy. This, combined with internal political division and military irrelevance, places the European Union in a serious position of dissolution. The decisive factor is the changing posture of the United States, which positions itself as an adversary whose primary objective is precisely the division of the Union, to avoid dealing with a cohesive entity. First the threat of tariffs, then the wavering stance on the Ukrainian war, and finally the explicit threat to the Union's territory with the specific intent of conquering Greenland, perhaps even using military means. It must be stated, without fear of contradiction, that the Union's overly diplomatic and conciliatory attitude toward Trump has not achieved any of the desired effects. On the contrary, it has fueled increased hostility on the part of the US president, due to the impression or certainty that he is dealing with a weak and divided partner. This is partly true, and is due to the Union's inflexible structure, still too conditioned by unanimity, and the lack of decisions and legislation capable of ensuring a government capable of transcending individual interests in favor of the general well-being. To avoid offending the White House, dialogue with China has also been sacrificed, as has relations with Moscow, incapable of seriously sanctioning the Kremlin, through the use of Russian reserves in Europe, leaving the Union in a state of weakness. But the White House's stance, which is the worst factor for the Union, could have been foreseen. Ever since the Obama presidency, US interests have increasingly focused on the East, and the first Trump presidency and the latest presidential election campaign had presented dangerous warnings of a possible new American stance. There has been no desire to implement an autonomy capable of allowing emancipation, even within the framework of an alliance, from the alliance with the United States. The failure to develop military independence, supported by an adequate presence of a European war industry, still allows for the current subservience to Washington, while internationally, the Union appears too hesitant about potential and closer alliances with partners equally interested in escaping the American yoke, such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea. Equally necessary is reestablishing close ties with the United Kingdom to seek London's return to the Union, just as it is necessary to involve Canada as a member of Brussels to expand the Union's borders overseas and on the American border. Such alliances could attract investments capable of developing high-tech industries, making independence from the US a reality that could counteract the desire to impose tariffs on its products, also due to the vast territory available to create trading areas almost completely impervious to American and even Chinese influence. Certainly, the necessary element within Europe to ensure a push toward this situation is the progressive relinquishment of sovereignty, especially over certain crucial matters, such as foreign and therefore military policy, and also over aspects of individual states' industrial policy. In exchange, this would enable the ability to play a major power role in every international arena and promote democratic ideals by dealing on an equal footing with major powers, without facing threats and disadvantages, as the immediate future seems certain to bring.