E.U.-India Free Trade

Early in 2026, “(a)fter months of intense negotiations,” the E.U. concluded “a free-trade deal with India,” which, if ratified by the E.U.’s upper and lower chambers (the European Council and the European Parliament), would sharply reduce “tariffs on E.U. products from cars to wine as the world looks for alternative markets following President Donald Trump’s tariffs.”[1] Signaling that something more than trade was involved in the treaty, “(b)oth countries hailed a ‘new chapter in strategic relations’ as both sides” sought “alternatives to the US market.”[2] The E.U. had just engineered a free-trade treaty with four South American countries. Competition for better, cheaper, trade was reducing Trump’s bargaining power by means of tariffs. Using them to inflict geopolitical harm on other countries, including the E.U., would become less effective as free-trade deals excluding the U.S. materialized. The implications, and even the motive in the free-trade negotiations between the E.U. and India, extend beyond economics.

At the time, India was “facing tariffs of 50% from the Trump administration.”[3] Half of that percentage was a penalty on India for buying Russian oil. The tariffs “severely dented” India’s exports and thus gave India a huge incentive to negotiate with the Europeans. On the European side of the equation, Trump had just threatened to impose tariffs on any country opposing the American purchase of Greenland before relenting at Davos. Such market uncertainty had momentarily stirred Wall Street and shaken European export-oriented businesses. Quite understandably, given such uncertainty, E.U. President von der Leyen was emphatic when the India deal was reached. “We did it—we delivered the mother of all deals,” she said.[4] “This is the tale of two giants,” she added, “who choose partnership in a true win-win fashion. A strong message that cooperation is the best answer to global challenges.”[5] The American president, von der Leyen’s counterpart, was without doubt among the challenges, which also included Russia’s militaristically aggressive president and the wholly unrepentant genocidal state of Israel. The broader message from the E.U.-India trade announcement is that the bad boys can be obviated, and that really good trade deals can be reached as a result.

The E.U.’s trade minister Sefcovic observed that the pressing need to find other markets and thus insulate E.U. trade from whimsical American impediments to E.U.-U.S. trade gave an incentive for negotiations to proceed “with a new philosophy” of avoiding subjecting sensitive goods to free trade. “If this is sensitive for you, let’s not touch it,” he explained as the new modus operendi in the negotiations.[6] I contend the pressing mutual interests to render Trump’s threats powerless fostered this new strategy. That is, both countries looked “to de-risk their economies from the threat of Trump’s tariffs.”[7] The hurdles that had scuttled E.U.-India trade negotiations beginning in 2007 were thus obviated at least in part due to the erratic trade policies coming out of Washington.

It is significant that the E.U. characterized the deal with India as an instance of “rules-based cooperation.”[8] Russia and Israel were both severely breaching international rules, and even U.S. President Trump’s whimsical application and withdrawal of tariffs can be viewed as contrary to the constancy of rules. Business abhors such volatility, and so do most governments. The bad boys are the exception, and the good boys and girls were smart to work around the baddies. Given the extent and depth of corruption (i.e., lies and refusals to enforce criminal law with impunity) and the sheer, unprovoked aggressiveness in the police departments of too many of the U.S.'s member-states and at the federal level, where the aggression directed at Minnesota citizens was nothing short of animalistic in January, 2026, the challenge to a rules-based rather than power/whim-based order was a major American problem beyond “merely” Washington having supplied weapons to Israel to wipe Gaza and its people off the map—literally into cold, wet tents.  

---

1. Peggy Corlin and Maria Tadeo, “EU Inks ‘Mother of All Deals’ with India Trade Agreement Amid Global Turmoil,” Euronews.com, January 27, 2026.
2. Ibid., italics added.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.

The E.U.’s Hungary Overreaching on Sovereignty: International Trade

Sovereignty is not a word to be casually used, especially if in overreaching. In both the E.U. and U.S., state governments have overreached at the expense of the delegated competencies or enumerated powers of the respective Unions of states. The Nullification Crisis in the U.S. and de facto unilateral refusal of the E.U. state of Hungary to observe E.U. law both demonstrate how the overreaching by state governments can compromise a federal system.[1] In the E.U. the refusal to do away with the principle of unanimity in the European Council and the Council of the E.U. enable and even invite such overreaches at the expense of the E.U. itself, and its distinctly federal officials. Even a state government’s pursuit of it’s state’s economic interests does not justify holding the E.U. hostage. The case of supporting Ukraine in the midst of the invasion by Russia is a case in point.

In part because of Hungary’s veto of the accession of Ukraine into the Union, as intimated by Ukrainian President Zelensky on August 24, 2025, Ukrainian attacks on the Druzhba oil pipeline blocked oil imports into the E.U. states of Hungary and Slovakia. “Ukraine attacked oil facilities on Russian territory with drones and rockets.”[2] This violation of Russia’s sovereignty was predicated on Russia’s long-standing invasion of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Accordingly, the main motive for the bombings of the oil facilities in Russia can be said to have been to weaken Russia’s military by reducing the revenue to the Russian state from oil exports. To be sure, Ukraine’s president himself “suggested that the attacks on the pipeline might be connected to Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s EU accession.”[3] On the anniversary of Ukraine having broken off from the Soviet Union, Zelensky said, “We always supported the friendship between Ukraine and Hungary. And now the existence of the friendship depends on what Hungary’s position is.”[4]

The overt threat to continued imports of Russian oil was received loud and clear in Budapest, the Hungarian state capital. The state’s foreign minister, Péter Szijártó “said his government firmly rejected what he described as the Ukrainian President’s intimidation and considered those bombings on the Russian pipelines as an attack on Hungary’s sovereignty.”[5] On social media, the foreign minister puts sovereignty in terms of “territorial integrity, and, furthermore, claims that an “attack on energy security is an attack on sovereignty.”[6] I beg to differ.

Sovereignty as understood territorially and applied to the E.U. state of Hungary does not include Ukrainian bombings within the territory of Russia because the latter is not Hungarian territory. Furthermore, energy security is not sovereignty, especially when such security depends on international trade. The severing of such a contract by the inability of a counterparty to deliver product does not violate sovereignty. In fact, as pointed out by Andriy Sybiha, Ukraine’s foreign minister, the E.U. state of Hungary could have diversified and become independent of Russian oil “like the rest of Europe.”[7] Indeed, the ability to do so would have been an exercise of the governmental sovereignty retained by the Hungarian government in the E.U., and the latter may have used its portion of sovereignty to assist the state, given the consensus at the E.U. level against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which began in 2014 with Crimea.

The problem of the Hungarian overreach on what sovereignty means and entitles helps to explain why Viktor Orbán, the governor of Hungary, had been serially violating E.U. law and regulations even after the Commission began withholding money for the state. Orbán’s refusal to recognize that some governmental sovereignty, in the form of competencies—full and shared—had been delegated to the E.U.’s federal governmental institutions in 1993 coupled with an overreaching construal (or distortion) of what territorial sovereignty means and entitles, explains why Hungary has stymied so much at the federal level, given the power that states wield there through the European Council and the Council of the European Union. Therefore, it is ironic that Tamás Deutsch, a representative in the European Parliament representing a district that is within the state of Hungary, “said the pipeline bombings represent a military attack against an EU member state, and that the EU should not conduct [accession] talks with Ukraine as a result.”[8] So Hungary is a member-state after all, when being one is convenient.

Playing by convenience at the state level without concern for the viability of the federal level is precisely what could unravel the European Union. The irony is that without the E.U., Hungary would not have an empire-scale union at hand to push back against Russia, should Putin decide to invade Hungary after all. That would be a violation of Hungary’s sovereignty. So resisting the urge of convenience or state-rights ideology to exploit state power at the federal level could actually strengthen Hungary’s sovereignty even if international trade deals do not all go Hungary’s way. Unfortunately, the principle of unanimity at the E.U. level ultimately undermines rather than strengthens the remaining governmental sovereignty of the states if the veto power is exploited for expediency rather than to protect vital, long-term state interests against federal encroachment on the governmental sovereignty reserved by the states.

---

1. In 1832-1833, the government of South Carolina held that the U.S. tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were null and void within the state. “The resolution of the Nullification Crisis in favor of the federal government helped to undermine the nullification doctrine,” which holds that states have the right “to nullify federal acts within their boundaries.” Britannica.com (accessed August 25, 2025). I submit that the European Court of Justice could do worse than declare the same with regard to state laws, including the refusal of a governor or state legislature to implement federal directives, that are in violation of E.U. law and regulations. Monetary sanctions by the European Commission have not been a sufficient deterrent. If either de facto or de jure nullification becomes the norm, then it would only be a matter of time before the Union dissolves and the states could once again take up arms against each other.
2. Sandor Zsiros, “Hungary and Slovakia in Spat with Ukraine over Bombed Druzhba Oil Pipeline,” Euronews.com, August 25, 2025, italics added.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.