Hey EU, Did Ya See the Memo?

Europe, your vision of a green, integrated, and non-disruptive world is lovely. But it’s time to wake up and build the industrial and military capabilities that today’s world demands.

Many who know me know that one of my favorite movies is Office Space. There’s a great line where the manager, Lumbergh, asks the cubicle employee Peter if he saw the memo about putting the new cover sheet on his TPS reports.

As I watch what the EU, and particularly Brussels, is doing, it makes me wonder if they ever got the memo about adjusting their thinking to the actual world, to today’s reality, not the utopian one they still believe they can live in (and lead) if they just wish hard enough.

So, in case they didn’t get the first, or maybe they just forgot, I’ll go ahead and make sure they “get another copy of that memo.”

“We have sort of a problem here… Did you see the memo about this?” —Lumbergh, Office Space (1999)

Here it is.

---

Memorandum

To: EU Officials

From: Lumbergh

Subject: The New World Reality

Hey EU, we all know that for more than a decade you’ve been trying to impose your vision of the world on both yourself and the rest of us. I hate to break it to you, but that hasn’t worked out all that well for ya.

Climate

Let’s start with “climate action.” You have made fighting climate change your top priority. Thanks. But you have failed. Sure, EU emissions have fallen 37 percent since 1990, but solving the problem requires reductions closer to 90 percent, and most of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.

Moreover, and I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, it’s called global warming for a reason. The only measure that matters is the change in global greenhouse gas emissions, which have increased by around 60 percent since 1990.

It really doesn’t matter what you do domestically if the technologies the world needs—clean energy technologies that are as cheap and as good as the dirty ones—don’t exist at scale. Only then will nations adopt them. And we’re a long way from that. If you had these technologies, you wouldn’t need to subsidize or force their adoption in the first place.

Oh, and your wishful thinking that green means growth. The European Commission writes, “The European Green Deal is transforming the EU into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy.” I know that’s a good sound bite, and useful for getting voters to drink their green castor oil without complaint, but it’s just wrong. Real EU electricity prices have increased over the last decade, even with large subsidies funded by taxpayers. So much for a competitive economy.

But wait, green is the new industrial policy! You claim that the Green Deal Industrial Plan enhances competitiveness “by creating a more supportive environment for scaling up the EU’s manufacturing capacity for the net-zero technologies and products required to meet Europe’s ambitious climate targets.”

The green market is just not that big. Your own projections estimate that the global market for key clean technologies may reach around €600 billion a year by 2030, which is well under 1 percent of projected global GDP. Clean tech also tends to displace legacy energy and industrial activity. For every euro of growth in green, there is likely a euro of decline in dirty-industry value added and jobs. It is simply not the engine of growth you pretend it is.

On top of that, dear EU, it’s unclear whether you will win. China is far ahead in batteries, solar, wind, and nuclear, dominating most clean-tech supply chains. Finally, according to OECD data presented in a forthcoming ITIF report, the EU’s global share of machinery and equipment—the industry group that includes much renewable-energy manufacturing—has fallen 18 percent over the last decade, while automobile production has remained flat. So your grand industrial strategy, overindexed on green, does not seem to be working.

Trade and Globalization

Okay, how about trade and globalization? For at least a decade, EU officials have spun a story about how you were the defenders of free trade and the rules-based order, unlike the American heathens. That at all costs the WTO must be protected as the guardian of global market integration.

Europe, if you still believe this, you are immune to reality. The WTO has failed. It is utterly incapable of disciplining the worst trade offender on the planet, China. This is the same country that restarted the trade war as soon as it joined the WTO.

And yet you continue defending the global trading system as though it still functions. How can the EU champion WTO orthodoxy in the face of unrepentant Chinese mercantilism—closed markets, IP theft, massive subsidies, standards manipulation, forced technology transfers, discriminatory treatment of foreign firms, and more? It defies logic.

I understand you’re ticked off at Trump about tariffs and trade negotiations, but let’s be serious: You cannot possibly believe that China will work toward a trading relationship built on “fairness and reciprocity.” How long will you keep begging Xi before you admit the obvious? Beijing will never play by those rules. Well, actually, they might, after the CCP has deindustrialized China. Free trade for tourism! The only reciprocity or level playing field possible is through coordinated action with the United States.

And since we’re on the subject of EU openness, a quick reality check: If the EU were truly as open as you claim, why did UK–EU trade decline when the UK left? If openness were real, not rhetorical, there should have been no change. Also, let’s not forget the EU’s long-running trade surpluses (at least until recently) with the rest of the world and the not-insignificant import quotas free-trading Europe imposes. Remind me again, aren’t tariff quotas a form of protectionism?

Precautionary Principle

We can’t have a memo like this without mentioning the precautionary principle, which dominates EU policymaking. Europe firmly believes it’s “better to be safe than sorry,” and you interpret that as restricting any new technology that carries even a hypothetical risk. But here’s the obvious point, at least obvious to many other governments and to your own business leaders: Innovation is inherently risky, and avoiding that risk guarantees stagnation.

We live in a world of cutthroat competition from China, where nations are racing to capture the advanced industries of the future. Yet here you are, holding philosophical seminars about “AI for the common good” and similarly abstract notions—all while designing regulatory regimes to control new technologies before they even get out of the lab.

Likely because you believe that if the EU leads in regulation, it will lead in innovation. Please, have an honest discussion about that one; don’t just drink your own Kool-Aid. Your lead in regulation is inversely related to your lag in innovation.

So yes, despite your decades-long belief to the contrary, operating under a risk-averse system has consequences. Mario Draghi’s report to the Commission spelled them out clearly. In the last 50 years, not a single new European firm has reached a market capitalization above €100 billion, and between 2008 and 2021, 30 percent of European unicorns relocated to the United States. Draghi’s diagnosis? “Self-defeating” regulatory burdens.

Europe’s precautionary principle is not just a regulatory philosophy; it’s an institutional and cultural constraint contributing to your economic and technological decline—again, all while China races to achieve techno-economic supremacy over the Western democratic world.

Digital Sovereignty

Let’s not forget the best one, digital sovereignty, a truly bizarre and protectionist idea. But wait, there’s more! Your new audacious plan for a homegrown “EuroStack,” something achievable, if at all, only with enormous subsidies and staggering costs.

European policymakers commonly portray digital and tech sovereignty as a bold yet nebulous aspiration: greater state control over digital infrastructure, technologies, data flows, and standards, paired with the hope of replacing U.S. technology firms with European ones.

Look, we all know what’s actually going on. Just be honest and say, “Hey, we don’t want free trade or global division of labor; we want our own digital industry through regulatory protectionism and non-tariff attacks on American tech companies.”

Of course you won’t say that, so EU leaders dress it up in talk about “European values,” privacy, and security. But you already have control over what U.S. companies do in Europe through sweeping regulatory regimes such as the Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act, AI Act, and the General Data Protection Regulation. Having your own IT companies won’t change that, although it would weaken overall IT use and innovation in Europe.

And digital sovereignty is not a one-way street. If the EU discriminates against foreign providers, it risks retaliation. Here’s a thought experiment: The United States needs aviation sovereignty. No more European airplanes for America. Airbus values are just not American. (And actually, Europe already practices this in reverse, as its airlines largely buy from Airbus.)

Europe, you can continue your quest for digital sovereignty, but you remain underfunded, fragmented, and overregulated in precisely the sectors needed to succeed. This path will result in tens of billions of euros wasted to prop up industries you are better off sourcing from allies such as the United States (and vice versa). Want is not enough without access to capital, industrial capacity, innovation-friendly regulations, and strategic alliances.

The New World Order

Finally, Russia, China, and the new world order. For too long, when it came to international relations, the EU wanted to be the Venus to America’s Mars—the world’s nurturing mom while America played tough dad. Europeans were the warm people, the helpful people, the people who believed every geopolitical crisis could be resolved through “constructive dialogue” and another committee meeting.

The last few years have made it clear that dad is still needed. The Russian invasion of Ukraine exposed the EU’s dangerous military weakness. More importantly, Xi Jinping has made it abundantly clear that his goal is global hegemony. Yet Europe remains anchored to outdated policies built on the illusion that it can appease China, maintain market access, and avoid becoming the next target of China’s industrial eradication campaign.

Message to Brussels: China is not just another normal country. BMW and Daimler selling a few more cars in China for the next couple of years does not make you partners. China is your adversary. And soon you won’t be selling any cars there at all, while Chinese automakers will be selling millions to you.

And yet the recent, frankly baffling UK capitulation to Beijing on the Chinese spy cases shows that backbones are weakening and we are late in the game. Even if the EU and the United States finally reach a broad consensus on the real nature of the China challenge, domestic action alone will not be enough. The United States cannot prevent Chinese global technological dominance without full and unstinting transatlantic cooperation, because if China wins in Europe, its firms will become too powerful for American companies to compete with. But hey, at least you won’t have to deal with those damned Yankees.

Unfortunately, Europe seems to believe it is competing against both the United States and China—a strategic fantasy that plays directly into Beijing’s hands. The sooner you recognize that only an alliance among Europe, the United States, and key Asian democracies, especially Japan, can prevent Xi’s vision from becoming reality, the better chance we have of not losing.

We need to join forces, Europe. But if you refuse to step up to defend the West, at least face reality: The inevitable outcome will be continued EU decline and, ultimately, Chinese techno-economic hegemony.

PS: The New U.S. National Security Strategy

Given the reaction in Europe over President Trump’s recently released U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS), let me clear up one thing: The NSS isn’t an attack on Europe—it’s a mirror. And Brussels does not like what it sees.

The NSS is not an effort to weaken Europe; it’s an effort to strengthen it. It isn’t “anti-Europe”; it’s anti–European drift. The point is not that the EU should shrink; it’s that the EU should compete.

Many Europeans may dislike its bluntness, but bluntness is not hostility. What the NSS actually argues, repeatedly, is that Europe remains strategically, economically, and culturally vital to American prosperity and global freedom. The document explicitly states that writing Europe off would be “self-defeating for what this strategy aims to achieve.”

The Trump administration’s message is that Europe is facing internal challenges—economic stagnation, insufficient military capabilities, overregulation, excess low-skill immigration, political fragmentation, and a crisis of civilizational self-confidence. Pair those issues with regulatory suffocation, external dependencies, and priorities detached from global competitiveness, and Europe will continue to decline.

The NSS is saying to correct course. It wants a Europe capable of partnering with the United States to shape the world and deter hostile nations like China, not one that remains strategically dependent, politically paralyzed, and economically adrift.

That is why the NSS stresses that Europe must “stand on its own feet” by taking primary responsibility for its own defense, rebuilding industrial capacity, and ensuring it cannot be dominated by adversarial powers. (Hint, in case you need it: The United States is not your adversary. And if you really believe that it is, tell us to get out of NATO.)

This is not abandonment; it is empowerment. Perhaps Brussels should see it as a vote of confidence in Europe’s potential strength, if you choose to exercise it.

---

Okay, end of memo.

In sum, Europe, your vision of a green, globally integrated, non-disruptive, pacific world is a lovely one. Maybe in 30 or 40 years you can try again. But for now, it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee of reality.

I, and many others, invite you to stop relying on clean energy sound bites, philosophical seminars, and regulatory crusades and instead build the real industrial and military capabilities that matter in today’s world, which is defined by hard power, dominance in national power industries, and, most importantly, strategic partnerships with free nations that respect democracy and human rights.