Here’s a breakdown of the article’s core arguments and how to interpret them:

1. China’s Assessment of European Power and its Diplomatic Approach

Key Argument: China’s current diplomatic approach towards Europe is primarily shaped by its assessment that Europe lacks meaningful geopolitical value and leverage,especially in contrast to its past influence.
Evidence/Reasoning:
Perceived Weakness: China believes Europe has less geopolitical value than it once did. This is demonstrated by China’s response to EU criticisms about excess capacity, where they deflected by pointing to the EU’s “deep anxiety caused by years of insufficient R&D investment and declining industrial competitiveness.”
Trump’s influence: The Trump administration’s concessions in the U.S.-China trade standoff have reinforced China’s confidence in its strategy of pressure and economic coercion, which it applies to both the US and its allies, including Europe.
Europe as a Hedge: European capitals now beleive china cannot be relied upon as a counterweight to Trump, leading to a realization that Europe must strengthen its own autonomous capabilities.

Key Argument: The Trump administration’s approach of isolating allies, notably Europe, is inadvertently benefiting China by dismantling US global influence and creating opportunities for Beijing.
Evidence/Reasoning:
Dismantling US Strengths: Beijing perceives that the US under Trump is weakening itself by undermining its alliances, partnerships, and international institutions (e.g., USAID, Voice of America).
Opportunity for China: China believes this “self-sabotage” by the US presents a moment where it can passively benefit, rather than needing to actively pursue global leadership.
Confidence in Exploitation: China has “profound confidence” that it can exploit the current era of “mercenary multipolarity” to its advantage, at the expense of both European and American interests. Misreading by US Strategists: Some American strategists incorrectly believe that Trump’s policies are working as China isn’t gaining significant ground from the trans-Atlantic rupture. The article argues this is a misreading as China is actively benefiting from the weakened US alliance system.

Key Argument: The current geopolitical climate, characterized by a perhaps isolationist US under Trump and an assertive China under Xi, forces Europe to prioritize strengthening its own self-reliant capabilities.
Evidence/Reasoning:
Inability to Rely on US: Europe can no longer rely on the US as a hedge against China, especially with the Trump administration’s transactional and unreliable approach to alliances.
Need for Self-Reliance: The only way for Europe to forge its own path and address risks from both the US and china is by building its “own autonomous capabilities-in both economic and security domains.”
Missed Opportunity for US-EU Coordination: The article suggests that a better path would be deeper coordination with the US on China challenges (e.g.,Russia,critical minerals,industrial base),but acknowledges the Trump administration’s disinterest in such collaboration.

Summarizing the Core Message:

The article argues that under the Trump administration’s “America Frist” and transactional foreign policy, the United States is inadvertently weakening its own global standing and alliance networks. China,observing this,has gained confidence in its assertive,coercive diplomacy and sees an opportunity to exploit this “mercenary multipolarity” to its advantage.This leaves Europe in a precarious position, unable to rely on the US for security against China and thus compelled to develop its own independent economic and security capabilities. The author warns against complacency in the US, suggesting that the apparent lack of a Chinese “charm offensive” is not a sign of US leverage but rather China’s deep-seated belief that it will ultimately win by exploiting the US’s self-inflicted wounds.

How has China’s economic leverage in Europe failed to achieve the desired political alignment?

Beijing’s European Charm Offensive Fails to Resonate

The Limits of Economic Diplomacy

For years, Beijing has pursued a multi-pronged strategy to deepen its influence within Europe. This “charm offensive,” heavily reliant on economic incentives and diplomatic outreach, aimed to cultivate closer ties and potentially weaken the transatlantic alliance.However, recent trends suggest this strategy is increasingly falling flat. Despite notable investment and trade, a growing skepticism towards China’s political system and assertive foreign policy is taking root across the continent. This isn’t a complete rejection, but a recalibration – a move towards a more cautious and pragmatic engagement.

The Economic Leverage Play: A Diminishing Return

China’s economic influence in Europe is undeniable. It’s a major trading partner for many EU member states, and Chinese investment has flowed into key sectors like infrastructure, technology, and real estate. The 17+1 initiative – a forum for cooperation between China and 17 Central and Eastern European countries – was a prime example of this strategy.

However, the economic benefits haven’t translated into the political alignment Beijing hoped for. Several factors contribute to this:

Debt-Trap Diplomacy Concerns: Projects financed by Chinese loans, notably within the Belt and road Initiative (BRI), have raised concerns about unsustainable debt burdens and potential loss of sovereignty for participating nations. Greece’s Piraeus port,while a success story for China,also serves as a cautionary tale regarding long-term control and influence.

Unequal Market Access: European businesses consistently complain about restricted access to the Chinese market, facing barriers that their Chinese counterparts don’t encounter in Europe. This imbalance fuels resentment and undermines the goodwill Beijing seeks to build.

Shifting Investment Patterns: Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from China into Europe has actually decreased in recent years,partly due to increased scrutiny from European governments and a more cautious approach from Chinese investors themselves. The focus is shifting from large-scale acquisitions to smaller, less politically sensitive investments.

Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed Europe’s over-reliance on Chinese supply chains, prompting a push for diversification and “strategic autonomy” – reducing dependence on a single source for critical goods.

Political and Ideological friction

Beyond economics, fundamental differences in political values and human rights concerns are hindering closer ties.

Human Rights in Xinjiang and hong Kong: China’s crackdown on Uyghurs in Xinjiang and its erosion of democratic freedoms in Hong Kong have drawn widespread condemnation from European governments and civil society organizations. These issues consistently overshadow any attempts at positive engagement.

Taiwan Strait Tensions: China’s increasingly assertive stance towards Taiwan, coupled with military exercises in the region, has raised alarm bells in Europe, particularly among those who value the rules-based international order.

Support for Russia: Beijing’s tacit support for Russia, especially in the wake of the Ukraine invasion, has severely damaged its reputation in Europe. While China has avoided directly providing military aid, its refusal to condemn Russia’s actions and its continued economic ties have been viewed with deep suspicion.

Disinformation Campaigns: European intelligence agencies have documented instances of Chinese-linked disinformation campaigns aimed at influencing public opinion and undermining democratic processes. This has further eroded trust and fueled negative perceptions.

Diverging National Interests Within Europe

Europe isn’t a monolithic entity. Member states have varying degrees of economic dependence on China and differing geopolitical priorities. This internal divergence complicates Beijing’s efforts to forge a unified relationship with the continent.

Germany’s Economic Ties: Germany, traditionally a strong advocate for engagement with China, is now reassessing its approach due to growing concerns about economic security and human rights.

France’s Strategic Autonomy Push: france, under President Macron, has championed the concept of “strategic autonomy” – reducing Europe’s dependence on both the US and China. This implies a more autonomous and assertive foreign policy.

Eastern European Skepticism: Countries in Central and Eastern Europe, historically wary of Russian influence, are often more skeptical of China’s intentions and more aligned with the US on security issues.The 17+1 initiative has seen diminishing returns,with several countries reducing their participation.

Nordic Caution: Nordic countries, known for their strong commitment to human rights and democratic values, have consistently voiced concerns about China’s human rights record and its growing authoritarianism.

The Rise of “De-Risking,” Not Decoupling

the prevailing sentiment in Europe is no longer about complete “decoupling” from China – a complete severing of economic ties – but rather “de-risking.” This involves:

Diversifying Supply Chains: Reducing reliance on single sources for critical materials and components.

Strengthening Export Controls: Preventing the transfer of sensitive technologies to China that could be used for military purposes.

increasing Scrutiny of Foreign Investment: Screening Chinese investments more rigorously to protect national security interests.

Promoting Human Rights Due diligence: Ensuring that European companies operating in China respect human rights standards.

This “de-risking” strategy reflects a growing recognition that economic interdependence doesn’t necessarily translate into political alignment. Europe is seeking to protect its economic interests while upholding its values and safeguarding its security.

Case study: The EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI)

The EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI), negotiated over seven years, exemplifies the challenges facing