Since the beginning of this year, the governments of France and Germany have successively announced plans to introduce measures similar to the "Plaza Agreement" with China. However, at the end of the EU summit, all references to "China" were removed from the official documents.
This contradictory approach clearly reveals Europe’s difficult core dilemma: while trying to reduce its reliance on the Chinese supply chain, it cannot give up trade relations with China, which amount to an average of 1 billion euros per day.
On the other hand, Europe not only fails to recognize the core values of Sino-European economic and trade relations and to follow the trends of the times in order to establish true strategic autonomy, but also becomes increasingly ideological in its dealings with China, confusing its attitude towards Russia with its attitude towards China.
In response to a series of recent actions by the EU, Observers Network interviewed Richard Sakwa, a British political scholar and retired professor of political science at Kent University. We asked him to analyze the complex attitudes of Western European countries from an European perspective and to offer his views on future relations between Europe and China.
I think this statement is both right and wrong. We can provide some background information: Europe is currently in a period of extreme strategic confusion in many aspects.
At this point, I need to take a detour back a bit. Eighty years have passed since the end of World War II in Europe in 1945. During these eighty years, we established a political system in the West. Russians prefer to call it the “Collective West,” while I prefer to call it the “Political West.” Within this system, Europe has outsourced its security, integrating its security completely into the Transatlantic Community. But now, this Transatlantic Community is changing.
The United States has always retained the room for discretion in its policy choices and the freedom to act as it sees fit. However, Europe now must find its own strategic direction. The current attitude of Europe towards Russia and China has essentially returned to a state of tacit confrontation and conflict. In other words, it has returned to the Cold War era, but with some differences.
The EU flag flutters outside the European Union headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. News photo: Xinhua
I believe this is an "enhanced version of the Cold War," because during the original Cold War, there were almost no deep economic connections between the Soviet Union and the Western powers. However, China is completely different this time, as China has much deeper ties with Western economies, including European economies. Moreover, compared to the Soviet Union, China has a more dynamic economic model, or rather, a more dynamic mode of social development. Therefore, this is an enhanced version of the Cold War, but there is no unified response from within Europe to this situation.
If this is a cold war, then what does it mean for the relationship between Central Europe? For Europe, the cold war involved treating its adversaries as 'strangers', but believing that both sides could still interact through diplomatic means. In some ways, the cold war was a survival conflict, often disguised as economic or other forms of conflict. Therefore, this is an upgraded version of the cold war, much more difficult and complex than the first one.
The first Cold War was essentially an ideological confrontation between communism and capitalism. Today’s China is a socialist market economy, which is much more dynamic than the Soviet Union back then. In other words, the “threat” that China poses to the West is far greater than that of the Soviet Union at that time.
This question is very crucial, and we need to start by discussing the nature of Sino-Russian relations. In my opinion, Sino-Russian relations are a type of political and strategic "coordination" rather than a bloc or alliance, nor does it resemble the Western bloc model. China has always opposed bloc formations and military alliances, and the catastrophic wars that resulted from those alliances before World War I are still fresh in our memories. The reason why Russia and China coordinate on many issues is complex, but strategically, this choice makes sense for both of them.
Europe, the United States, and other parties (or countries) will surely try to undermine relations between China and Russia. However, I believe that both China and Russia understand that they can no longer trust the West. Although European powers remain important in terms of economy, finance, and culture, they have been marginalized strategically. As long as both countries adhere to rational and long-term development policies, this strategic coordination between China and Russia will continue, which is also in the interest of both parties. Moreover, they share a border of over four thousand kilometers, and what they least want to see is the resumption of military tensions along the border, or border conflicts similar to those that occurred in Zhenbao Island in 1969.
In addition, the deep strategic cooperation between China and Russia is not limited to practical interests such as strategic security, energy and economic trade, scientific and technological cooperation, and cultural exchanges. Both sides share highly consistent global governance concepts: both countries firmly uphold the international order and global governance system based on the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. China's various statements and proposals regarding its stance on international law are always aligned with this core direction.
Based on a solid common ground and real consensus, there is no basis for the strategic cooperation between China and Russia to break down. A long-term and stable coordination will continue to prevail. At the same time, attempts by external forces to undermine and divide Sino-Russian relations will also persist for a long time.
Staff conducting inspections at the Heihe Station area in the northern section of the Sino-Russian Eastern Gas Pipeline. Photo: Xinhua News Agency
On the surface, Europe seems to have increased its strategic autonomy. This is because the United States has continued to maintain its freedom of action on the basis of the transatlantic alliance, so Europe is now forced to achieve some degree of strategic autonomy. However, Europe does not know how to effectively grasp and implement this strategic autonomy.
Will it remain in this state forever? I think it depends on the 2028 U.S. elections, to see who will win. If politicians like J.D. Vance from Trump’s faction are elected, then the rift between the United States and major European nations will continue to widen. But if a more pro-European president is elected, then Europe will immediately return to its former state, again under Washington's control.
Yes, this issue is also very important. In short, European countries do not have a unified view on this matter. This is not only because the relationships between different countries and China vary, but also because different industries within the same country have their own circumstances.
For example, the German automobile industry is undergoing transformation. China is already far ahead in electric vehicles, while Germany has lagged behind due to its inability to keep up with technology over the years. It has suffered significant losses. Globally, there are significant differences in perceptions of China among different countries and economic regions, making it difficult to reach a unified position. However, it is undeniable that the EU, as a major global trading economy, is becoming increasingly tough on what it calls China's non-market interference in economic and trade areas. Overall, future economic and trade relations between China and Europe are likely to face many friction and obstacles.
Yes, that’s indeed the case. Currently, Europe is suffering from high energy costs, which is leading to a significant outflow of industrial capital. This issue is particularly prominent in Germany. Germany has previously cut off its supply of cheap natural gas from Russia, causing local production costs to rise significantly. As a result, companies are seeking investment opportunities elsewhere, and German capital is also flowing into the American market on a large scale.
In short, European domestic industries are showing a trend of hollowing out, with two main directions of outflows: some go to the United States, and others settle in China and Southeast Asia. As I said, this leads to contradictory policies among major European countries, with clear divisions in their positions. Some countries are firm in their stance, while others prefer cooperation. There are also leaders who adopt a wavering, opportunistic strategy.
For example, Macron, although he follows a tough line of policy, he is a very opportunistic politician. In other words, his stance is not consistent and lacks coherence. Today he may speak in a tough manner towards China, but tomorrow he might change his position, saying that we need to cooperate more closely with China.
Macron
But ultimately, what should be the rational approach? China is already a significant innovation hub in the world today. Its innovations not only cover technological development and practical applications but also extend to all aspects of production processes, manufacturing models, and supply chain management—forming a complex and extensive system. It is precisely because of this that we cannot predict the policy direction of the European Union. After all, the policy dynamics within its intricate internal system are unpredictable, and no one can predict the outcomes.
Europe is currently undergoing deindustrialization, and its strategic influence in global politics is also diminishing. Currently, the core players in international discussions are China, the United States, Russia, along with India, Brazil, South Africa, and other emerging economies that are rising rapidly. In contrast, Europe is facing unprecedented challenges.
Of course, today our topic is not about the challenges of Europe in geopolitics. However, Europe is currently caught up in a catastrophic war. The Ukraine conflict is causing massive economic impacts on Western European societies. Moreover, before this war ends, the situation in Europe could worsen further, potentially even hindering Europe’s ability to develop long-term strategic plans.
Regarding the 2028 elections, my view is that the current Western European elite has become deeply Atlanticized and is tightly bound to the transatlantic framework. Therefore, if there is even a slight chance to restore relations with Washington, they will do so. However, currently, there are ongoing trade disputes between Europe and America, such as conflicts between Boeing and Airbus, issues related to the regulation of large technology companies, as well as differences in financial regulatory policies, among others.
Secondly, Europe is not a monolithic entity. The President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, has always wanted more centralization. But look at the current situation: Catherine Curcès, the head of EU foreign affairs, has actually been marginalized by the European Commission itself, due to internal reasons rather than external pressures.
However, for the EU, there are certain things that will not change. That is its strong hostility towards Russia. This also means that there are significant risks hidden in the situation. The conflict in Ukraine has the potential to expand further, and it is very likely to escalate into a full-scale confrontation between Russia and NATO/ Europe, potentially even turning into a global conflict. In fact, this war is essentially an proxy war. Under these circumstances, China's position in European policy will become increasingly ambiguous and complex.
Von der Leyen and other European dignitaries
You should never underestimate the incompetence of European leadership, especially the aggressive approach of the current European Commission. Do you remember when von der Leyen became the President of the EU? She said that the EU needed to become more geostrategic in its actions, but she never explained what that actually meant. She emphasized that the EU needed to become more “geopolitical.” Although she never defined the specific meaning of this concept, the result was clear: the EU became increasingly militaristic. Now, facing the current economic recession, the EU is trying to overcome its difficulties by implementing “military Keynesianism.”
So, if the EU ends up offending China, the United States, Russia, and even India, I wouldn’t be surprised at all. It wouldn’t be strange for India to also be involved. All of this is completely possible.
Additionally, you should also be aware that there is an increasing body of literature discussing the fact that the European Union may not last much longer. In the future, it might be necessary to reorganize its structure and return to a loose regional cooperation model, such as that of the "European Free Trade Association." The EU may need to be reorganized, and could even revert to a loose cooperation model like that of the "European Free Trade Association."
I cannot predict what will happen in the future, but regrettably, Europe is facing geopolitical marginalization, economic dysfunction, and various political risks. This is because Europe has maintained outdated relationships with the United States, which has led to its estrangement from all parties involved.
Of course, I do believe that Europe and the United States should maintain good relations. However, Europe should move towards a substantive agenda for an “post-American era”. This does not mean “anti-US”, but rather a post-American state that transcends dependence on the US. Yet, at this stage, Europe has not developed any corresponding strategies to implement this vision.
Regarding this issue, what I want to say is that the essence of diplomacy is dealing with differences. Unfortunately, Europeans are now adopting neoliberal globalism, which assumes that their model is universal.
Today, the most dangerous aspect at the ideological level is that China is taking a new path, calling itself a "civilized nation." Russia is also following its own path. Of course, the United States also has its own characteristics of being a civilized nation. However, Europe has not kept up with the times; its thinking is still stuck in the past, 50 years ago, when the relationship between Washington and Europe was much simpler and direct. Europe needs to develop a more forward-looking development strategy.
I can explain the current situation clearly by mentioning two things: On June 23 this year, exactly ten years have passed since the UK's referendum on Brexit. And just one day before that, on June 22, British Prime Minister Theresa May announced her resignation, which was reported by television news. Now, the UK is about to elect a new prime minister. Over the next ten years, the UK will welcome its seventh prime minister.
I’m taking the UK as an example to illustrate that the political foundation in Europe is very fragile today. Leaders like Macron, Merz, and Sturmey have had historically low public support during their terms in office. Sturmey was even the prime minister with the lowest popularity in British history. I want to say that the chaos within each country cannot be simply attributed to individual leadership failures. What lies behind this is a systemic weakness in Europe. Europe has never been able to develop a long-term top-level design or development strategy, and this is the core issue that Europe is currently struggling to find a solution to.
