The EU’s 21st Sanctions Package: China’s Retaliation and the Limits of European De-Risking

The adoption of the European Union’s twenty-first sanctions package against Russia on 23 July 2026 marked a further expansion of European sanctions policy beyond the Russian economy itself. Alongside new measures targeting Russian financial institutions, cryptocurrency operators, energy infrastructure and the military-industrial sector, the package added 51 entities to the list of organisations subject to tighter restrictions on dual-use goods and technologies. A number of these entities were located in third countries, including China and Hong Kong, and were accused of facilitating Russia’s access to restricted microelectronics, computer numerical control machinery and semiconductor-processing equipment (Council of the European Union, 2026).

In formal terms, the inclusion of Chinese and Hong Kong entities did not represent a separate sanctions policy towards China. It remained part of the European Union’s wider attempt to constrain Russia’s military-industrial capacity and prevent its export-control regime from being circumvented through third-country commercial networks. The nationality of the companies was therefore presented as secondary to their alleged role in sustaining Russia’s war economy.

China responded the following day. On 24 July, the Ministry of Commerce placed 14 European entities on its export-control list, prohibiting Chinese exporters from supplying them with dual-use items and preventing foreign organisations from transferring China-origin controlled goods to the listed companies. Existing transactions were instructed to stop immediately, with exceptions available only through special approval from the Ministry of Commerce (Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, 2026a).

Fourteen Chinese and Hong Kong entities were answered with 14 European entities, while the interval between the two decisions was measured not in weeks or even days, but hours making the numerical symmetry appear unmistakable. Although European officials had reason to expect retaliation, the Commission’s immediate response, to analyse the measures, consult member states and affected companies, and request clarification from Beijing, suggests that the speed and precision of the Chinese action were not fully anticipated (Reuters, 2026a).

The rapidity of its response strongly suggests that China had prepared retaliatory options in advance, possibly through a wider database of European companies involved in defence production, Ukraine-related supply, Taiwan-linked military cooperation and strategically sensitive technologies. Consequently, the significance of the response lies not only in its speed, but in what it reveals about the increasing institutionalisation of Chinese economic countermeasures. The confrontation also marks a transition in EU-China relations: the issue is no longer simply whether Chinese companies are helping Russia circumvent European sanctions but whether the European Union can continue using sanctions as an instrument of geopolitical pressure while remaining materially dependent on China for the minerals, components and industrial processes required by its own defence, technological and manufacturing base.

Anti-Circumvention, Not Anti-China

The European Union’s formal justification remains clear. The Chinese and Hong Kong entities were not listed because of their nationality, but because of their alleged commercial function within Russia’s military-industrial supply chain. As direct trade between Russia and the EU has contracted, European sanctions enforcement has increasingly shifted towards the intermediaries, distributors and third-country companies through which restricted goods continue to reach Russian industry.

The twenty-first package follows this logic. The Council described the newly listed entities as actors supporting Russia’s war economy, including through the supply or diversion of microelectronics, computer numerical control equipment and technologies relevant to semiconductor production. From the European perspective, a company operating from China, Türkiye, India or the United Arab Emirates becomes part of the sanctions problem when its activity allows Russia to replace goods no longer available directly from Europe (Council of the European Union, 2026).

Brussels therefore does not formally present the measures as an independent sanctions policy against China. They remain an extension of its Russia policy, directed against specific conduct rather than the Chinese state, and this distinction allows the Commission to preserve its wider doctrine of “de-risking rather than decoupling”, under which economic relations with China should continue while strategically dangerous dependencies are reduced (European Commission, 2026a).

It also protects the EU-China Trade and Investment Consultations established less than one month earlier. An explicitly anti-China framing would have transformed the package into a direct bilateral confrontation and weakened the Commission’s claim that sanctions enforcement can be separated from the wider commercial relationship.

While this distinction remains legally important, it is politically unstable. Beijing does not regard the extraterritorial consequences of European sanctions as neutral enforcement, particularly where European rules restrict Chinese companies because of their commercial relations with Russia. The measures are instead interpreted within a wider pattern in which Western states use their control over markets, finance and technology to impose political conditions on third-country economic activity.

The two sides therefore describe the confrontation through different legal vocabularies. Brussels speaks of circumvention, restricted technology and Russia’s military-industrial complex; Beijing speaks of unilateral sanctions, long-arm jurisdiction, national security and the protection of lawful commercial interests. Beneath both narratives lies the same material reality: the use of state authority to determine which international economic relationships remain permissible.

The apparent purpose of China’s response consequently extends beyond the defence of the 14 listed companies. By ensuring that European designations generate uncertainty within European industry, Beijing is attempting to raise the future political cost of including Chinese entities in sanctions packages connected to Russia. China does not need to prevent such listings entirely; it needs only to ensure that they can no longer be treated in Brussels as one-sided regulatory decisions whose consequences fall principally outside Europe.

The Industrial Logic of China’s Response

The entities selected by Beijing provide the clearest indication of the political meaning attached to the retaliation.

The list includes Rheinmetall and Sindlhauser Materials in Germany; Lafert and Garnet in Italy; InPACT, III-V Lab and Cavok UAS in France; Vigo Photonics and Wrocław University of Science and Technology in Poland; IHC Merwede in the Netherlands; Tatra Trucks in Czechia; Opticoelectron Group in Bulgaria; and Ekspla in Lithuania, alongside the German chemical trader Antraco (Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, 2026a).

These organisations are not concentrated in one easily defined commercial sector, but extend across defence production, heavy vehicles, unmanned aerial systems, maritime engineering, photonics, infrared detection, semiconductor research, lasers, electric motors, chemicals and specialist materials. Their common significance lies less in a shared corporate identity than in their position within the wider infrastructure of advanced industrial and dual-use production.

Rheinmetall is the most politically recognisable target because the company has become central to Germany’s military expansion and to Europe’s wider effort to increase the production of ammunition, vehicles, air-defence systems, drones and other military equipment. Its own projections for 2026 anticipated rapid growth across weapons and ammunition, vehicle systems, air defence, digital systems and naval operations, driven by increased demand from Germany and allied states (Rheinmetall, 2026).

Its inclusion therefore connects China’s countermeasure to European rearmament in a way that the listing of a less visible industrial company could not. The message is not merely that a German firm has been placed under restrictions, but that an actor closely associated with Germany’s defence transformation can become the object of Chinese export controls because of decisions adopted through the EU’s Russia sanctions framework.

Other entities occupy less visible but similarly sensitive points in the production system. Tatra Trucks manufactures heavy vehicles with civilian and military applications; Cavok UAS operates in unmanned aerial systems; Vigo Photonics produces infrared detectors, photonic components and epitaxial semiconductor materials; and III-V Lab conducts research into photonics, microelectronics and compound semiconductors (Vigo Photonics, 2026a; III-V Lab, n.d.). Ekspla and Opticoelectron operate in laser and optical technologies, while IHC Merwede sits within the maritime industrial sector.

Lafert manufactures high-performance electric motors, including permanent-magnet systems. This does not establish that the company is wholly dependent on Chinese rare-earth inputs, particularly as Lafert also markets designs capable of using alternatives to rare-earth magnets, but its inclusion connects the Chinese measure to a wider European vulnerability in permanent magnets, electric motors and the materials required for advanced industrial systems (Lafert, n.d.).

The composition of the list should not, however, be confused with proof that every entity will experience serious disruption. Tatra Trucks stated that it did not use Chinese components or technologies covered by the restrictions, while Vigo Photonics concluded in its preliminary assessment that the decision would not have a critical effect on its principal infrared detector and module business (EU Perspectives, 2026; Vigo Photonics, 2026b). These reactions limit claims that China has already obstructed European defence production, but they do not remove the political significance of the selection.

Indeed, the possibility that some firms are minimally exposed may help clarify the design of the measure. Beijing appears to have selected entities whose names, sectors and relationships carry strategic meaning, without necessarily seeking the immediate disruption that a comprehensive embargo would produce. The list is therefore capable of functioning as both retaliation and deterrence: it demonstrates the reach of China’s export-control regime while preserving the possibility of calibrated enforcement.

China did not impose a general embargo on rare earth elements or permanent magnets destined for the European market. The controls are entity-specific and formally apply to items falling within China’s dual-use regime, which means their practical importance depends on the goods Chinese authorities classify as controlled, the manner in which licences are administered and the extent to which China-origin materials or technologies are embedded within the affected companies’ suppliers.

The prohibition also extends beyond direct exports from China. Foreign organisations and individuals are barred from transferring China-origin dual-use items to the listed European entities, meaning that procurement through a distributor in Southeast Asia, the Middle East or another European jurisdiction does not necessarily place a transaction outside the restriction. The relevant question becomes whether controlled Chinese-origin content appears anywhere within the supply chain.

This converts a list of 14 entities into a potentially wider compliance problem without establishing that the same degree of exposure exists in every case. European companies may be required to examine not only direct Chinese suppliers, but subcontractors, distributors and intermediate manufacturers whose motors, magnets, alloys, electronic components or specialist materials were acquired several stages earlier in the production process.

The uncertainty created by this requirement is itself a source of leverage. Beijing does not need to produce an immediate stoppage across all listed firms if legal review, supplier hesitation, delayed contracts, inventory accumulation and the search for alternative sourcing already increase the cost of European sanctions. Exceptional licences can then be granted selectively, allowing China to intensify or relax pressure without replacing the formal measure.

A general embargo would impose considerable costs on Chinese exporters and accelerate Europe’s attempt to eliminate dependence across entire sectors. Entity-based restrictions preserve wider commercial relations while warning politically sensitive industries that continued access to Chinese-origin inputs cannot be treated as entirely separate from Europe’s geopolitical decisions.

Brussels Expected a Response, but Not Its Form

The European Commission’s initial public response was cautious. Spokesperson Paula Pinho stated that the EU was analysing China’s measures, consulting the affected companies and member states, and would seek clarification from Chinese authorities to determine what was at stake (Reuters, 2026a). This did not indicate that European institutions were unaware that China might retaliate: Beijing had already targeted seven European entities in April 2026 over arms sales connected to Taiwan, while Chinese export restrictions on critical minerals had become a central concern in EU-China trade discussions.

What appears to have been less developed was a clear operational understanding of how a symmetrical Chinese response would affect the particular companies selected and the supply chains surrounding them. The Commission could not determine from the announcement alone whether the list was principally symbolic, whether it would obstruct existing contracts, or whether controlled China-origin goods were sufficiently embedded within the affected firms’ suppliers to create serious disruption.

The absence of an immediate European countermeasure should therefore be understood neither as simple passivity nor as evidence of strategic confidence. It reflected uncertainty over the economic exposure of the listed entities and the risk of escalating before that exposure had been established. Any credible assessment would require the Commission, national authorities and the companies concerned to identify direct and indirect Chinese inputs, determine which materials fell within China’s dual-use classifications, assess inventories and establish whether technically acceptable substitutes were available.

For a company such as Rheinmetall, exposure would not necessarily take the form of weapons components imported directly from China. It could instead sit further down the production chain, within magnets used in motors, specialist alloys, commercial electronics adapted for military use, optical systems, chemicals or machine tools supplied by European contractors whose own inputs originate elsewhere. The fact that some listed companies have reported limited immediate exposure demonstrates why the impact cannot be inferred from the political prominence of the target alone.

This distinction carries wider political consequences. If the measures remain largely symbolic, Brussels may avoid treating them as the beginning of a broader coercive campaign; if licensing decisions or indirect restrictions begin delaying defence production, strategic research or civilian manufacturing, pressure for a collective European response will increase considerably.

The Commission has consequently kept its public language narrow, repeatedly returning to the claim that the European listings concern assistance to Russia’s military-industrial complex, that China’s measures are still being examined and that clarification will be sought through existing bilateral mechanisms. This formulation preserves the legal separation between Russia sanctions and EU-China trade even as Beijing’s response makes that separation increasingly difficult to maintain.

Behind this language lies a more consequential dilemma. Immediate escalation could expose dependencies for which Europe has few short-term alternatives, while a response confined indefinitely to clarification could demonstrate that targeted Chinese restrictions are capable of raising the cost of future EU sanctions without producing an equivalent consequence for Beijing. Brussels must therefore understand the economic effect before deciding how to define the political character of the measure, giving China an initial advantage: Beijing determines what it intends to restrict, while the EU must first reconstruct the map of its own exposure.

De-Risking Vindicated and Exposed

Within the European Commission, the retaliation is likely to reinforce an economic-security framework that had already drawn together restricted market access, Chinese industrial overcapacity, critical-material export controls and China’s relationship with Russia. At the 2025 EU-China Summit, Ursula von der Leyen warned that Chinese restrictions on rare earth elements and permanent magnets threatened European supply chains, while state-supported industrial overcapacity placed increasing pressure on European producers. She also stated that China’s position towards Russia’s war would remain a determining factor in the wider relationship (European Commission, 2025).

The events of July 2026 combined these previously distinguishable concerns within a single confrontation. Companies accused of supporting Russia were restricted by the EU; China responded through export controls directed towards European defence and advanced-technology entities; and the practical effect of those controls depended partly on Europe’s continuing reliance on Chinese industrial capacity.

For the Commission, this provides a strong political argument for de-risking because it demonstrates how concentrated economic dependence can narrow Europe’s freedom of action during periods of geopolitical disagreement. Yet the same episode also reveals the limitations of the strategy as currently practised. De-risking has developed more quickly as a language of governance than as a reconstruction of European productive capacity: the EU has expanded investment screening, created critical-material benchmarks, considered diversification requirements and subjected foreign subsidies to greater scrutiny, but these measures do not immediately produce mines, separation facilities, metallurgical expertise or permanent-magnet factories.

China’s retaliation therefore validates the political rationale of de-risking while exposing the material distance between that rationale and Europe’s present industrial position.

A similar tension exists within foreign policy. Kaja Kallas has presented successive sanctions packages as a means of increasing the pressure required to reduce Russia’s capacity to continue the war. Within that framework, the central danger is not only that Chinese controls may inconvenience European companies, but that the threat of such controls may begin to shape which third-country entities the EU is willing to list.

If Brussels were seen to remove Chinese companies, or avoid future listings, because Beijing had restricted access for European firms, China would acquire a degree of influence over the practical boundary of European sanctions policy. This would not constitute a formal veto, but it would demonstrate that sanctions remain easier to enforce against states and companies lacking the capacity to return costs to Europe.

For this reason, the EU is unlikely to accept an explicit bargain in which Chinese licensing relief is exchanged for changes to its Russia sanctions, even though technical exemptions and company-level approvals may still be pursued. In practice, the separation will remain difficult to preserve because affected firms will seek access, national governments will protect important industries and Chinese officials will retain discretion over licences without needing to state a political condition publicly.

The result is that de-risking and continued dependence are not opposite conditions separated neatly in time. They are now developing alongside one another: the Commission is attempting to reduce the strategic significance of Chinese supply while simultaneously negotiating the continued access required by European production in the present.

France, Germany and the Unequal Costs of Unity

The confrontation also demonstrates the limits of speaking about a single European position, since the costs of Chinese retaliation are distributed unevenly and member states approach relations with Beijing through different combinations of commercial exposure, industrial policy and security concern.

Before the July sanctions exchange, France had generally supported a harder European response to Chinese overcapacity and dependence, while Germany and Spain remained more cautious. At the June European Council, leaders discussed stronger trade-defence measures and Europe’s reliance on China for rare earths and other critical supplies. France, Italy, the Netherlands and Lithuania had already proposed mechanisms to reduce dependence on individual foreign suppliers, while Germany and Spain remained more concerned about retaliation and disruption to existing trade and investment relationships (Reuters, 2026b).

Germany’s position had nevertheless begun to shift. On 17 July, Chancellor Friedrich Merz and President Emmanuel Macron criticised Chinese industrial subsidies, overcapacity and currency policy, while committing France and Germany to developing a more coordinated approach to the protection of European industry. Merz simultaneously emphasised that he did not seek a new trade conflict with Beijing, reflecting the tension between Germany’s changing security assessment and its continuing industrial exposure (Reuters, 2026c).

The inclusion of Rheinmetall sharpened this contradiction because Germany cannot easily accept restrictions against a company central to European rearmament and support for Ukraine without appearing to permit Beijing to influence its security policy through commercial pressure. At the same time, German economic exposure to China extends far beyond defence: automotive manufacturers, machinery producers, chemical companies and other industrial actors retain important investments, suppliers and markets there, meaning that a broader confrontation could affect precisely the sectors already facing weaker demand, higher energy costs and intensifying Chinese competition.

The likely German preference is therefore not captured adequately by either confrontation or accommodation. Berlin can support the continued inclusion of Chinese entities within the EU’s Russia sanctions regime while seeking technical clarification, exemptions and licensing arrangements that prevent those sanctions from disrupting German production. Public firmness and practical de-escalation are not necessarily contradictory when the objective is to preserve the political decision while limiting its industrial consequences.

France approaches the dispute through a somewhat different strategic tradition. Paris has long argued that European autonomy requires reduced dependence on both American security and Chinese industrial inputs, and the targeting of companies connected to European defence gives this position additional force. The French conclusion need not be an immediate trade confrontation with China; it is more likely to be that sovereignty remains incomplete where motors, magnets, sensors, semiconductors and specialist materials depend upon supply chains controlled outside Europe.

Poland and Lithuania are likely to place greater weight on the Russia dimension, given the centrality of Ukraine and deterrence within their security policies. The listing of Vigo Photonics, Wrocław University of Science and Technology and Ekspla may consequently be interpreted less as a conventional trade dispute than as pressure directed towards states whose strategic orientation is organised around containing Russia.

Spain, which is not represented among the 14 listed entities and has increasingly attracted Chinese investment, has greater reason to preserve dialogue, while Italy must assess the consequences for Lafert and Garnet against its broader interest in maintaining a collective European position. These assessments remain contingent, particularly where the actual commercial effect of the restrictions is still being established, but they illustrate how the same Chinese measure can acquire different political meanings across the Union.

Beijing does not need to force the EU into an open institutional rupture for this differentiation to matter. It need only distribute the costs of European unity unevenly enough to complicate future sanctions negotiations. Companies facing a measurable interruption will lobby differently from those facing symbolic designation, while governments whose national industries are affected will approach clarification with a different urgency from those whose exposure remains indirect.

The Commission’s task is therefore not simply to determine how Europe should respond to China, but to prevent technical negotiations conducted by individual firms or governments from gradually weakening the collective authority through which the original sanctions were adopted.

The Limits of an Immediate European Response

The European response since 24 July has so far been defined less by retaliation than by an attempt to establish what Beijing’s restrictions will mean in practice. The Commission initially stated that it was examining the measures, consulting the affected companies and member states, and seeking clarification from the Chinese authorities; several days later, its publicly stated position remained centred on analysis and the use of the existing EU-China Export Control Dialogue.

This caution reflects more than the normal delay of European decision-making. Unlike a conventional tariff or asset freeze, the effect of China’s measure cannot be determined solely from the designation of the 14 entities, because its consequences depend on the goods China ultimately treats as controlled, the manner in which its prohibition on third-country transfers is enforced, the availability of exceptional licences and the extent to which China-origin materials or components appear within European production chains.

The immediate question for Brussels is therefore not simply how to retaliate, but how exposed European industry is. A company may have no substantial direct imports from China while relying on European or third-country suppliers whose motors, magnets, optical components, alloys or electronic systems incorporate controlled Chinese inputs. Establishing the practical reach of the measure requires tracing several layers of production that developed under an economic model in which the geographical origin of individual components was often commercially secondary.

The Commission’s restraint should not be interpreted as evidence that the Chinese action is insignificant. It reflects the difficulty of responding to a measure whose political purpose is clearer than its immediate industrial effect. Beijing has declared that the listed entities are prohibited from receiving Chinese dual-use goods, but it retains discretion over classification, enforcement and exceptional licensing, allowing the same measure to function as a formal restriction, an adjustable political signal or both.

For the European Union, the danger lies in responding before the nature of its own dependence is understood. A forceful countermeasure could encourage Beijing to widen restrictions towards sectors where alternatives remain scarce, yet a response limited indefinitely to requests for clarification would suggest that targeted pressure against European industry can raise the cost of future sanctions without producing an equivalent European consequence.

This explains why Brussels has attempted to contain the dispute within the existing export-control dialogue. The mechanism allows the Commission to ask how current contracts will be treated, which categories of goods are covered and whether licences can be granted without formally accepting that European sanctions policy should determine Chinese commercial access. It also enables both sides to avoid immediately converting the dispute into a wider trade confrontation.

The dialogue does not remove the asymmetry between them. China enters as the authority administering the restrictions, while the EU enters seeking predictability for companies affected by them. Beijing can preserve or reduce uncertainty through individual licensing decisions; Brussels can request transparency, but it cannot determine how China applies its own export-control regime.

Several instruments now relevant to the European debate predate the July confrontation and should not be presented as measures adopted in response to it. The Commission’s evaluation of the EU Dual-Use Regulation opened on 23 July as part of a review required under the Regulation itself, while the strengthening of foreign-investment screening and the continued use of anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and foreign-subsidy procedures belong to a longer attempt to redefine the economic relationship with China (European Commission, 2026b).

Their relevance lies instead in the political context created by China’s action. A review previously concerned with the effectiveness and coordination of European export controls now proceeds as Beijing demonstrates how quickly a centralised restriction can be imposed, while investment screening intended to prevent the loss of strategic assets will be considered alongside a renewed recognition that European production already relies upon processing capacity located abroad.

The Anti-Coercion Instrument presents a similar difficulty. It gives the Union a framework for responding where a third country uses trade or investment restrictions to force a change in European policy, and China has openly connected its decision to the EU’s latest sanctions package. Yet Beijing has formally justified the measure through national-security, export-control and non-proliferation law, without publicly demanding that Brussels remove the listed Chinese entities in exchange for restored access (European Commission, 2026c).

The political relationship between the two decisions is evident, but the legal character of coercion remains less settled. Unless Chinese officials begin explicitly conditioning licences or de-listing on changes to European sanctions policy, invoking the instrument immediately could turn a persuasive political accusation into a more difficult legal case.

The absence of an immediate European countermeasure is therefore not simply the delay preceding an inevitable response, but an indication of the structural difficulty confronting Brussels. The Union possesses an extensive economic-security framework, yet its instruments operate through different institutions, legal thresholds and timeframes, and do not presently amount to a single mechanism capable of answering a narrow interruption of strategically important supply.

China’s response was centralised, immediate and deliberately confined to named entities. The European response remains distributed across diplomatic consultation, company-level assessment and pre-existing regulatory processes. This difference does not make the EU powerless, but it clarifies the forms of power currently available to each side: Beijing can impose uncertainty through administrative control over supply, while Brussels must first determine where that uncertainty enters its economy before deciding whether an equivalent cost can be imposed through access to the European market.

The Material Gap in European De-Risking

The vulnerability exposed by China’s retaliation was not newly discovered in Brussels, having already been incorporated into the European Union’s industrial and economic-security architecture through the Critical Raw Materials Act. By 2030, the EU aims to meet 10 per cent of its annual strategic-material requirements through domestic extraction, 40 per cent through European processing and 25 per cent through recycling, while limiting dependence on any single third country to no more than 65 per cent of annual consumption at the relevant stage of production (European Commission, 2026e).

These targets move critical minerals beyond the narrower fields of environmental regulation and industrial policy by treating access to raw materials as a condition of economic security, technological sovereignty and defence readiness. They also indicate how far Europe remains from the industrial position it is attempting to construct.

Europe’s present exposure is already visible in the geographical concentration of its rare-earth imports. In 2025, China supplied 46.8 per cent of the EU’s imported volume, followed by Russia with 25.9 per cent and Malaysia with 23.1 per cent, leaving only a small proportion distributed among all other suppliers (Eurostat, 2026b).

These figures demonstrate the concentration of Europe’s external supply, but they do not capture the full extent of Chinese industrial leverage. Import statistics identify the countries from which specified rare-earth products enter the European market; they do not reveal where those materials were separated, refined, converted into alloys or manufactured into permanent magnets. It is across these later stages that China’s position becomes considerably stronger.

The central difficulty is that the supply chain does not end with extraction. China’s position is strongest not simply in the mining of rare earth elements, but in the stages through which extracted material is separated, refined, converted into metals and alloys and manufactured into permanent magnets. According to the International Energy Agency, China accounted for 91.3 per cent of global refined output of magnet rare earths and 94.4 per cent of sintered permanent-magnet production in 2024, while projects announced outside China by early 2026 created considerably more prospective mining capacity than downstream capacity in metals, alloys and finished magnets (International Energy Agency, 2026).

Alternative mines therefore do not necessarily produce an alternative industrial system. A European manufacturer may obtain ore from a politically reliable partner while remaining dependent on Chinese facilities to process it into a form usable by electric motors, guidance systems, sensors or military equipment, transferring the vulnerability to another stage of production rather than removing it.

Reconstructing these stages requires more than identifying mineral deposits. Separation and refining depend on specialised knowledge, infrastructure, reliable energy, long-term capital and demand sufficient to justify investment, while permanent-magnet production requires further expertise and commercial scale. Europe must also reconcile the urgency of diversification with planning procedures, environmental opposition and production costs that contributed to the displacement of this capacity in the first place.

The European strategy is consequently organised around a future industrial position that does not yet exist. Its benchmarks extend towards the end of the decade, while the commercial consequences of Chinese export controls can begin with an administrative notice. This difference in time is at least as consequential as the difference in market share: European resilience must be financed, approved and constructed, whereas Chinese leverage can be exercised through the regulation of productive capacity already concentrated within its territory.

This does not render the Critical Raw Materials Act meaningless, but clarifies the political and financial demands concealed within its targets. Reducing dependence will require European manufacturers to accept higher costs for more secure supply, governments to sustain industrial support beyond ordinary electoral cycles and member states to tolerate extraction and processing projects that may conflict with domestic environmental or planning preferences.

It will also require coordination of a kind the EU has often struggled to sustain across strategic industries. Member states may agree that dependence on China is excessive while competing over the location of new processing plants, subsidies and industrial projects, just as firms may support diversification in principle while continuing to purchase lower-cost Chinese inputs for as long as they remain available.

China’s retaliation has therefore arrived during a particularly sensitive interval. Europe has identified the dependencies it intends to reduce, but continues to operate through them while alternative capacity remains incomplete, meaning that Beijing’s leverage may be greatest neither before de-risking begins nor after it succeeds, but during the prolonged movement from one industrial structure towards another.

The political force of the Chinese measure lies within this gap. Europe has targets intended to reduce future vulnerability; China retains chokepoints capable of shaping present access. The EU possesses an increasingly developed understanding of its dependence and a growing collection of instruments intended to address it, but it does not yet possess the productive capacity those instruments are designed to create.

A Dispute Extending Beyond Russia

The sanctions exchange cannot be understood solely through the war in Ukraine, because it belongs to a wider transformation in which export controls, trade-defence measures and access to strategic technologies are becoming routine instruments of EU-China relations.

In April 2026, China placed seven European companies and institutions under export restrictions because of their alleged involvement in arms sales connected to Taiwan. The July measures demonstrate that the same administrative framework can be applied across different geopolitical disputes, meaning that European entities may face Chinese controls not only because of relations with Taiwan, but because of EU sanctions involving Russia or other areas where European security policy converges with that of the United States and NATO (Reuters, 2026a).

This broadening reduces the likelihood that the July decision will remain an exceptional answer to one sanctions package. China’s export-control list is developing into a more general instrument through which Beijing can impose commercial consequences on foreign entities connected to policies it regards as threats to its national interests, while maintaining the claim that ordinary trade with Europe remains unaffected.

The European Union is simultaneously confronting a different expression of Chinese industrial power. In electric vehicles, batteries, solar products, steel, chemicals, machinery and other manufactured goods, Brussels increasingly regards Chinese production as a source of overcapacity capable of weakening European industry. China’s goods-trade surplus with the EU reached €360.6 billion in 2025 and continued to increase during the first months of 2026, intensifying pressure for a more defensive European trade policy (Reuters, 2026b).

China consequently occupies two apparently opposing positions within the European economy. In some sectors, European policymakers argue that Chinese goods enter the market in volumes and at prices domestic producers cannot match; in others, the concern is that strategically necessary Chinese materials or components may no longer enter the market at all.

This is not a superficial contradiction, but reflects the position China has acquired across different levels of global production. The same industrial system can generate excess final goods for export while retaining control over the intermediate materials and processing stages on which foreign manufacturers depend. Europe therefore experiences China both as a competitor capable of displacing domestic production and as a supplier whose withdrawal can interrupt it.

The available European instruments address these problems unevenly. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures may protect selected producers from Chinese imports, but cannot establish new sources of rare-earth processing or permanent magnets; restrictions on Chinese investment may prevent strategic firms and infrastructure from falling under foreign control, while also narrowing the sources of capital available to industries Europe is attempting to expand.

Even measures that appear complementary may therefore produce conflicting effects. Limiting Chinese access to strategic sectors can reduce future dependence while increasing the short-term cost of constructing alternative capacity, just as protecting European manufacturers from Chinese competition may preserve one part of domestic industry while raising the price of components required by another.

The dispute is further complicated by Europe’s relationship with the United States. EU governments continue to rely substantially on American military power and security guarantees while confronting American tariffs, export controls and pressure to align more closely with Washington’s approach to China. The Union’s claim to strategic autonomy is consequently constrained in two directions: by continuing reliance on the United States for security and by reliance on China for industrial capacity.

This does not leave Europe without agency. The EU retains considerable power through the scale of its market, its regulatory authority and its ability to impose costs on foreign companies seeking access to European consumers, technology and investment opportunities. Yet it operates between two states capable of translating central political decisions into immediate economic or strategic pressure more readily than the European institutional system generally permits.

The July exchange consequently reflects more than a disagreement over Chinese support for Russia. It forms part of a wider contest over whether Europe can develop an economic-security policy distinct from both Washington and Beijing while remaining embedded in structures of dependence upon each. Greater distance from one power alone would provide only a partial answer: reducing industrial reliance on China would not, by itself, resolve Europe’s dependence on American security, while a more independent position towards Washington would remain constrained if Chinese processing and manufacturing continued to determine access to strategic inputs.

EU-China relations are therefore being reorganised within a wider system of bloc competition in which Europe seeks greater freedom of action before the military and industrial foundations of that freedom have been fully established.

From Integration to Managed Exposure

The July sanctions exchange does not yet constitute a general trade war between the European Union and China. Beijing’s restrictions remain confined to named entities, exceptional licences remain possible and the Commission continues to seek clarification through existing mechanisms, while preliminary statements from some of the companies concerned suggest that designation does not automatically translate into immediate industrial disruption.

The significance of the measure should therefore not be exaggerated through assumptions of an impending collapse in European production. Its importance lies in the precedent it establishes and the strategic calculation it is intended to influence: China has shown that EU sanctions connected to Russia can be answered through measures directed towards European defence and technology firms, requiring Brussels to consider whether its capacity to impose external economic costs is matched by its ability to absorb their return.

This does not invalidate sanctions or leave Europe without instruments. The Union remains one of the world’s largest markets and possesses substantial regulatory, financial and commercial power, including the capacity to restrict Chinese access to procurement, investment, technology and consumers. Yet these instruments generally operate through investigations, legal procedures and the gradual accumulation of market costs, whereas the restriction of a specialised material or component may affect an individual production chain more quickly even where its aggregate economic effect remains limited.

The central European debate is consequently moving beyond whether dependence on China should be reduced. De-risking has already become embedded within Commission policy and has acquired support across much of the European political system; the more difficult question is whether member states are prepared to finance, locate and sustain the industrial reconstruction required to make that policy effective.

China’s retaliation strengthens those who argue that Europe must accelerate its economic-security agenda, while simultaneously strengthening companies and governments seeking accommodation before alternative supply chains are available. These positions are not mutually exclusive. The same government may support diversification over the next decade while pressing for Chinese licences to protect production in the present, just as the same company may endorse European industrial autonomy while continuing to rely on lower-cost Chinese inputs.

Europe must therefore attempt to reduce dependence while continuing to operate through it, defending the credibility of its Russia sanctions without creating avoidable disruption for the industries through which European security policy is being implemented. The EU-China Trade and Investment Consultations may help contain this contradiction by clarifying the treatment of existing contracts, establishing workable licensing procedures and creating temporary arrangements for affected companies, giving both sides a means of limiting immediate damage without abandoning their wider positions.

Their continued relevance should not be understated, particularly because uncertainty over classification, enforcement and exceptional licensing forms part of the pressure created by Beijing’s response. Nevertheless, the mechanism is better equipped to manage European access to Chinese processing and components than to alter the industrial conditions that have made such access strategically important, leaving Brussels to negotiate continuity within a relationship it is simultaneously attempting to restructure.

EU-China relations may consequently be entering a more conditional phase, although not one defined inevitably by separation or the collapse of commercial integration. Trade, investment and industrial cooperation remain too extensive for either side to disengage rapidly without imposing considerable costs upon its own economy, while European companies continue to regard China as both an important market and an indispensable part of several production systems.

What is changing is less the existence of interdependence than the assumptions attached to it. Economic integration, once expected to place limits upon political confrontation, is increasingly being assessed according to the vulnerabilities it creates, the sectors in which those vulnerabilities are concentrated and the reliability of access during periods of geopolitical disagreement.

The emerging relationship may therefore be understood not as a linear movement from integration towards decoupling, but as an attempt to preserve economic exchange while subjecting its more sensitive components to greater political supervision. De-risking, licensing and trade consultation are likely to develop alongside continued investment and commercial cooperation, producing a relationship in which integration and rivalry do not replace one another, but proceed through the same industrial and institutional networks.

China’s response is substantial not because it has already paralysed European industry, but because it has clarified the relationship between European sanctions authority and the productive structures through which that authority is sustained. The EU retains considerable influence over market access, investment, financial transactions and the transfer of technology, yet these instruments operate within an economy that continues to rely on Chinese processing, materials and intermediate goods across several strategically important sectors.

The July exchange does not establish that this imbalance is permanent, nor that European de-risking will fail. It does, however, demonstrate that Europe’s freedom of economic action will remain connected to the industrial dependencies it is attempting to reconstruct, leaving open whether the Union’s expanding economic-security architecture can narrow the distance between its regulatory ambition and productive capacity before the next confrontation places that distance under greater pressure.

Bibliography

Council of the European Union (2026) ‘21st package of sanctions: EU hits Russian energy, financial services and crypto hard’, 23 July. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/07/23/21st-package-of-sanctions-eu-hits-russian-energy-financial-services-and-crypto-hard/

European Commission (2025) ‘Statement by President von der Leyen with President Costa following the EU–China Summit’, 24 July. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_25_1903

European Commission (2026a) ‘EU trade relations with China’. Available at: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/china_en

European Commission (2026b) ‘Open Public Consultation and Call for Evidence: Overall Evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2021/821’, 23 July. Available at: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/open-public-consultation-and-call-evidence-overall-evaluation-regulation-eu-2021821_en

European Commission (2026c) ‘Protecting against coercion’. Available at: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/enforcement-and-protection/protecting-against-coercion_en

European Commission (2026d) ‘EU strengthens its foreign investment screening framework’, 26 June. Available at: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-strengthens-its-foreign-investment-screening-framework-2026-06-26_en

European Commission (2026e) ‘European Critical Raw Materials Act’. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/green-deal-industrial-plan/european-critical-raw-materials-act_en

Eurostat (2026a) ‘Trade in goods with China in 2025’, 10 April, dataset DS-059331. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20260410-2

Eurostat (2026b) ‘EU trade in rare earth elements increased in 2025’, 29 June, dataset DS-045409. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20260629-1

EU Perspectives (2026) ‘Tit for tat? China blacklists more EU firms in retaliation for Russia sanctions’, 24 July. Available at: https://euperspectives.eu/2026/07/china-export-ban-eu-firms-russia-sanctions/

III-V Lab (n.d.) ‘About us’. Available at: https://www.3-5lab.fr/aboutus.php

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2026) Rare Earth Elements. Paris: International Energy Agency. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/rare-earth-elements

Lafert (n.d.) ‘Synchronous permanent-magnet motors: IE6/IE5 ultra-premium efficiency motors’. Available at: https://www.lafert.com/en/prodotti/10/synchronous-pm-motors-ie6ie5/1/ultra-premium-efficiency-motors-ie5

Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (2026a) ‘Announcement No. 30 of 2026: Placing 14 EU entities on the export-control list’, 24 July. Available at: https://www.mofcom.gov.cn/zwgk/zcfb/art/2026/art_2c9a32aa73bf4f5ea80ffa83e62fb259.html

Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (2026b) ‘Joint press statement of the China–EU Trade and Investment Consultations’, 30 June. Available at: https://english.mofcom.gov.cn/News/SignificantNews/art/2026/art_f0f785c9785344dd98e2ee93d6a31d7e.html

Reuters (2026a) ‘China adds 14 EU entities to export control list over Russia-related sanctions’, 24 July. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/china-adds-14-eu-entities-export-control-list-over-russia-related-sanctions-2026-07-24/

Reuters (2026b) ‘EU leaders weigh tougher measures to combat China trade imbalance’, 18 June. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-leaders-strive-unity-china-trade-imbalance-2026-06-18/

Reuters (2026c) ‘France, Germany expand defence partnership as Europe seeks more military autonomy’, 17 July. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/france-germany-expand-defence-partnership-europe-seeks-more-military-autonomy-2026-07-17/

Rheinmetall (2026) ‘Rheinmetall: profitable growth and full order books – key facts; naval business successfully integrated’, 7 May. Available at: https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/media/news-watch/news/2026/05/2026-05-07-rheinmetall-news-quarterly-statement-q1

VIGO Photonics (2026a) ‘About us’. Available at: https://vigophotonics.com/about-us/

VIGO Photonics (2026b) ‘Analysis of the impact of placing VIGO Photonics on the Chinese dual-use export restriction list’, 24 July. Available at: https://vigophotonics.com/analysis-of-the-impact-of-placing-vigo-photonics-on-the-chinese-dual-use-export-restriction-list/