大结局要来,欧盟恐对华脱钩,德国外长抵京,下飞机后送出2句话
Sou Hu Cai Jing·2025-12-09 09:22

Group 1 - Macron's strong rhetoric against China highlights the unsustainable nature of the trade deficit, suggesting it is a result of dumping rather than market choices [2] - He has set a timeline for addressing the trade imbalance and threatened punitive tariffs if the situation does not improve, indicating a strategic pressure tactic [2][4] - Macron's demands include significant Chinese investment in Europe and the lifting of restrictions on critical raw materials, while maintaining export limits on semiconductor equipment, reflecting a double standard [4] Group 2 - In contrast, Germany's approach, represented by Watzke, emphasizes the necessity of direct communication and collaboration with China, rejecting the notion of decoupling [4][6] - Over 75% of German companies view China as a core growth area, indicating a deep economic interdependence that makes decoupling impractical [8] - The German economy's reliance on China is critical, as major industrial players have established significant ties, making any drastic policy changes highly detrimental [9] Group 3 - France's economic ties with China are less critical compared to Germany, allowing Macron to adopt a more aggressive stance to appease domestic concerns and seek better investment terms [11] - Macron's threats may lack substance, as they require EU consensus for implementation, which is complicated by Germany's differing stance [13] - The economic logic behind Macron's complaints is flawed, as the trade surplus reflects global supply chain dynamics, with European companies benefiting significantly from production in China [15][16] Group 4 - The notion of forcing Chinese investment in Europe as a means to balance trade is seen as outdated and contrary to market principles, distorting commercial behavior into a political obligation [18] - The EU's approach to "de-risking" is focused on specific strategic sectors rather than a comprehensive decoupling, emphasizing the need for strategic autonomy rather than complete dependence on the US [18]