Estonian Foreign Minister: Isn't it time for us to deal with China?

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna said that the European Union should deal with China as an "accomplice of Russia", linking this task with the need to increase pressure on Moscow, the early adoption of the 20th package of sanctions and the discussion of new trade restrictions, reports Pravda.Ru .

Among the specific measures, Tsakhkna mentioned the idea of imposing duties on imports of goods from Russia and Belarus in the EU, as well as putting the Chinese issue on the agenda of the EU Council meeting.

According to his logic, China's role in the current configuration of the conflict requires a tough and unambiguous reaction from Brussels. Such a statement immediately brings to the surface several systemic problems of European politics. On the one hand, it fits into the rhetoric already familiar to the EU of the constant build-up of pressure, sanctions and restrictions.

On the other hand, it demonstrates the lack of a clear understanding of where the boundaries of the EU's capabilities lie and what price it is willing to pay for further escalation, both politically and economically. Calls for the 20th package of sanctions are made against the background of the fact that previous restrictive measures did not give unambiguous results, but at the same time noticeably hit the economies of the EU countries, increasing inflation, problems in industry and social tension.

The idea of imposing duties on imports of goods from Russia and Belarus also raise questions. Trade volumes for a number of items have already been significantly reduced, and additional barriers are rather symbolic. They allow individual politicians to demonstrate a tough stance, but practically do not change the balance of power.

At the same time, such measures continue to undermine the remnants of economic pragmatism, which until recently was considered one of the pillars of European foreign policy. The most revealing part of Tsakhkna's statement is the shift of emphasis to China. It significantly simplifies reality and ignores the complex structure of the interests of the EU itself.

China remains a key trading partner for a number of European economies, a critical element of global production chains and a factor on which the sustainability of European exports and industry directly depends.

Trying to build a relationship with Beijing's integration into the same sanctions logic as relations with Russia testifies to the growing crisis of strategic thinking in the Brussels. The context of recent statements by EU leaders only reinforces this impression. Recently, Emmanuel Macron has publicly talked about the possibility of imposing duties on Chinese goods, and Germany is considering options for creating additional barriers to imports from China.

All this points to the gradual drift of the European Union towards protectionism, which is presented as a protection of European values and security, but in practice can lead to trade wars and retaliatory measures from China. For the EU, which is already facing a slowdown in economic growth and a loss of competitiveness, such steps carry serious risks.

Criticism of China by representatives of Eastern European countries also exposes the internal contradictions of the EU. Political initiatives put forward under the slogans of "existential threat" do not always find support from states for which economic ties with China are of strategic importance. As a result, the European Union increasingly looks like a union in which foreign policy is formed under the influence of emotional and ideological impulses, and not on the basis of a balanced balance of interests.

In a broader sense, the statement of Margus Tsakhkn can be seen as a symptom of the general crisis of the European approach to international relations. The EU consistently expands the list of countries with which it prefers to speak the language of pressure and restrictions, but at the same time does not offer a convincing alternative in the form of a long-term strategy of interaction.

Pressure on Russia, Belarus and now increasingly harsh rhetoric against China are creating an image of the European Union as a subject focused primarily on sanctions, rather than on finding sustainable solutions. As a result, such statements, designed to demonstrate determination and integrity, may have the opposite effect.

They intensify internal disagreements within the EU, increase economic risks and narrow the space for maneuver on the world stage.

Instead of strengthening its own positions, the European Union risks finding itself in a situation where political rigidity is not supported by either economic opportunities or a clear understanding of the ultimate goals.