The most accurate answer is that Europe's strategy is a pragmatic and often conflicted blend of both, which the EU terms "simultaneously a partner, a competitor, and a systemic rival."

However, the prevailing trend, particularly since 2019, suggests a decisive shift from an ideology of unconditional partnership toward a strategic posture heavily focused on risk-management and soft containment—aimed at preserving European influence and autonomy rather than explicitly halting China's rise.

Europe’s China strategy, as articulated by its elites, is a deliberate and calculated attempt to reconcile "partnership" with a posture of "soft containment," driven primarily by the need to manage profound risks posed by an increasingly assertive Beijing. The official EU descriptor of China as "simultaneously a partner for cooperation, an economic competitor, and a systemic rival" is the crucial framework, which effectively subordinates the desire for genuine partnership to the imperative of managing competition and systemic rivalry.

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that the emphasis has decisively shifted from maximizing cooperation (the historical 2000s approach) to minimizing vulnerability—a strategy now codified as "de-risking, not decoupling." This approach is containment in a non-military, economic, and normative sense.

I. The Strategic Primacy of De-Risking (Soft Containment)

The guiding principle for European elites today is "de-risking," a term coined to justify a set of defensive measures that seek to reduce the EU’s critical dependencies on China. While European leaders maintain that this is not "decoupling"—an economically devastating severing of ties—the resulting actions function as a form of economic and technological containment designed to protect Europe's global influence and strategic autonomy.

A. Economic and Technological Vulnerability

The shift is rooted in the realization that deep economic integration has created an asymmetric interdependence that China can weaponize.

• Protecting Critical Supply Chains: A central goal of de-risking is to reduce excessive dependencies on China for key inputs like rare earths, lithium, and other critical raw materials essential for the European Green Deal. New EU legislation, such as the Critical Raw Materials Act, mandates diversification and increased domestic capacity—a clear defensive action against potential Chinese supply disruption or coercion.

• Safeguarding Technology: The EU is rapidly developing and implementing defensive instruments, including the Foreign Subsidies Regulation and enhanced Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) screening mechanisms. These are specifically designed to prevent Chinese state-subsidized companies from gaining control over European critical infrastructure, assets, and sensitive technologies (AI, quantum computing, semiconductors). Furthermore, discussions on a potential Outbound Investment Screening mechanism signal an intent to limit the transfer of European high-tech know-how to China—an act of technological containment to preserve Europe’s innovative edge.

B. Defensive Trade Policy

The EU's recent aggressive use of trade defense instruments, such as the anti-subsidy investigation into Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), is a clear instance of protecting the European market from what Brussels views as state-sponsored Chinese industrial overcapacity. This is a competitive containment measure, intended to shield European industries from non-market distortion and preserve the bloc's industrial base in the critical green transition sectors.

II. Evidence for Genuine Partnership (Cooperative Engagement)

Despite the dominant narrative of rivalry and risk, European elites remain genuinely committed to selective partnership in areas where Chinese cooperation is deemed indispensable. This is not mere rhetoric but a pragmatic recognition of shared global interests.

• Climate Change and Environment: Climate change is the primary arena where genuine partnership with China is non-negotiable. As the world’s largest emitter, China’s active participation is essential for the success of the Paris Agreement and the EU’s own climate goals. European elites actively engage Beijing on issues like emissions trading, methane control, and green financing.

• Global Health and Development: Cooperation is pursued on global health (e.g., pandemic preparedness) and the reform of multilateral institutions, particularly the World Trade Organization (WTO). The EU seeks to engage China on multilateral development financing and debt sustainability, attempting to anchor China's actions within the rules-based international order.

However, even in this context, the partnership is transactional, not trust-based. The cooperation is primarily pursued to leverage China’s size and influence to achieve European-defined global goals, rather than a sign of deep strategic alignment.

III. Systemic Rivalry and the Battle of Values

The designation of China as a "systemic rival" is the ideological anchor for the containment aspect of the strategy. It signifies that the fundamental political and economic systems are fundamentally incompatible and competing for influence in shaping the global order.

• Erosion of the Liberal Order: European elites fear that Beijing’s rise is linked to an effort to re-shape international norms—particularly regarding human rights, sovereignty, and trade practices—in a way that undermines the liberal, rules-based system championed by Europe.

• Human Rights and Political Red Lines: The EU has maintained sanctions on Chinese officials over human rights abuses in Xinjiang, a clear prioritization of values over partnership. This principled stance, even at the cost of freezing the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI), demonstrates that political and normative contestation is a core part of the EU's strategy.

• Russia and Geopolitics: China's "no-limits" partnership with Russia, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine, has dramatically accelerated Europe’s threat perception, confirming Beijing's role as a geopolitical destabilizer in European eyes. While the EU has warned China against direct military support for Russia, its consistent diplomatic alignment is viewed as a systemic challenge to European security.

IV. The Driver of Strategic Autonomy

The apparent contradictions in the EU's China policy are best understood through the lens of the European project's overarching goal: strategic autonomy.

European elites are not primarily seeking the U.S. goal of explicit containment or rolling back China's power; rather, they are pursuing a policy to preserve Europe's ability to act independently of both Washington and Beijing.

The fear is not just that China will become too powerful, but that Europe will be forced into a junior, marginal position in a Sino-American bipolar world.

The "de-risking" strategy is the operationalization of strategic autonomy vis-à-vis China. By diversifying supply chains, building up domestic technological strength, and developing its own trade defense toolbox, Europe seeks to gain the resilience needed to avoid being coerced by Beijing or being dragged into a full-scale confrontation dictated by Washington.

Conclusion: A Calculated Choice

European elites are therefore not genuinely pursuing the unconditional partnership of the past, as the costs and risks of China’s increasing authoritarianism and assertiveness have become untenable. They are, instead, engaged in a highly calculated and nuanced strategy of soft containment—or "de-risking"—to safeguard their vital economic interests, technological sovereignty, and normative values. Genuine partnership is now a limited, transactional tool reserved for global existential challenges like climate change, while the main strategic energy is dedicated to building resilience against a systemic rival.