Editor's note: Lin G. is a CGTN economic commentator. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of CGTN.

As Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao and EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič met in Brussels for a new round of trade and investment consultations, some of the discussions in Western media once again revolved around a manufactured narrative: the so-called "China Shock 2.0."

According to this narrative, China's growing strength in electric vehicles, renewable energy and advanced manufacturing is creating a new wave of disruption for European industries.

But what if this diagnosis is wrong?

Framing China's competitive edge in emerging industries as "China Shock 2.0" is a convenient excuse for European industrial stagnation. The real shock is not China's rise, but the disruptive force of technological transformation itself — one that China has adapted to more successfully than many of its competitors.

History has offered a clear lesson for European policymakers: Every wave of transformative technology has rewarded economies that embrace change, while penalizing those that erect barriers to protect outdated industries. The classic analogy of horse-drawn carriage interest groups seeking to block the rise of the automobiles illustrates this dynamic well. When entrenched interest groups try to resist new technologies rather than adapt to them, they do not eliminate competition; they merely lock their own economies out of the industries of the future.

Admittedly, protectionist sentiments carry weight in parts of the EU. Yet more rational voices have helped counter these isolationist impulses, paving the way for the relatively pragmatic approach taken by the EU in the Brussels consultations. This divide reflects the fundamental choice Europe now faces: Will it work with others to ride the wave of technological change, or wall itself off in an attempt to preserve aging industries?

The constructive consensus forged at the bilateral consultations offers a forward-looking roadmap anchored in four key areas: Reform of the World Trade Organization, strengthening of intellectual property protection, rationalization of export controls, and trade and investment balance— all built around the core principle of embracing technological progress.

WTO reform: A shared responsibility

The World Trade Organization, once the bedrock of global trade, is now hamstrung, largely because the United States has stepped back from its leadership role. That vacuum presents an opportunity for China and Europe to jointly drive reforms. More importantly, the old WTO rules were written for a pre-digital, pre-green era and are ill-equipped to govern new industries, data flows, and clean energy value chains. By working together, China and Europe can modernise the multilateral trading system so that it serves rather than stifles the technological future. This is not a zero-sum game; it is a constructive undertaking that benefits both sides.

Intellectual property: Protection as a catalyst for tech diffusion

A common European concern is intellectual property theft. Yet the argument that strong IP protection hinders technology transfer is reversed. In reality, robust IP regimes encourage innovators to license, collaborate, and share, because they can do so with confidence that their returns are secure. Weak protection, by contrast, breeds secrecy and silos. China has made significant strides in intellectual property enforcement, and welcome deeper cooperation with Europe in this area. The goal should be to create an ecosystem in which cutting-edge knowledge flows more freely, accelerating the adoption of new technologies across borders. That is how Europe can stay in the race by engaging in joint R&D and co-innovation with China.

Export controls: A defensive mindset that backfires

Some European export restrictions — for instance, on advanced lithography equipment — are justified as efforts to protect strategic assets. Yet they reflect a static, rear-view-mirror approach. Technologies restricted today may well be superseded within a few years, and the next generation of innovation is more likely to emerge from collaborative ecosystems than from guarding yesterday's lead. If Europe remains fixated on controlling the outflow of its current advantages, it risks missing the opportunity to co-develop the breakthroughs of tomorrow. The real risk is not that China catches up, but that Europe's own dynamism atrophies while it polices the past.

On the other side, European concerns over China's export management of rare earths and other critical minerals are understandable. However, these measures are consistent with international norms, and China has never used them as a tool to threaten Europe. The underlying reality is that future high-end manufacturing — from electric vehicles to quantum computing — depends on these materials. There is no viable alternative supply chain that fully excludes China. The sensible response is therefore dialogue: The establishment of joint mechanisms to ensure transparent, predictable, and lawful access. That is precisely what the current consultations aim to achieve.

Trade and investment balance: A symptom, not the disease

Europe's trade deficit with China is often cited as a grievance. But the remedy is not to force-sell outdated products into the Chinese market, nor to impose tariffs that ultimately raise costs for European consumers and industries. The real solution lies in upgrading Europe's own industrial bases — by embracing the very technologies in which China now excels. If European firms partner with Chinese leaders in renewables, electric vehicles, and digital infrastructure, they can gain access to scale, supply chains, and market insights that may help revitalise their competitiveness. Clinging to legacy sectors, on the other hand, only delays an inevitable decline. As the saying goes, it is a chronic, ultimately terminal condition —not immediately fatal, but fatal nonetheless.

Conclusion: Choosing adaptation over deflections

In sum, the "China Shock 2.0" narrative is a red herring. It projects onto China the anxieties Europe harbors about its own capacity to adapt. The real challenge is not China's rise, but the pace of global change. Europe's more rational voices understand that protectionism is a slow poison. They recognize that the only way to secure future prosperity is to open up, invest in joint innovation, and help shape new rules for the new economy.

The Brussels talks are a promising start. They offer an opportunity to go beyond defensive scapegoating and move toward a genuine partnership — leveraging China's technological momentum and Europe's engineering heritage to build a shared, sustainable future. The choice is clear: Embrace the revolution together, or be left behind by it. Europe has made the right choice before; it can do so again.