The European Union’s economic decline over the past two decades has drawn comparisons to the final decades of China’s Qing dynasty, sparking debate over Europe’s current trajectory and future prospects. Luis Vassy, director of Sciences Po in France, raised the issue in a recent essay, highlighting that the EU’s share of the global economy fell from 30 percent in 2008 to 17 percent in 2025—a decline that, in relative terms, occurred three times faster than China’s contraction between 1820 and 1870 during the Qing era.

Vassy’s comparison, published in a European affairs journal, serves as a wake-up call rather than a deterministic prediction, urging Europe to rethink its approach to power and geopolitics. He argues that relying heavily on international law, bureaucratic processes, and equitable negotiations is insufficient in the face of shifting global dynamics. Instead, Europe must cultivate strategic autonomy through enhanced geopolitical and security expertise.

The essay has resonated both in Europe and China, eliciting mixed reactions. Some European observers find the historical analogy provocative, while several Chinese commentators view it as a prescient warning about Europe’s vulnerabilities. A prominent Chinese commentary blog identified three major existential challenges confronting the EU: Brexit, energy decoupling, and mass migration.

Brexit is seen as a critical blow to European unity, undermining the notion of “European indivisibility” and fueling political discontent across the continent. Meanwhile, sanctions imposed on Russian energy exports—aimed at exerting pressure over the Ukraine conflict—have had unintended consequences by disrupting longstanding energy supply routes. This disruption threatens industrial output, particularly in Germany, whose manufacturing sector faces decline and increased unemployment risks. Additionally, large-scale migration has contributed to social tensions and a resurgence of far-right political movements reminiscent of post-World War II Europe.

In the geopolitical arena, Europe finds itself squeezed amid rival powers Russia, China, and the United States, according to political scientists David Shambaugh and Steven Jackson. These pressures compound the economic and social challenges already confronting the bloc.

Despite these concerns, some experts caution against an overly pessimistic outlook. Claudia Astarita, a lecturer at Sciences Po, interprets Vassy’s essay as a call to action. She emphasizes that the comparison with the Qing dynasty is rhetorical—intended to shock European elites into recognizing the urgency of cultivating strategic competence rather than signaling an inevitable decline akin to China’s imperial collapse. Unlike the Qing, Europe retains democratic institutions capable of self-correction and benefits from a strong technological foundation.

Astarita added that Europe’s challenge lies not in a lack of capability but in political will and conceptual clarity. Efforts are underway at institutions such as Sciences Po to reform training programs to equip future European leaders with the necessary skills in geopolitics, security, and strategic thinking to secure the bloc’s autonomy in a competitive global order.

In sum, the framing of Europe’s decline in historical terms has prompted reflection on the continent’s place in a rapidly evolving world, with experts largely agreeing that Europe’s future depends on renewed political resolve and strategic adaptation rather than despair.