🔥 This is premium content and also appeared in the Weibo Watch newsletter. Subscribe to stay in the loop.

On the evening of October 12, while the Netherlands vs. Finland World Cup qualifier became a hot topic on Weibo (#荷兰4比0芬兰#), something else entirely made headlines — not about goals, but about chips.

Chinese company Wingtech Technology (闻泰科技) issued a statement saying that the Dutch government, citing national security concerns, had imposed global operational restrictions on Nexperia (安世半导体), a Dutch semiconductor company based in Nijmegen that has been wholly owned by the Chinese Wingtech conglomerate since 2019.

The Dutch government reportedly ordered a one-year freeze on strategic and governance changes across Nexperia on September 30, but the news only went trending on Chinese social media after Wingtech revealed the suspension (the topic became no 1 on Toutiao on Sunday).

Wingtech said that Nexperia’s Chinese CEO, Zhang Xuezheng (张学政), was also suspended, and that an independent, non-Chinese director was appointed who can legally represent the company.

That was ordered by a Dutch court following internal upheaval — Nexperia’s Dutch and German executives, including Legal Chief Ruben Lichtenberg, CFO Stefan Tilger, and COO Achim Kempe, filed a petition with the Dutch Enterprise Chamber requesting emergency measures to suspend Zhang and place the company’s shares under temporary court management. The court agreed (also see the Pekingnology newsletter by Zichen Wang, who was among the first to report on this issue).

The next day, on October 13, Dutch newspapers reported on the freeze, describing it as a rare move. NRC called it “an emergency measure intended to prevent chip-related intellectual property from leaving the country,” adding that, according to insiders, “there were indications that Nexperia was planning to transfer chip know-how to China.”

The Dutch government later clarified that the so-called Goods Availability Act (Wet Beschikbaarheid Goederen) was applied “following recent and acute signals of serious governance shortcomings and actions within Nexperia,” to protect Dutch and European economic security and safeguard crucial technological knowledge.

That specific law dates back to the Cold War era of 1952 and, according to Pim Jansen, professor of economic administrative law at Erasmus University Rotterdam, has never been invoked before. (Due to the unique situation, Jansen almost wanted to dub it the “Nexperia law.”)

🇳🇱 Nexperia (安世半导体) is a spin-off from chipmaker NXP, which in turn originated from Royal Philips. The company produces basic semiconductors that are used everywhere, from phones to cars. Since becoming independent in 2017, its headquarters in Nijmegen has expanded from about 150 to nearly 500 employees. Across its production sites in Germany, the UK, and Asia, Nexperia employs more than 10,000 people.

🇨🇳 Wingtech Technology (闻泰科技) is a major Chinese tech conglomerate listed on the A-share market and based in Jiaxing, combining two core businesses: semiconductors and electronics manufacturing. The company started in 2005 as a smartphone design and assembly firm (ODM) serving brands such as Xiaomi, Samsung, and Lenovo, and has since become one of the world’s largest mobile device manufacturers.

The recent developments are a big blow to Wingtech, as it basically means won’t be able to control day-to-day decisions at its most valuable subsidiary.

According to Wingtech, the suspension is politically motivated rather than fact-based and constitutes a serious violation of the market economy principles, fair competition, and international trade rules that the EU itself advocates.

The Wider Tech War Context

The Nexperia news is not an isolated case – it comes at a time when many things are happening at once.

🧩 On October 1, Dutch media reported that, due to tightening export rules announced by the United States, no American parts or software can be sold to Nexperia without a US license anymore because Nexperia’s Chinese parent company, Wingtech, is already on the American “Entity List,” and all of the company’s subsidiaries now also fall under the extended US export restrictions that took effect on September 29.

🧩 According to a Dutch media report on October 2, Nexperia said it strongly disagreed with the new export restrictions and was working on measures to limit their impact on its operations.

🧩 Barely two weeks prior, on September 18, China banned its tech companies from buying Nvidia AI chips from the American Nvidia, citing antitrust and national security reasons.

🧩 As of October, China also added several prominent Western companies to its Unreliable Entity List, including the Canadian-based research firm TechInsights.

🧩 And, as if that all wasn’t enough, China dramatically expanded its rare earth export controls on Thursday, expected to have a direct impact on the global semiconductor supply chain, while President Trump announced 100% tariffs on all Chinese imports and new export controls on “any and all critical software.”

👉 Regardless of how directly all these events are connected to what has happened in the Netherlands, one thing is clear: the global tech war is intensifying, with control over the semiconductor ecosystem now a top strategic priority.

And whatever the exact reasons or details behind the freeze of Nexperia’s strategic operations, on Chinese social media the move is being framed within a broader narrative — that of Western containment aimed at curbing China’s rapid rise as a global technological power.

Chinese Social Media Responses

On Chinese social media, commentators are denouncing the Netherlands.

One finance-focused Weibo blogger (@董指导挤出俩酒窝) wrote:

💬✍️ “By 2024, Nexperia contributed 14.7 billion RMB (2 billion U.S. dollars) in revenue and nearly 40% gross profit margin [to the Dutch economy]. According to Wingtech’s data, it also paid 130 million euros in corporate income tax to the Netherlands (..) This should have been a textbook case of mutual success – Chinese capital brought markets and vitality; the Netherlands benefited from taxes and employment; technology continued to grow in value within the global supply chain. Yet the Netherlands, showing its “pirate spirit”, destroyed this successful example with its own hands..”

That sentiment — that the Netherlands is treating China unfairly despite Chinese contributions to the Dutch economy and business — was echoed across social media. On the Q&A platform Zhihu, some users called it “a dramatic story”:

💬✍️ “Wingtech spent hundreds of billions of yuan to acquire a long-established European semiconductor company, thinking it had finally gained access to core global technology. But before long, others pulled the rug out from under them, right in front of the whole world.”

Commenter Yan Yaofei (晏耀飞) said:

💬✍️ “It’s like you bought a cow and keep it in someone else’s barn — you tell them how to feed and use it, and they have no right to interfere. Then suddenly, they lock you out of the barn entirely. It basically can be classified as robbery, openly and shamelessly.”

Another Weibo commenter (@就是赵老哥) wrote:

💬✍️ “It feels like the Netherlands is making a fuss. Back then, they sold us a loss-making company and now they’re backing out. This will have a big impact on the semiconductor sector. Foreign companies are unreliable, even when you buy their companies, they’re still unreliable. Domestic substitution is the only way forward.”

Alongside mistrust toward the West and perceptions that the Netherlands has treated China unfairly, even betraying it, many online discussions also frame the move as part of a broader political provocation. At the same time, a recurring theme on social media is the belief that China must strengthen its domestic semiconductor industry.

Finance blogger Tengteng’s Dad (@腾腾爸) wrote:

💬✍️ “The Dutch government’s freezing of the shares of Wingtech Technology’s Dutch subsidiary reminds me of the Ping An–Fortis incident years ago. Europe hasn’t changed, it’s still the same shameless Europe. It’s just that my fellow countrymen have thought too highly of them, thanks to all those “public intellectuals” who have spent years diligently promoting their Western masters. Now, more and more Chinese people are opening their eyes. In the future, all that Western talk about democracy, rule of law, and freedom will completely lose its appeal in China.”

Chinese Narratives of Europe

The online reactions to the Nexperia incident echo broader Chinese narratives about Europe that have been circulating in the digital sphere for the past decade.

Last Thursday, the topic of Chinese narratives of Europe happened to be the main theme of a panel I joined during the ReConnect China Conference in The Hague, hosted by the Clingendael China Centre (event page).

In preparation for this event, I focused mostly on the social media angle of these narratives. I looked at hundreds of trending topics related to Europe from different Chinese platforms—from Kuaishou to Weibo—with a dataset of nearly 100 pages filled with hashtags that went viral over the past twelve months (October 2024–October 2025), to see what themes dominate discussions about Europe in China’s online sphere.

Excluding sports-related topics (which account for about 35–40% of all high-ranking posts about Europe; sports apparently are the best diplomacy tools, after all), the top 250 non-sports topics reveal a clear image of how Europe is perceived in Chinese digital discourse today.

A brief overview:

🔍 Main Focus: Russia–Ukraine war, Europe’s energy crisis, loss of autonomy, European geopolitical vulnerability and dependence on the United States

💡 Main Theme: Europe is often portrayed as lacking strategic autonomy and bearing the heavy costs of decisions driven by Washington’s agenda. It is viewed as vulnerable and “losing out” (吃亏), strategically outmaneuvered & excluded from major geopolitical decision-making.

🔍 Main Focus: ASML, tensions over electric vehicles (EVs) and protectionism, supply chains, trade deficits, and deindustrialization

💡 Main Theme: Europe’s trade frictions with China are portrayed as symptoms of Western decline and hypocrisy. The main story is that Europe’s economy is stagnating partly due to being overly protectionist and dependent on the US, while China emerges as a more dynamic and vital global player. Europe is losing competitiveness while China rises as a tech innovator.

🔍 Main Focus: Internal EU divisions, populism, leadership crises, and Europe’s political rightward shift (右倾)

💡 Main Theme: The EU is depicted as disunited and inefficient, struggling to respond to global challenges. The focus is on its inability to achieve strong, unified leadership amid political instability and ideological fragmentation.

🔍 Main Focus: Social instability, migration, public safety, and racial or cultural tension

💡 Main Theme: Europe is seen as unsafe, chaotic, and socially divided. This is often contrasted with China’s image of order and security.

🔍 Main Focus: Cultural comparisons, debates on values, and reflections on historical ties

💡 Main Theme: While Europe is respected for its rich cultural heritage and moral legacy, it is also mocked for its perceived sense of moral superiority. Europe stands for the past glory of civilization, not its future.

🔍 Main Focus: Chinese tourism in Europe, theft incidents, travel diaries, humorous cross-cultural comparisons, and the growing sentiment of being “suddenly disillusioned with Europe” (对欧洲祛魅了)

💡 Main Theme: Europe remains a popular travel destination, but the online tone has shifted from overwhelming admiration to a more pragmatic and critical perspective. The image of Europe is now more “de-romanticized,” with some even suggesting that “getting robbed is part of the experience” [of traveling in Europe] (I previously wrote about that here).

From Chips to Goals

So what does this all tell us?

Beyond the idea that Europe—caught between Washington and Moscow—lacks the agency to handle external crises while also struggling with internal division and decline, the dominant Chinese narrative about Europe is actually not about Europe at all.

‘Europe’ is all about China. Representations of Europe—from “democratic disillusion” to danger, disorder, and dependency—serve as both a mirror and a warning against which Chinese social, political, and national narratives are contrasted: chaos vs. order, fragmentation vs. unity, vulnerable dependency vs. strategic autonomy, decline vs. rise, etc. etc.

Something that the hashtags don’t tell us as much, but is still very much alive as well, is that Europe is also still seen as a major market of opportunities and a crucial soft power frontier for China.

Europe’s future, therefore (and for other reasons), matters to China—not as a model to follow, but as a stage for Chinese cultural and economic influence, where Chinese products, culture, and ideas can shape global appeal.

Perhaps that’s also what gives the Nexperia incident its extra weight: it ties together multiple narratives. Europe is seen as overly protectionist, biased against China, and driven by Washington’s agenda — and the fact that former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, now NATO Secretary-General, once called US President Trump “daddy” fits into that perception. As some Weibo commenters joked: “Did their daddy make them do it?”

In the end, the takeaway for many commenters is that the incident serves as another “wake-up call for China”: a stark reminder of the need for technological self-reliance. And so, the discussion unfolds in such a way that, once again, it becomes more about China than about Europe — about China’s international strategies, its global rise, and the lessons to be learned, with the Netherlands as the current antagonist.

Thankfully, there was something to celebrate as well: the Netherlands won 4-0 in the popular match against Finland. Amidst all the talk about trade and tech, one popular sports blogger on Weibo vividly wrote about how the Dutch attack was in full force, about how all-time top scorer Memphis Depay led the offense brilliantly, how he helped the team secure a victory, and how the Netherlands “took control of their own destiny in the race to top the group.”

Whatever the future holds for Nexperia and the geopolitical drama surrounding it, at least we can count on the unifying power of football — where, even if only for 90 minutes, chips sit on the bench and netizens far apart in politics cheer for each other’s countries.

I’m not even an avid football fan, but suddenly, the 2026 World Cup (still months away) can’t come soon enough.

By Manya Koetse

(follow on X, LinkedIn, or Instagram)

Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us. First-time commenters, please be patient – we will have to manually approve your comment before it appears.

©2025 Whatsonweibo. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce our content without permission – you can contact us at info@whatsonweibo.com.

The assassination of prominent American activist and Trump ally Charlie Kirk, 31, became a trending topic on social media all over the world, including on Chinese social media platforms Weibo, Douyin, Toutiao, and Zhihu.

Kirk was shot on September 10 while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. At the time of writing, a suspect was apprehended after a manhunt of two days (#特朗普称柯克枪击嫌疑人已被拘留#).

Using hashtags such as “Trump’s Political Ally Shot While Speaking” (#特朗普政治盟友演讲时遭枪击#), Chinese media outlets, online commentators, and regular netizens have been discussing Kirk’s death, with a focus on Kirk’s ideologies and the deeper issues in the United States that may have contributed to him being shot.

Although Charlie Kirk (查理·柯克) is not widely known among the mainstream Chinese audience, avid social media users are familiar with him. His past videos, with added Chinese subtitles, are popular on platforms like Bilibili, and his persona and viewpoints have sparked debate on sites like Zhihu.

Charlie Kirk is a highly visible figure on global social media for engaging in face-to-face debates with left-leaning students (or anyone who disagrees with him) on university campuses in the United States and even in the United Kingdom. These debates often became heated, as they touched on some of the most polarizing political issues.

Kirk defended his anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-Trump, and anti-immigration stances and criticized transgender identities and same-sex marriage.

There are various discussions on Chinese social media related to his death.

A central part of the discussions surrounding Kirk’s death on Chinese social media focuses on American gun laws and Kirk’s own views on gun control.

On Zhihu and Weibo, many commenters echoed a sentiment also seen on Western social media, noting the irony of Kirk being killed while advocating for gun rights. In 2018, Kirk tweeted about a mass shooter being shot, writing: “guns save lives” (#查理柯克宣扬枪支拯救生命#).

Kirk was discussing and defending his pro-gun stance in Utah at the moment he was shot.

With this in mind, as well as taking Kirk’s other conservative viewpoints into account, many Chinese netizens do not necessarily empathize, with some even creating light banter around his death.

One popular comment on Weibo said:

Others claimed that Kirk “got what he wanted”:

This sentiment was quite prevalent on Chinese social media, where others also stressed that the very gun freedoms Kirk advocated for ultimately killed him, calling it the “gunshot of freedom” (“自由的枪声”).

Another commenter (元锡损) on Zhihu even described the killing of Kirk as a form of “art,” presuming that he was shot by someone who opposed gun ownership:

But some argue it all goes beyond a pro-gun stance, like the international news commentator Zhu Xi Er Ming (@逐汐而鸣), who also showed little empathy for Kirk:

These kinds of reactions often appear on Chinese social media whenever political unrest or major incidents occur in the United States, with netizens expressing anti-American sentiments and criticizing America’s “so-called freedom” — especially since human rights are a sensitive topic in China–US relations.

Criticism of America’s gun laws is often part of such criticism, such as after the Orlando shooting or other major shootings. This, in part, has to do with how US and China are practically polar opposites on the issue of gun control and what it means for ‘freedom.’

As one Xiaohongshu blogger (@民间观察员张向强) wrote, before news of the suspect’s apprehension came out:

China has some of the world’s strictest gun control laws and the ban on civilian gun ownership – as well as extensive surveillance systems for public safety – is generally supported by the public.

But reactions are mixed; not everyone is unsympathetic toward Kirk, nor do all commenters link his pro-gun stance to his death. Many voices also pushed back against claims that Kirk “got what he deserved.”

Yan Feng (严锋), a prominent commentator and Professor of Chinese Literature at Fudan University, called for a more compassionate response. He wrote:

In other comments, he said he opposed private gun ownership, but also suggested he did not believe Kirk was shot due to his pro-gun stance, while also stressing that Kirk never supported the use of guns to kill people with opposing views.

Luo Yiming (@罗祎明医生), a medical doctor at Mount Sinai St. Luke’s, wrote:

There were also posts highlighting how Dean Withers, a left-wing influencer and long-time opponent of Charlie Kirk, reacted to the news of his death during a livestream — with shock and tears. That reaction also sparked discussions about how, even if you hold opposing views, you can still feel sorrow over someone being killed.

Although the initial discussions over Kirk’s death on Chinese social media seem to remain a bit on the surface, focusing on gun control and going from questions of karma to compassion, there are also other discussions placing his assassination more into a context of American social and political polarization.

One of China’s most famous online political commentators, Hu Xijin (@胡锡进), argued that political assassination is an inherent, dark part of American modern history. He wrote a lengthy column on Kirk’s death, calling it “a crash of the software of American democracy” (“这是美国民主软件的一次死机”) and also saying:

Well-known Chinese internet commentator Wanghu de Jianqiao (@王虎的舰桥) blamed American social governance for Kirk’s killing. He wrote:

Others agree with the notion that something is inherently amiss in American society, with some suggesting that the shooting shows the “unusually intense class struggle in the United States” (“凸显了美国阶级斗争的异常尖锐”).

Zhihu user Wenhou (文猴), who also runs a WeChat account focused on men’s self-improvement, blamed Kirk’s death on leftist policies and suggested that American feminism was complicit in the country’s “social decay.”

Hu Xijin, as well as other commenters, think that the Charlie Kirk shooting might be a turning point for what is yet to come. On Zhihu, some predict an ideological hardening that could push America closer to more political violence and societal fragmentation. Others think that it will weaken the radical left and unite the modern right-wing factions.

Some commentators are especially pessimistic about America’s future. One example is the active Weibo commentator, entrepreneur and public persona Xiang Ligang (@飞象网项立刚), who tied Kirk’s assassination to the recent shocking murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska while driving a train home in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Xiang wrote:

Zhihu blogger ‘Patrick’ wrote:

One anonymous Weibo commenter wrote:

By Manya Koetse

(follow on X, LinkedIn, or Instagram)

Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us. First-time commenters, please be patient – we will have to manually approve your comment before it appears.

©2025 Whatsonweibo. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce our content without permission – you can contact us at info@whatsonweibo.com.