I think the Chinese have much more hands-on approach when it comes to realizing their long-term goals and I think the western 'let's leave it to the market'-approach is why they had to intervene in the end, but only at a point where it did serious diplomatic damage. I blame the politics and the Institutes they have let it come this far, but at the same time it really seems like a better same then never situation. I'm totally fine with Chinese expansion, it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game; but in a case like this it really is, China's economy gains because Europe's economy loses. I'm glad they didn't let that happen.

It's a complicated story of back and forths, but in hindsight it turned out a hostile takeover instead of a symbiotic relation like a joint venture has, with a win for both sides. European and Chinese markets grew more intertwined the last decades, but their political leaders became adversaries at the same time. International relations changing probably caused how this specific company chose to behave. Just like the US does not like ASML doing business in China, they didn't like Nexperia doing business there, which also caused increased pressure to the new parent company. At some point the US even put Nexperia on their blacklist because of the Chinese ownership. Not to point all fingers at the US, but I don't think it had to end up the way it did. Still, the new parent would have sucked Nexperia dry and I understand why this intervention was necessary. Europe is already over-dependent on China in many ways.