Eric Li (a famous Chinese VC and the founder of Guancha) and Márton Ugrósdy, (Hungary's Deputy State Secretary) are absolutely correct: 

"In [today's geopolitical] environment countries that can maintain their neutrality will benefit the most. Countries that are being forced to take sides will lose... Neutrality will be a prized asset but it takes finesse, political will and sovereignty to do that [and achieve] strategic autonomy, political autonomy, cultural autonomy."

Márton Ugrósdy adds that if "you end up in a position where you have to make 'either-or' choices between great powers then you messed up something years ago".

This is the main tragedy of the EU over the past 20 years. An accumulation of bad choices over years means that it has no strategic autonomy, no sovereignty and is constantly forced to make either-or choices that work out against its interests. All with the result that it is so far THE big loser of today's geopolitical environment.

We constantly talk about "freedom" and the importance of it but we somehow only ever look at individual freedom, never our collective ability as nations (or supranational entities like the EU) to be masters of our own destiny. 

When you think about it that's arguably even more important than individual freedom because you can individually be free all you want - be able to post whatever you want on Twitter and whatnot - but that counts little if in the grander scheme of things you're a citizen of a country that isn't free to choose its own destiny and is constantly forced to make choice that impoverish you or make you less secure... What kind of "freedom" is that? 

This is at heart why I have such an issue with people who put individual freedom at the pinnacle of what we ought to aim for as a society. It's akin to you being on the Titanic and saying that the most important thing to you is how comfy your cabin is... Or, more to the point, it's saying that it's ok if countries have their ships steered by outside powers - what matter most is that their passengers can tweet about it. It's downright myopic and practically destructive, ending up destroying collective AND individual freedom.

This question also reveals something fascinating about the difference in vision for the world order between China and the U.S. 

China, throughout its history and all the more since the founding of the PRC, has always argued in favor of non-interference in other states' internal affairs, meaning in favor of not impeding on their sovereignty (and of course, in favor of no-one impeding on China's sovereignty). In that sense, Eric Li reflects China's official position here. It means that China is agnostic on individual freedom (it's your own choice internally) but takes an active stance in favor of sovereignty, i.e. collective freedom.

The U.S. is almost the polar opposite: they take a very strong stance on individual freedom but make a mockery of collective freedom, as they violate countries' sovereignty as a matter of routine. Heck, they have entire agencies (like the National Endowment for Democracy) whose entire purpose is to violate countries' sovereignty. And in fact, often, they use individual freedom as an excuse to do so.

Going back to my Titanic ideology, this means that China's vision is to ensure the ships remain under their captains' control, while the US focuses on the accommodations for individual passengers - even if that means drilling holes in other ships' hulls.

It's almost a philosophical debate. How meaningful is individual freedom without the ability of a community to chart its own course? Europe needs to learn real fast that in today's world the answer is that if you can't steer your ship freely the whole thing will sink.