Well, now we're down to "pragmatic responses".

By which point we're not "punishing" anybody for being bad boys, we're doing things for geo-strategical value - basically to change behavior or reduce the possibility of future behaviors which are bad for us.

What the poster that originated this thread wanted - that Europe stops sending any tech to China because in his or her view China "supports" (unclear how much is too much) Russia - is not an appropriate response in pragmatic terms because it is a hostile movement towards a massive and increasingly influential nation - China - to try and change unclear behavior (just how much does China really "support" Russia compared to, say, India?) which supposedly indirectly would change somebody else's (Russia) behavior. Specifically for the EU, said somebody else is bad for it because they basically bark a lot towards it (whilst not actually biting it, though they do bit others) and have committed crimes in the EU at the level of a small organized crime organization.

How exactly is it pragmatic to go down a route of trade aggression towards a giant nation which is friendish towards a different nation to somehow (magic?) try and deter said other nation from further committing in the EU the level of crime of a small criminal organization?!

The retribution from China would cost the EU vastly more than the problem that action by the EU might (but it's not at all guaranteed) ameliorate.

That's not pragmatic in any way form or shape.

If we're going for punishing them, then that's not "pragmatic" anymore, that's at the level of principles, at which point what I wrote about punishing all imperialists, genociders and their supports applies.