In a sharp rebuke of US foreign policy, China has condemned Washington’s latest legislative move targeting Russia’s trading partners with steep tariffs, branding the proposed sanctions as “illegal unilateral measures” and a dangerous extension of American jurisdiction across international borders. The reaction from Beijing follows a controversial bill floated in the US Senate that would grant President Donald Trump the authority to impose secondary tariffs of up to 500% on countries that continue commerce with Moscow, with China, India, and Brazil specifically named.

The legislation, proposed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, has stirred global concern for its sweeping scope and potentially severe economic consequences. Framing the bill as a strategic tool to coerce global compliance with US sanctions on Russia, Graham described the measure as a “sledgehammer” that would give Trump the power to exert maximum pressure on nations defying Western efforts to isolate the Kremlin over its ongoing war in Ukraine.

Beijing has responded with unmistakable displeasure. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian told reporters on July 15 that China “firmly opposes any illegal unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction,” referring to the extraterritorial application of American laws. Lin warned that such actions not only violate international law but also risk igniting a global trade confrontation. “There are no winners in a tariff war,” he stated, adding that “dialogue and negotiation are the only viable way” to achieve peace in Ukraine.

China’s strong response underscores the growing fault lines between Washington and Beijing, particularly regarding global governance, multipolarity, and the use of economic coercion as a diplomatic weapon. As China increasingly asserts its role on the world stage-politically and economically-it has positioned itself as a vocal opponent of Western-led sanctions, which it sees as undermining international stability and national sovereignty.

Senator Graham’s bill has not yet advanced in the Senate. Senate Republican leader John Thune noted on July 14 that the measure is on hold as President Trump evaluates his own options. Speaking to Politico, Thune hinted that Trump may pursue these measures unilaterally, stating it “sounds like… the president is going to attempt to do some of this on his own.” However, he added that if Trump sees legislative backing as beneficial later, “we’ll be ready to go.”

Trump himself has not ruled out drastic trade measures. During a July 14 meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the White House, he warned that unless Russia agrees to a peace deal within 50 days, he would impose tariffs of up to 100% on countries continuing to trade with Moscow. “We’re very, very unhappy with what Russia is doing,” Trump said. “If the world continues trading with them, we will make it very costly.”

These threats represent a significant departure from multilateral diplomacy and a deepening reliance on economic blackmail to achieve strategic goals. While proponents argue this approach could hasten the end of the Ukraine conflict by squeezing Russia’s global trade, critics warn it risks fragmenting global trade networks, provoking retaliatory measures, and pushing neutral countries further into Moscow’s and Beijing’s orbit.

At the center of US concerns is China’s growing economic partnership with Russia. Despite international sanctions and Western efforts to isolate Moscow, trade between China and Russia surged to a record $245 billion in 2024, according to official Chinese data. This robust trade relationship, covering energy, agriculture, technology, and defense cooperation, has become a cornerstone of what both nations describe as a “strategic partnership without limits.”

In May 2025, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a summit in Moscow reaffirming their commitment to deepening bilateral ties. The two leaders signed multiple agreements aimed at expanding infrastructure connectivity, joint ventures in critical technologies, and long-term energy cooperation. Xi publicly stated that China supports a “political resolution” to the Ukraine conflict and opposes “the weaponization of economic tools” by any power.

Beijing has also offered to mediate a ceasefire in Ukraine and presented a 12-point peace framework, which has largely been dismissed by Western leaders as inadequate or biased toward Moscow. Nevertheless, the proposal reflects China’s desire to be seen as a responsible global actor, in contrast to Washington’s increasingly aggressive sanction regime.

The proposed sanctions bill raises critical questions about the future of international diplomacy, the use of economic instruments in conflict resolution, and the erosion of global consensus. Should the US proceed with the imposition of massive secondary tariffs, it would likely trigger countermeasures not only from China but from other major economies that refuse to subordinate their foreign policy to Washington’s strategic goals.

India, for instance, has continued to purchase discounted Russian oil, arguing that its national energy needs and economic considerations take precedence over foreign entanglements. Brazil, under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has also resisted aligning with NATO-led efforts to punish Russia, instead calling for a negotiated peace.

If implemented, the 500% tariffs could fracture global supply chains, especially in energy and critical minerals, and further accelerate the de-dollarization trend already being pursued by the BRICS bloc-of which China, Russia, India, and Brazil are founding members. The sanctions could also alienate allies and partners who view American dominance of the global financial system as a geopolitical risk.

The confrontation over the Russia sanctions bill reflects a broader struggle over the rules-based international order-who defines the rules, who enforces them, and who bears the consequences. As China pushes back against what it sees as American overreach, and the US doubles down on its coercive toolkit, the risk of escalating global economic and geopolitical tensions grows.

Rather than de-escalating the Ukraine crisis, punitive moves such as massive secondary tariffs may entrench divisions, embolden alliances opposed to Western dominance, and make compromise more elusive. Whether Washington heeds these warnings or pushes forward will shape not only the trajectory of the war in Ukraine but also the contours of global power in the years ahead.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post China denounces US over Russia sanctions bill, warns against ‘tariff war’ appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings