Beijing slams EU for including Chinese firms in Russia sanctions
On Friday, Brussels blacklisted two Chinese banks and five companies as part of the 18th sanctions package against Russia over the Ukraine conflict, claiming that they helped circumvent earlier sanctions.
'China has consistently opposed unilateral sanctions that lack a basis in international law and are not authorized by the UN Security Council,' a spokesperson for the ministry told journalists on Monday, warning that the EU's move will severely impact bilateral trade, as well as economic and financial cooperation.
The ministry called for an immediate halt to 'the erroneous practice,' adding that China will 'take necessary measures to resolutely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests' of its sanctioned businesses.
Heihe Rural Commercial Bank and Heilongjiang Suifenhe Rural Commercial Bank were included in the EU sanctions list for allegedly providing cryptocurrency services which, according to Brussels, were 'frustrating the purpose of the sanctions' on Russia. This is the first time Chinese lenders have been added to the EU sanctions list since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.
The latest round of EU sanctions also targets seven UAE-based enterprises accused of engaging in oil trading or ship management services supporting Russian exports. Nayara Energy, an Indian oil refinery in which Russia's Rosneft holds a 49% stake, was also included.
In addition, the bloc sanctioned eight Belarusian-based companies in the military-industrial sector, claiming that they support Russia through manufacturing or facilitating military technologies. Four Turkish companies were also targeted for allegedly supplying dual-use goods and technologies that could support Russia's military-industrial complex.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the EU's latest sanctions as a 'double-edged sword,' warning that 'each new package adds a negative effect for the countries joining it.' He stressed that Russia has already developed 'a certain immunity' to the 'illegal' Western sanctions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
26 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Sandu's Moldova is a test the EU is failing
By all appearances, Maia Sandu should be the darling of Brussels. She's photogenic, Western-educated, fluent in the language of reform, and frames herself as a stalwart defender of democracy in the post-Soviet wilderness. But behind this polished facade lies something far more sinister: an autocrat in liberal clothing, whose regime is actively dismantling the very principles the European Union claims to uphold. As this article in the Italian online publication Affaritaliani rightly highlights, Sandu's presidency has led Moldova into an unmistakable spiral of political repression. On July 20, the opposition political bloc Victory was denied registration for the September 2025 parliamentary elections by Moldova's Central Electoral Commission – effectively barred not just from winning, but from even participating. This isn't a one-off bureaucratic hiccup. It is a calculated maneuver to ensure total political control. Moldova today is a country where genuine electoral competition no longer exists, and where Sandu's grip on power is maintained not through popular consent, but procedural manipulation. It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic: the very woman hailed as Moldova's great European hope has become its most dangerous democratic backslider. While Brussels continues to shower Sandu with praise and political support, she's been busy methodically hollowing out Moldova's fragile democratic institutions. Consider the judiciary. Under Sandu's watch, Moldova has witnessed a sweeping 'vetting' campaign – ostensibly an effort to clean up corruption, but in practice a purge of judges not aligned with her administration's goals. Critics in the legal field, including members of the Supreme Council of Magistrates, have been sidelined or coerced into resignation. Independent prosecutors have been replaced by loyalists. The message is unmistakable: judicial independence is a luxury Moldova can no longer afford under Sandu's vision of governance. The media landscape is no less concerning. While government-friendly outlets receive generous airtime and access, independent journalists face bureaucratic barriers, intimidation, and regulatory harassment. Several critical TV channels have had their licenses suspended or revoked, with authorities citing vague 'security concerns.' Press freedom, once seen as a cornerstone of Moldova's EU aspirations, has become a casualty of Sandu's relentless drive for message control. Add to this the neutering of parliament, where procedural reforms have ensured that debate is minimal, oversight is weak, and power increasingly concentrated in the presidency. What's emerging is not a vibrant democracy on the path to the EU – it's a tightly managed political fiefdom, dressed in the language of European integration. Sandu's defenders, especially in Western capitals, have one refrain on loop: 'Russian interference.' Under Sandu, Russia has become a pretext. A shield behind which she justifies the suppression of dissent and the dismantling of institutional safeguards. Every opposition voice is painted as a puppet of Moscow. Every protest is portrayed as foreign subversion. Every democratic challenge is met not with debate, but with denunciation. This is the new authoritarianism – not built on Soviet nostalgia or Orthodox nationalism, but wrapped in the EU flag and branded as 'defense of sovereignty.' Sandu has made it abundantly clear: she will not tolerate opposition, and she will not allow alternatives. Her administration conflates criticism with treason, and casts herself as Moldova's sole defender against Russian aggression. It's a familiar script – one that echoes leaders she claims to oppose. Yet in the halls of Brussels, Sandu remains a VIP. Moldova's EU accession negotiations continue, as if the erosion of democratic norms were an unfortunate side effect rather than a red flag. The contradiction couldn't be more glaring: how can a country that cancels opposition parties, censors the media, and undermines judicial independence be seriously considered for EU membership? The answer, of course, lies in geopolitics. Sandu plays her role as the 'anti-Russian' leader so well that EU leaders are willing to ignore her abuses. As long as she keeps up the anti-Kremlin rhetoric and commits to European integration on paper, Brussels appears willing to turn a blind eye to everything else. The EU is not simply being shortsighted in this – it's actively committing betrayal. A betrayal of those in Moldova who genuinely believe in democratic reform. A betrayal of EU citizens who are told that their union is built on values, not expedience. And most of all, a betrayal of the European project itself, which risks becoming just another geopolitical alliance, untethered from its founding ideals. Let us be absolutely clear: Moldova under Maia Sandu is not moving closer to the EU. Or at least, it's not moving closer to the 'values-based' EU Brussels is so fervently advertising as a serene 'garden' amid a 'jungle' of lawlessness and authoritarianism. Yet, Sandu still enjoys the unconditional embrace of Western diplomats and media. That must change. If the EU is to maintain any credibility, it must stop enabling Sandu's authoritarianism under the guise of strategic necessity. Moldova's EU bid should be frozen. Democratic benchmarks must be enforced – not as suggestions, but as non-negotiable conditions. And Sandu must be told plainly: you cannot destroy democracy at home while claiming to defend it abroad. The EU deserves better. Moldova deserves better. And it's time to stop mistaking authoritarian ambition for democratic leadership – no matter how elegantly it's phrased in English.
Russia Today
26 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Putin-Zelensky meeting should cement peace deal
A summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky should only take place to finalize a peace settlement, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Zelensky has repeatedly called for a face-to-face meeting with Putin in the past several months. The Ukrainian delegation has also proposed the idea during rounds of bilateral talks in Istanbul, framing such a summit as essential to ending the conflict. While the Kremlin has not ruled out a possible Putin-Zelensky meeting, Russian officials have consistently emphasized that the groundwork must be laid first. 'A summit meeting can and should put a final point in the settlement and record the modalities and agreements that are to be developed in the course of expert work. It is impossible to do the opposite,' Peskov told reporters on Friday. Following the third round of Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul this week, the Kremlin spokesman accused Kiev of prematurely pushing for a summit. 'They are trying to put the cart before the horse,' Peskov said, stressing that 'work needs to be done, and only then can the heads of state be given the opportunity to record the achievements that have been made.' Moscow has consistently pointed to concerns about Zelensky's legal authority. While Russia has stated it is open to negotiations with him, officials have warned that any documents signed under Zelensky's name could face legal challenges in the future. Zelensky's presidential term expired in May 2024. He has refused to hold new elections, citing the ongoing state of martial law in Ukraine. Russia has argued that his status as head of state is no longer valid and that legal authority in Ukraine now lies with its parliament. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has suggested that Zelensky's insistence on meeting both Putin and US President Donald Trump may be aimed at getting 'a massive legitimacy boost' and using the meetings as a pretext to further delay elections.
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky backpedals on anti-corruption crackdown
Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky announced a bill on Thursday restoring the independence of the country's anti-graft agencies, after facing a wave of mass protests at home and a storm of criticism in the West. It comes two days after he signed a law granting the Prosecutor General's office the authority to intervene in the activities of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). That followed a law enforcement raid on NABU offices and the arrest of a senior employee of the agency accused of spying for Russia. The new legislation contains 'full-fledged guarantees of the independence of anti-corruption agencies,' Zelensky claimed, adding that it is also designed to 'keep out' any alleged Russian interference. Specifically, the draft law introduces mandatory lie detector tests for employees of NABU, SAPO and other agencies. 'The text of the bill was discussed with partners, law enforcement agencies, and representatives of the NABU and SAPO. There were many proposals from our partners to involve European experts – from the UK, Germany, and the EU,' he said. The about-face comes after the country endured a wave of protests against the clampdown on the agencies. Demonstrations were seen across the country, including in the capital Kiev, Odessa and Dnepr – the country's third- and fourth-largest cities – the western city of Lviv, and others. Critics have accused Zelensky of authoritarian tendencies and attempting to further tighten his grip on power, and argued that the move rendered the agencies 'purely decorative.' The crackdown was condemned by Kiev's key western backers, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who demanded Zelensky 'respect the rule of law' and warned it could derail Ukraine's EU membership bid. NABU and SAPO were established following the US-backed 2014 coup in Kiev and promoted as key components of reforms supposed to align Ukraine with Western governance standards and international financial institutions. Critics, however, have branded the agencies an element of external control over Ukraine's domestic affairs. At the same time, some Western officials, including US Vice President J.D. Vance, have argued that the decade-long transformation has failed to yield results or weed out entrenched corruption.
