Yesterday Trump signed H.R. 5334, a sanctions bill introduced over a year ago by the late senator, and notorious warmonger, Lindsay Graham. Although the bill is designed to pressure Russia and Iran (which are well-equipped to resist this sort of pressure), its sting is aimed at the financial and shipping intermediaries of Moscow’s primary energy buyers, China and India.
If we look at Russia, the immediate economic impact of these secondary sanctions will not be a total halt in energy exports, but a degradation of trade conditions. Anticipating U.S. financial retaliation, banks will demand higher risk premiums, shipping companies will embed sanctions risks into their tariffs, and buyers will leverage the uncertainty to demand steeper discounts, as Elena Panina pointed out https://t.me/EvPanina/19545. The ultimate objective appears less about supporting Ukraine and more about squeezing Russian hydrocarbons out of the market to boost profits for U.S. producers (the U.S. is now a net energy exporter) and hit energy-importing nations, namely China, India, and last but not least, Europe. This is a massive political gamble for Trump. His political brand is heavily tied to lowering the cost of living and crushing inflation. If H.R. 5334 succeeds in disrupting global energy flows and causes a spike in prices and inflation, the pain will be felt at home as well.

However, this strategy creates a profound diplomatic paradox for the Trump administration. By signing the bill, Trump is positioning himself as the "tough leader" who can grant "exemptions" to restrain a hostile Congress. Keep in mind that Trump and Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet for a summit on September 24 and Trump will likely use the promise of a waiver as leverage. Yet, for strategic powers like China and Russia, the difference between a temporary, revocable presidential waiver and a stable, structural agreement is existential. Relying on the whims of U.S. domestic politics is a vulnerability Beijing is not going to accept.
Knowing that any concession made today could be nullified by a future administration or an entrenched Washington foreign policy establishment, China has little incentive to offer meaningful compromises.
Instead, the threat of secondary sanctions will likely accelerate Beijing’s long-term strategic decoupling from the U.S. financial system.
Ultimately, H.R. 5334 highlights a fatal flaw in U.S. statecraft: the reliance on secondary sanctions as a tool of control. Even if the White House desires a grand bargain to ease global tensions, which is highly debatable, the structural reality of these sanctions ensures that China and Russia will continue to build a parallel, sanctions-resistant economic bloc. @LauraRuHK