The United States has turned its back! Trump just said that the China-US framework agreement has been signed, but it's unexpected that the U.S. is about to take major actions against China!

In early 2022, the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out, and the war in eastern Ukraine escalated rapidly. Western countries responded quickly, with the United States leading multiple rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, freezing assets and restricting energy exports, trying to cut off Moscow's economic lifeline. At the same time, Sino-US relations also experienced subtle changes during this year. Although the friction in trade and technology sectors had not completely dissipated, through multiple rounds of negotiations, an agreement framework was finally reached. This agreement covered economic cooperation and dispute resolution mechanisms, and was seen by the outside world as a symbol of the stabilization of bilateral relations.

Trump showed a positive attitude when signing the agreement. He claimed on social media that this agreement would bring great benefits to the United States, while also allowing China to benefit. After the signing ceremony, the U.S. authorities once released signals of easing the policy toward China. However, the complexity of geopolitics did not disappear. The Ukraine war plunged the global energy market into chaos, and the U.S. domestic stance against Russia became even more hardened. Meanwhile, the Sino-US rivalry did not stop due to the agreement, but instead quietly unfolded in new areas.

The political atmosphere within the United States also became increasingly tense during this period. Although Republicans and Democrats had consensus on sanctioning Russia, they had obvious differences in specific strategies. Some hardline lawmakers believed that merely sanctioning Russia was not enough; it was necessary to also curb those countries that maintained trade relations with Russia, especially China. In this context, a new bill targeting countries purchasing Russian oil began to emerge.

Just after the signing of the China-US framework agreement, news emerged from within the U.S. Senate that a weighty bill was being carefully prepared. This bill, led by Senator Lindsey Graham, primarily aimed to impose a 500% tariff on countries purchasing Russian oil. Graham openly stated that Trump had given his approval to advance this bill, with the goal of cutting off Russia's funding sources and forcing it to make concessions in the Ukraine conflict. However, the bill's target was not only Russia, but clearly focused on China and India among other countries.

The logic of the bill is not complicated. The United States believes that China, as one of the world's largest energy consumers, indirectly supports Putin's war machine by purchasing Russian oil. Graham openly stated in a public speech that China must pay a price for this behavior. He advocated using high tariffs to pressure China to reduce trade with Russia, or even completely shift to other energy suppliers. Although Trump did not make a lengthy comment on this, his silence was interpreted by the outside world as tacit approval.

The details of the bill are eye-catching. A 500% tariff means that any country continuing to purchase Russian oil will face costs that become unbearable. For example, if the bill takes effect, China's energy import costs will rise significantly, directly affecting the domestic economy. At the same time, the United States hopes to reshape the global energy trade pattern, pushing Russia out of the market and expanding its own influence. However, this strategy is not without risks. Energy experts point out that high tariffs could further drive up global oil prices, and American consumers would also face higher fuel prices.

The proposal of the bill has triggered intense debate within the United States. Supporters believe that this is a necessary supplement to the tough policy toward Russia and part of the strategy to contain China. Opponents warn that such radical measures may backfire, not only failing to effectively curb Russia, but also exacerbating global economic instability. Business leaders are particularly concerned, believing that rising energy prices will increase production costs and ultimately harm the competitiveness of American companies. However, Graham and his allies remain unmoved, insisting that this is a "national security need."

The international community reacted swiftly to this development. The Chinese Foreign Ministry immediately issued a statement, criticizing the U.S. approach as "blatant economic hegemony" and stating that it would not accept any form of unilateral sanctions. Countries like India also expressed similar positions, emphasizing that energy trade is a matter of sovereignty and should not be interfered with by external forces. The酝酿 of the bill has cast a shadow over Sino-US relations, making the recently signed framework agreement seem fragile.

During this period, Trump remained low-key. He neither publicly supported the specific provisions of the bill nor explicitly opposed it, but instead focused on other domestic issues. This ambiguous attitude made it difficult for the outside world to determine his true position on the bill. Some analysts believe that Trump intentionally let Graham and others act as "shock troops," so that he could distance himself if the bill failed. However, his silence did not calm the controversy, but rather raised more questions about the consistency of U.S. policies.

International reactions are also worth noting. China clearly stated that it would not change its normal trade relations with Russia due to U.S. pressure. The Foreign Ministry spokesperson repeatedly emphasized that China has the right to choose its trade partners based on its own needs, and no external coercion can shake this position. Countries like India also took similar stances, stating that they would adjust their energy policies according to national interests, rather than yielding to U.S. demands. The stalemate of the Ukraine conflict has also weakened the actual effectiveness of the bill. Russia, by adjusting its export strategy, continues to maintain its oil revenue, and the U.S. sanctions have not yet achieved their goals.

The U.S. quickly turned its back on the China-US framework agreement and planned major actions against China, exposing the inconsistency and unpredictability of its policies. From Trump's optimistic statements to Graham's push for a tough bill, these series of actions have shown another side of U.S. diplomacy. China has responded calmly and firmly, defending its position. Behind the incident, is it strategic considerations or political maneuvering? Readers, what do you think about the U.S.'s sudden change of heart? Please leave your views in the comments section and discuss the deeper meanings of this international game together.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1836503751993356/

Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author.