China’s foreign ministry on Monday rejected characterizations of its stance on the Ukraine conflict that would force it into a binary choice between Moscow and the West, saying Beijing has consistently pursued “an objective and fair position” and promoted negotiations.

“The majority of countries, including the U.S. and Europe, continue to engage in trade with Russia,” ministry spokesman Lin Jian told reporters at a regular briefing, remarks carried by state media including the Global Times. Lin’s comment came after a statement from the Trump administration this week that framed U.S. and allied support for Ukraine as tantamount to being at war with Russia—a framing that has prompted diplomatic and economic ripples.

China’s response was measured, reiterating long-standing points that Beijing has navigated since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022: call publicly for peace talks, criticize unilateral sanctions, and maintain robust bilateral commerce. Those commercial ties have proven durable. Beijing emerged as Russia’s top trading partner in recent years, with bilateral trade levels reaching record highs even as Western nations tightened sanctions on Moscow’s energy and finance sectors.

That economic reality helps explain Beijing’s posture. Chinese import dependency on Russian energy and raw materials has grown since 2022, and Russian exports to China have provided Moscow with revenue streams that Western measures have aimed to curtail. By emphasizing trade continuity, China signals to domestic and foreign investors that it will protect commercial channels even amid geopolitical disputes.

The diplomatic line has immediate market implications. Investors and traders watch closely for signs that China might face secondary sanctions or supply-chain disruptions that could spill into commodity and currency markets. For Moscow, continued access to China’s market cushions the impact of Western restrictions. For Washington and Brussels, Beijing’s stance complicates efforts to isolate Russia economically and raises strategic questions about leverage and enforcement of export controls.

Policy experts say the exchange highlights a strategic impasse. “Beijing is effectively hedging: it wants to avoid alienating Washington while ensuring economic lifelines to Moscow,” said Amelia Tan, a senior fellow at an Asia economic policy institute. “That forces the U.S. to choose more aggressive financial measures or to accept a multipolar status quo where China remains an economic backstop for Russia.”

The confrontation also underscores longer-term trends toward economic bifurcation. More frequent diplomatic clashes are encouraging parallel markets, alternate payment mechanisms, and regional trade realignments that reduce the effectiveness of unilateral sanctions over time. For policymakers in Washington, the challenge will be calibrating pressure on Moscow without driving neutral or reluctant partners deeper into China’s orbit.

For now, Beijing’s message remains steady: advocate for negotiated settlement while protecting commercial relations. Whether that posture will preserve Beijing’s room for diplomacy or further entrench a split global economic order will hinge on how far the U.S. and its allies are willing to escalate economic measures—and how far China is prepared to shield Moscow economically.