Zelensky heads to Washington as Russia and China harden their anti-sanctions stance—will talks survive?

On May 7, 2026, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Moscow supports China’s decision not to comply with US sanctions, framing unilateral sanctions as illegitimate and “unilateral.” In parallel, Politico reported that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has dispatched Kyiv’s chief negotiator to the United States to meet with Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, signaling a push for fresh, Washington-mediated peace talks. The same day, Zakharova also argued that Zelensky’s stated truce intentions diverge from battlefield actions, reinforcing Moscow’s skepticism about Ukrainian compliance. Separately, Al Jazeera explained that Beijing’s order blocking US sanctions on five oil refineries marks the first invocation of China’s 2021 anti-sanctions law, turning energy compliance into a visible geopolitical lever. Strategically, the cluster shows a three-way contest over the enforcement of Western sanctions and the diplomatic narrative around any ceasefire. Russia benefits from China’s willingness to obstruct US secondary pressure, because it reduces the effectiveness of sanctions targeting energy-linked nodes and gives Moscow more room to sustain external financing and logistics. Ukraine, meanwhile, is attempting to re-open a negotiation channel in Washington, but Moscow is pre-positioning doubt by highlighting alleged non-compliance with truce claims, which can harden negotiating positions and justify continued military posture. The US role appears as mediator and agenda-setter, yet the simultaneous anti-sanctions escalation suggests Washington may face a widening “sanctions coalition gap” that complicates leverage-based bargaining. Austria’s reported expulsion of three Russian diplomats adds a parallel diplomatic pressure track, implying that even outside the battlefield, European states are being pulled into tit-for-tat cycles. Market implications center on energy sanctions enforcement and the risk premium for compliance-sensitive refining capacity. China’s blocking of US sanctions on five oil refineries implies a potential reduction in immediate disruption risk for crude processing and product flows tied to those facilities, which can dampen volatility in refined-product expectations and related shipping demand. The sanctions dispute also raises the probability of fragmented enforcement across jurisdictions, which typically increases costs for insurers, freight operators, and counterparties navigating “who is compliant where” rules. In FX and rates terms, heightened sanctions uncertainty tends to support safe-haven demand and can pressure currencies of states most exposed to energy trade rerouting, while also affecting European sovereign spreads if diplomatic retaliation escalates. While the articles do not provide numeric price moves, the direction is toward higher geopolitical risk premia for energy logistics and a more complex sanctions transmission mechanism. Next, investors and policymakers should watch whether the Washington meetings produce concrete frameworks—such as verifiable ceasefire parameters, monitoring mechanisms, and sequencing of sanctions relief or humanitarian corridors. A key trigger is whether Moscow and Kyiv publicly align on truce verification steps; Zakharova’s emphasis on “words versus actions” suggests that any ambiguity will be exploited to delay or narrow talks. On the sanctions front, the invocation of China’s 2021 anti-sanctions law is a signal that Beijing may expand similar measures beyond the initial five refineries, so monitoring further Chinese regulatory actions and US responses is critical. Finally, the “painful response” to Austria’s diplomat expulsions is a near-term diplomatic escalation indicator; if it leads to additional expulsions or restrictions, it could widen the European diplomatic front and raise compliance costs for firms operating across affected jurisdictions.

Geopolitical Implications

• 01

  A widening sanctions-enforcement gap: China’s legal countermeasures reduce the leverage of US secondary sanctions, complicating any bargaining that relies on tightening energy pressure.

• 02

  Negotiation risk premium: Moscow’s “words vs actions” framing can narrow the space for verifiable ceasefire terms and delay sequencing of any sanctions relief.

• 03

  European diplomatic front: Austria–Russia expulsions suggest sanctions and security disputes are spreading into broader EU coordination and retaliation cycles.

• 04

  Energy as statecraft: shielding refining assets turns industrial policy and legal instruments into geopolitical bargaining chips.

Key Signals

• —Whether the US meetings yield a written or operational ceasefire framework with verification and timelines.
• —Any further Chinese regulatory actions expanding anti-sanctions coverage beyond the initial five refineries.
• —US counter-moves: additional sanctions designations, enforcement guidance, or legal actions targeting intermediaries.
• —Austria–Russia retaliation steps: additional expulsions, restrictions on diplomatic access, or new legal/asset measures.