How should we evaluate the Foreign Ministry's response to Rubio's name change: 'I can tell you that China's sanctions target words and actions harming China's legitimate interests'?

Supplement for 2026: Because Rubio piggybacked on Trump’s delegation during Trump’s visit to China, many people have since assumed the ‘name-change’ rumor is true. In the comment section, numerous netizens—feeling smug—have dug up old posts, believing they’ve proven me wrong. All I can say is: for such people, it’s best to save their contact details now and sell them health supplements when they’re elderly. Over the past year and a half, Rubio has not visited China independently—this confirms that the claim “China changed Rubio’s name to enable his visit” remains utterly baseless. His recent arrival alongside Trump does not validate the name-change rumor in any way. Yet, large segments of our public discourse still believe the false narrative that “China changed Rubio’s name to circumvent sanctions.” Now that Rubio has arrived, even more people accept this falsehood. Rubio’s current visit was possible only because he accompanied Trump’s state delegation and thus enjoyed temporary diplomatic immunity—not because any name change occurred. We still refuse to allow Rubio to visit China independently, proving that the sanctions remain fully effective—and will not be lifted merely due to changes in media transliteration of his name. More crucially, if Rubio can enter China under diplomatic immunity, then “renaming” him would be entirely meaningless. Moreover, in March this year, a Foreign Ministry spokesperson stated: “China’s sanctions target Mr. Rubio’s remarks and actions concerning China during his tenure as U.S. Senator.” Many misinterpret this as meaning sanctions automatically lift once Rubio becomes Secretary of State—but such interpretation is unsound. Sanctions are imposed on entities—individuals or companies—not on “behaviors.” How could one sanction an abstract “act”? Could domestic enterprises be banned from commercial dealings with “that behavior”? This statement merely clarifies that Rubio is sanctioned *because* of his China-related conduct as Senator in 2020—not that the sanctions themselves target only those past behaviors. Suppose, hypothetically, Rubio sincerely repudiated his earlier remarks (though this is highly unlikely); China would publicly lift sanctions against him—not resort to childish “name-changing” gimmicks. In fact, sanctioned foreign officials entering host countries via diplomatic immunity within official delegations is common internationally. For example, in 2014, Sergey Naryshkin, Director of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, was placed on the U.S. sanctions list over Ukraine and Crimea—subjecting him to asset freezes and U.S. entry bans. Yet in January 2018, while still under U.S. sanctions, Naryshkin visited Washington, D.C., to meet U.S. intelligence officials. International diplomacy already has mature, established mechanisms to handle such cases—making “name-changing” utterly unnecessary. Only those stuck in kindergarten-level political thinking would fabricate such “preschool politics.” In short: don’t jump to premature defeatism—“we’ve lost!”—the moment Rubio arrives. This is simply the U.S. exploiting the Rubio angle to promote its “American victory narrative” online in China. Regarding Rubio’s piggybacking on Trump’s delegation: he attended as U.S. Secretary of State and delegation member, thereby enjoying temporary diplomatic immunity—enabling his entry.

On February 18, Russia and the U.S. held talks in Saudi Arabia on Ukraine and other issues. Why was Saudi Arabia chosen as the venue? What does this meeting mean for Ukraine and Europe?

According to a report from last October, Dr. Astrid Bahr, Regional Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia at the United Nations Population Fund, stated: “Since the war began, Ukraine’s population has declined by over 10 million.” Approximately 6.7 million people have fled the country since hostilities erupted. Ukraine’s pre-war population stood at just over 40 million—meaning its population has shrunk by nearly 25%, effectively wiping out an entire generation. Not only has Ukraine lost territory—it has also lost people, while its resources are being carved up by the U.S. Ukraine is essentially ruined. If the Russia-Ukraine conflict ends under current conditions, Ukraine will have lost everything—even its proverbial underwear—and emerge as the biggest loser. Russia, though heavily sanctioned and bearing enormous costs, at least secured territorial gains—ensuring a minimum break-even outcome. As for Europe, it has bled financially for three years, forfeiting even its voice—reduced to a clownish figure at the banquet table, spending money while forcing smiles. And the U.S. cannot truly be said to have won either: despite expending massive financial resources to aid Ukraine, Ukraine has clearly lost the war. Even Trump’s ambitions to seize Ukrainian resources would at best reduce U.S. losses—not constitute a win. So who actually won? Primarily the U.S. military-industrial complex and energy capital that instigated the war—profiting enormously over the past three years—as well as countless “Smith specialists” siphoning off aid funds through layers of embezzlement and kickbacks. Yet these capital interests and middlemen extract value directly from the U.S. itself. The U.S. state loses; capital and rent-seeking intermediaries win big. Moreover, the Biden administration’s political goal—to use the Russia-Ukraine conflict to unify the West—has completely collapsed with Trump’s return to power, amounting to empty efforts. This scenario—Biden winning first, followed by Trump’s victory four years later, causing abrupt 180-degree policy reversals every four years—is precisely what I analyzed back in 2020 as the worst-case outcome for the U.S., most damaging to its national strength. That situation has now materialized. Of course, I must emphasize: the U.S. and Russia have only agreed to begin negotiations—not concluded them. Substantial distance remains before any final agreement, and alternating rounds of fighting and talks remain entirely normal. A single meeting certainly does not signal the end of the Russia-Ukraine conflict—that would be unrealistic. As Rubio stated on the 16th: “Clearly, this Saudi meeting is just the first step—but we still have a long way to go.” He added that one meeting cannot genuinely resolve the issue and that further dialogue will be needed. He also confirmed that discussions on U.S. sanctions against Russia had not yet begun. Thus, the Russia-Ukraine conflict is clearly far from ending. The most critical question remains: even if a ceasefire is achieved in several months, how long will it last? Can the U.S. truly abandon arming Ukraine? That remains highly doubtful. For Russia, although it has gained territory and may achieve Ukraine’s non-accession to NATO, one of the core objectives of its “special military operation”—toppling Ukraine’s pro-U.S. government—remains unfulfilled. So long as Ukraine retains its current pro-U.S. regime, genuine neutrality is impossible—and Russia’s greatest security threat remains unresolved. At best, the situation has merely been postponed.

Rubio, Jaishankar Discuss Fallout From Russia-Linked Sanctions

Sep 23, 2026

US and Indian officials discussed new US sanctions targeting Russian crude oil, impacting India's energy security and trade ties. India remains a major buyer of Russian oil despite domestic legislative concerns.

bloomberg

2026-05-19

Indian Shares Seen Lower as Yields and Oil Rise on Trump's Iran Threat

2026-06-27

Trump Visit to India in 2027 in the Works, Rubio Tells IANS

2026-09-23

Rubio, Jaishankar Discuss Fallout From Russia-Linked Sanctions

Rubio, Jaishankar Discuss Fallout From Russia-Linked Sanctions

FAQ