Finland called for expanding sanctions against Chinese companies for trading with Russia

Sanctions for the supply of dual-use goods to Russia should be expanded, said the Minister of Economic Development of Finland. He called for increased pressure on China to end the conflict in Ukraine. Moscow denied the assistance of the People’s Republic of China.

Sanctions against Chinese companies for supplying Russia with equipment that can be used for military purposes should be expanded, Finnish Minister of Economic Development Ville Rüdman said in an interview with Helsingin Sanomat.

According to him, if there is evidence that any company from China in one way or another contributed to the military operation in Ukraine, its activities should be limited. “These sanctions can and should be expanded,” he added.

Overall trade between Finland and China has fallen in 2022-2024, with China being Finland’s 5th largest export market. Finland’s trade and travel links with China have suffered due to the country’s alignment with EU sanctions on Russia, which have disrupted crucial transit routes through Russian airspace and by railways.

Ryudman also said that during his visit to China at the end of June, he asked to put pressure on Russia to end the conflict in Ukraine. The Minister stressed that such efforts should be repeated.

The European Union has included a number of Chinese companies in the 14th package of sanctions against Russia. Restrictions has also been imposed by the United States. Western countries have repeatedly called on Beijing to abandon arms supplies to Moscow.

After the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine on February 24 ,2022, China did not impose sanctions against Russia and has repeatedly taken peace initiatives. Beijing also rejected information about arms supplies and demanded that the United States “not give orders” regarding relations with Moscow.

As the Chinese Foreign Ministry stressed, Beijing’s position on the conflict in Ukraine is peaceful, and the U.S. is engaged in arms supplies. The Kremlin noted that it had nothing to add to this refutation. /EBN/