On Saturday, September 13, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a forceful call to action for NATO allies, urging them to halt all purchases of Russian oil and to slap China with tariffs as high as 100% for its continued imports of Russian petroleum. Trump’s demands, delivered via his social media platform Truth Social, come at a tense moment in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict and have sent ripples through diplomatic and economic circles across the globe.
Trump, never one to mince words, declared, “China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia, and these powerful Tariffs will break that grip.” According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, since 2023, NATO member Turkey has been the third largest buyer of Russian oil, trailing only China and India, both non-NATO countries. Other NATO members, including Hungary and Slovakia, have also continued to import Russian crude—moves Trump described as “shocking.”
“NATO’s commitment to winning the war has been far less than 100%,” Trump wrote, expressing frustration that some alliance members’ ongoing purchases of Russian oil undercut efforts to pressure Moscow. “It greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power, over Russia.” For Trump, the solution is clear: a united front that bans Russian oil and imposes steep tariffs on China, with the aim of tightening the screws on the Kremlin’s energy revenues and, by extension, its military campaign in Ukraine.
Trump’s proposal goes even further, suggesting that tariffs between 50% and 100% be imposed on Chinese imports as long as Beijing continues to buy Russian petroleum. He argued that these measures “would also be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR.” The President added that if Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine—launched in 2022—were to end, the tariffs could be withdrawn. “China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia,” he reiterated, “and powerful tariffs will break that grip.”
The former president’s remarks arrive on the heels of a significant escalation: just days ago, Russia launched multiple drones into Polish airspace, a move that triggered the activation of Article 4 of the NATO treaty. Poland responded by shooting down the drones, underscoring the seriousness of the incursion. Article 4 provides for joint consultations among NATO allies “whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.” In response, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced the launch of the “Eastern Sentry” programme, designed to deter further Russian provocations and show solidarity with Poland, a front-line NATO state.
Trump’s approach to the conflict has been characteristically combative and, in some ways, unorthodox. While he has repeatedly promised that he could bring an end to the war—asserting that the invasion would not have happened had he been president at the time—he has yet to deliver a concrete path to peace. “This is not Trump’s war (it would never have started if I was president), it is Biden’s and Zelenskyy’s war. I am only here to help stop it, and save thousands of Russian and Ukrainian lives,” he wrote on Truth Social.
Last month, in a high-profile but ultimately fruitless diplomatic effort, Trump hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska for talks aimed at brokering a ceasefire and laying the groundwork for peace. The meeting, however, failed to yield any tangible progress. Despite the setback, Trump remains adamant that he can end the conflict, if only the right economic levers are pulled.
Trump’s rhetoric has not been limited to NATO and China. The President has already imposed a 25% import tax on goods from India in response to its continued purchases of Russian energy products. The move was intended as a warning shot, signaling that the United States is willing to target even its own partners if they undermine Western sanctions against Russia.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is pressing Trump to support a bill that would toughen sanctions further. Lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern that the current patchwork of sanctions and embargoes is not enough to force Moscow’s hand. Some in Washington argue that without a united and comprehensive strategy—including a full embargo on Russian energy and coordinated tariffs on countries that help Russia circumvent sanctions—the war could drag on indefinitely.
The debate over how best to pressure Russia has exposed divisions within the NATO alliance. While the United States and some European allies have pushed for maximum pressure, others—particularly those with heavy energy dependencies on Russian oil—have been more cautious. Turkey, Hungary, and Slovakia, for example, have continued to import Russian oil, citing economic necessity and energy security concerns. This divergence has, in Trump’s view, undermined NATO’s leverage and given Moscow room to maneuver.
Trump’s critics, however, argue that his focus on economic measures ignores the complex realities on the ground in Ukraine. They point out that Russia’s economy, while battered by sanctions, has adapted in part by deepening ties with China, India, and other non-Western partners. Moreover, some analysts warn that sweeping tariffs on China could trigger a trade war, with unpredictable consequences for global markets and supply chains.
In his latest post, Trump placed the blame for the war squarely on his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, notably omitting Russian President Vladimir Putin, who ordered the invasion. “This is not Trump’s war... it is Biden’s and Zelenskyy’s war,” he insisted, framing himself as a would-be peacemaker rather than a partisan actor. His supporters argue that only a leader willing to take bold, unconventional steps can bring the conflict to an end, while detractors see his approach as risky and potentially destabilizing.
As the war grinds on, the question of how to balance economic pressure, military deterrence, and diplomatic engagement remains as contentious as ever. NATO’s new “Eastern Sentry” initiative is meant to reassure allies like Poland and send a message to Moscow that further incursions will not go unanswered. Yet the alliance’s unity is being tested not only by Russian aggression but also by internal disagreements over energy policy and sanctions enforcement.
Trump’s latest salvo has reignited debate over the West’s strategy in Ukraine and the broader struggle to contain Russian influence. Whether his proposed oil embargo and tariffs will gain traction—or simply deepen rifts among allies—remains to be seen. For now, the world watches as leaders grapple with the high stakes and hard choices of a conflict that shows no sign of ending soon.
The coming weeks may reveal whether Trump’s economic pressure campaign can change the calculus in Moscow and Beijing—or if the war’s grim status quo will persist. Either way, the choices made now will echo far beyond the battlefields of Ukraine, shaping the future of the transatlantic alliance and the global order it seeks to uphold.