President Donald Trump has thrust himself back into the center of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, unveiling a series of bold proposals and candid admissions about the challenges facing peace in Eastern Europe. In a rapid-fire sequence of public statements and policy moves over the weekend, Trump called for NATO to stop buying Russian oil, pressed for steep tariffs on Chinese purchases of Russian petroleum, and signaled his willingness to personally broker direct talks between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Speaking on September 13, 2025, Trump took to his social media platform to outline his latest plan for ending the war. According to BBC, he declared, "The Russia-Ukraine war would end if all NATO countries stopped buying oil from Russia and imposed tariffs of 50% to 100% on China for its purchases of Russian petroleum." The president’s post was both a critique and a call to action for the alliance. He accused NATO members of a tepid commitment to Ukraine, stating, "NATO'S commitment to winning the war has been far less than 100%," and described ongoing purchases of Russian oil by countries like Turkey, Hungary, and Slovakia as "shocking."
Trump’s criticism was pointed: "It greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power, over Russia." The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air corroborates his claim, noting that since 2023, Turkey has been the third largest buyer of Russian oil among NATO members, trailing only China and India. Hungary and Slovakia have also continued their purchases, complicating the alliance’s stance against Moscow.
But Trump’s strategy did not stop at oil. He urged NATO members to slap tariffs of up to 100% on China for buying Russian oil, suggesting that such measures would break what he called China’s "strong control, and even grip, over Russia." He added that these tariffs should be withdrawn if the war ends, positioning economic pressure as both a stick and a carrot. "Powerful tariffs will break that grip," Trump asserted, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. The president has already imposed a 25% import tax on Indian goods related to Russian energy and, as of this year, a total 50% tariff on India, though he hinted that negotiations with Prime Minister Narendra Modi could ease tensions.
Trump’s proposals come amid rising anxiety in Europe. On September 10, multiple Russian drones entered Polish airspace, a move widely seen as provocative given Poland’s NATO membership. The drones were shot down by Polish forces, but the incident raised alarms. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking on September 13, called the incursion "unacceptable and unfortunate and dangerous," according to Reuters. Rubio added, "The question is whether the drones were targeted to go into Poland specifically. If that's the case, that the evidence leads us there, then obviously that would be a highly escalatory move."
Despite the gravity of the incident, Trump downplayed its significance, suggesting the drones’ entry into Poland "could have been a mistake." This more cautious interpretation contrasted with the strong statements from U.S. allies. At an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting on September 12, acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea declared, "America will defend every inch of NATO territory," emphasizing that the drone incursions, intentional or not, "show immense disrespect for good-faith U.S. efforts to bring an end to this conflict." In lockstep, the United Kingdom moved to ban 70 vessels allegedly involved in the transportation of Russian oil and sanctioned 30 individuals and companies, including businesses in China and Turkey, for supplying Russia with weapons components.
Trump’s approach to the conflict is marked by both bravado and frustration. Addressing reporters before boarding Air Force One in Morristown, New Jersey, on September 14, he reflected on the complexity of the situation. As reported by Live Now Fox, Trump admitted, "I want to stop this. And you know, I have stopped seven wars. I thought this (Russia’s war in Ukraine) would be easy for me, but it turned out to be a failure. The hatred between Zelensky and Putin is unfathomable. They hate each other. I think I will still have to speak. We will solve this, one way or another. They hate each other so much that they can’t breathe. So I will have to intervene."
Pressed about the timing of possible peace talks, Trump suggested that a meeting between Zelensky and Putin could take place "relatively soon," adding that the format—whether a formal summit or a lower-profile meeting—was less important than American involvement. "There will be talks – whether you call it a summit or just a meeting, it doesn’t matter. But, likely, I will have to participate. They hate each other so much that they can hardly talk," Trump said, highlighting his belief that only U.S. intervention could break the deadlock.
Trump’s remarks underscore a broader debate about the role of international mediators and the hurdles facing any peace process. According to The New York Times, efforts to bring the warring sides together have repeatedly foundered on issues of ceasefire, security guarantees, political steps, and—perhaps most crucially—mutual trust. Trump’s willingness to personally broker talks is seen by some as a potential catalyst for dialogue, but by others as a risky gambit given the entrenched animosity between Kyiv and Moscow.
Meanwhile, the economic front remains fraught. Earlier this year, the U.S. and China engaged in a tit-for-tat tariff war, with the U.S. imposing tariffs totaling 145% and China responding with 125% on American goods. The resulting trade freeze spooked global markets and forced both sides into negotiations, eventually reducing tariffs to 30% for the U.S. and 10% for China. Still, Trump’s latest proposal to ramp tariffs back up on China—should Beijing continue buying Russian oil—has raised concerns about collateral damage to the U.S. and European economies. The Wall Street Journal notes that such measures could disrupt global supply chains and stoke inflation, even as they aim to squeeze Russia’s war coffers.
In his recent statements, Trump also assigned blame for the ongoing conflict, pointedly excluding President Putin. Instead, he targeted his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, and Ukrainian President Zelensky, for responsibility. This stance has drawn criticism from some in Washington, who argue that it lets Moscow off the hook and risks fracturing the Western front against Russian aggression.
Yet, for all the tough talk and high-stakes maneuvering, the path to peace remains as murky as ever. Crisis negotiation experts cited by CNN emphasize that direct talks between the principals—however difficult—are often a necessary step toward resolution. But the real test will be whether Trump’s proposed interventions can overcome the profound mistrust and competing interests that have kept the war grinding on.
With NATO allies tightening sanctions, Russia flexing its military muscle, and the U.S. president vowing to intervene personally, the stakes have rarely been higher. Whether Trump’s gambit will bring an end to the conflict or simply add another layer of complexity is a question that will keep the world watching closely in the weeks ahead.