On September 13, 2025, US President Donald Trump delivered a forceful message to the world’s most powerful military alliance, urging NATO nations to unite in a bold economic front against Russia and China. Trump’s letter, shared in a post on his Truth Social platform and widely reported by outlets like Reuters and South China Morning Post, called on all NATO members to immediately stop buying Russian oil and to jointly impose major sanctions on Moscow in a bid to end the war in Ukraine.
“I am ready to do major sanctions on Russia when all NATO nations have agreed, and started, to do the same thing, and when all NATO nations stop buying oil from Russia,” Trump declared, according to Reuters. This public ultimatum marks an escalation in Washington’s pressure campaign, as the war in Ukraine grinds on with mounting costs for civilians and governments alike.
But Trump’s demands didn’t stop with Russia. In the same breath, he proposed that NATO as a bloc slap tariffs of 50 percent to 100 percent on China, which he accused of having “a strong control, and even grip, over Russia.” According to Trump, these “powerful tariffs will break that grip,” potentially altering the strategic calculus in Moscow and Beijing alike. He further stated, “I believe that (NATO sanctions on Russia), plus NATO, as a group, placing 50 percent to 100 percent tariffs on China, to be fully withdrawn after the war with Russia and Ukraine is ended, will also be of great help in ending this deadly, but ridiculous, war.”
Trump’s approach is not without precedent. Over the past year, he has repeatedly threatened Russia with additional sanctions, especially after high-profile attacks in Ukraine. However, as Arab News noted, Kyiv has grown frustrated with the lack of follow-through, as the US president has yet to enact new penalties even after Russia’s largest aerial barrage against Ukraine. Trump’s latest proposal, however, hinges on a united front: “Anyway, I am ready to ‘go’ when you are. Just say when?” he challenged NATO leaders.
Central to Trump’s argument is the belief that NATO’s continued import of Russian oil undermines the alliance’s bargaining power. “NATO nations’ purchase of Russian oil is shocking,” he said, according to Arab News, “and it weakens their bargaining power over Moscow.” Trump’s message came just weeks after his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska in August 2025—a summit that drew global attention but produced little visible progress toward peace.
Trump’s call for coordinated action has broad implications for global energy markets and diplomatic relations. The US president has already imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian goods, citing India’s continued imports of Russian oil. Yet, as Reuters points out, he has not yet taken similar action against China, despite Beijing’s growing economic ties with Moscow. Trump’s latest threat to target China with sweeping tariffs signals a willingness to escalate, but only if NATO moves in lockstep.
“If the 32-member alliance does as I say, the war will end quickly,” Trump insisted. “If not, you are just wasting my time.” The message is blunt—some might even say combative—but it reflects a growing impatience in Washington with what Trump sees as European foot-dragging on sanctions enforcement.
China, for its part, has reacted with predictable indignation. The Chinese Embassy in London lashed out after Britain sanctioned three Chinese firms for allegedly aiding Russia’s military, accusing the UK of flouting international law. This diplomatic spat underscores the broader tensions at play, as Western governments grapple with how to curb Russia’s war machine without sparking wider economic turmoil.
Trump’s assertion that China holds significant sway over Russia is not without basis. In recent years, Beijing and Moscow have deepened their strategic partnership, holding high-profile summits and expanding economic cooperation. China has become a major market for Russian energy exports, especially as Western buyers have sought alternatives. But critics argue that Trump’s proposed tariffs could backfire, driving up costs for consumers and risking retaliation from Beijing.
European leaders face a thorny dilemma. On one hand, cutting off Russian oil would strike at a key source of funding for the Kremlin’s war effort. On the other, many NATO nations remain heavily dependent on Russian energy, making a sudden embargo both politically and economically perilous. Trump’s demand for unity may be easier said than done, especially as winter approaches and energy prices remain volatile.
Meanwhile, the prospect of broad tariffs on China introduces another layer of complexity. As the world’s second-largest economy, China is deeply embedded in global supply chains. A coordinated tariff regime by NATO could provoke significant blowback, not only from Beijing but also from businesses and consumers across Europe and North America. Some analysts warn that such a move could trigger a broader trade war, with unpredictable consequences for the global economy.
Despite these risks, Trump remains adamant that only a united, aggressive approach can bring Russia to heel. “China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia, and these powerful tariffs will break that grip,” he reiterated. The logic is simple: squeeze both Russia and its key backers until the cost of war outweighs the benefits.
Yet, as history has shown, sanctions and tariffs are blunt instruments. Their success depends not only on their severity but also on the willingness of allies to enforce them consistently. Trump’s insistence on an all-or-nothing strategy—no US sanctions without full NATO participation—reflects both his transactional style and a desire to avoid unilateral American sacrifices.
For now, the ball is in NATO’s court. Will European leaders heed Trump’s call, risking short-term pain for the prospect of a quicker end to the war in Ukraine? Or will they balk at the potential fallout, preferring a more gradual approach? The coming weeks may prove decisive, as diplomats weigh their options and the conflict in Ukraine grinds on.
In the end, Trump’s gambit is as much about alliance politics as it is about economic warfare. By tying American action to NATO unity, he is forcing European leaders to confront the uncomfortable realities of their energy dependence—and their leverage, or lack thereof, over Moscow and Beijing. Whether this high-stakes strategy will succeed remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the pressure on NATO, and on the world’s economic order, is only intensifying.
