Why is Donald Trump asking NATO to stop buying Russian oil and impose tariffs on China in 2025?

United States President Donald Trump has revived his hardline economic strategy with a bold new call: NATO members must immediately stop buying Russian oil, and simultaneously slap 50 to 100 percent tariffs on China. In return, Trump says the United States will be ready to implement what he describes as “major sanctions” against Russia. The move is being framed by the Trump administration as a last-resort effort to cut off the Kremlin’s war funding and pressure China to stop economically supporting Moscow.

In a statement posted to his Truth Social platform on September 13, 2025, Trump sharply criticized certain NATO member states—naming Turkey, Hungary, and Slovakia—for continuing to purchase Russian crude despite the war in Ukraine. He called their actions “shocking” and accused them of undermining NATO’s ability to economically isolate Russia. The former president claimed that China’s ongoing purchase of discounted Russian petroleum is keeping Vladimir Putin’s war machine alive and emphasized that only by “breaking that grip” can the conflict be brought to a close.

This development comes more than three years into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and amid an evolving geopolitical chessboard where energy, sanctions, and trade policy have become central instruments of international diplomacy.

What exactly does Trump’s 2025 strategy propose and how does it condition U.S. sanctions on NATO and China actions?

At the heart of Trump’s 2025 proposal lies a conditional strategy. He is demanding that NATO countries must first entirely cut off their purchases of Russian oil. Alongside this embargo, they must also impose tariffs ranging from 50 to 100 percent on China, specifically targeting goods linked to Beijing’s ongoing purchases of Russian petroleum. According to Trump, these tariffs would be lifted the moment the war in Ukraine concludes, though he did not clarify what constitutes a definitive end to hostilities.

Importantly, Trump’s statement marks a departure from the current status quo, in which many Western sanctions on Russia remain in place, but enforcement has been partial and fragmented. The U.S. Treasury recently encouraged G7 and EU allies to go further by imposing “meaningful tariffs” on both China and India over their continued trade with Russia. India has already faced increased duties from the U.S., with tariffs reaching as high as 50 percent on certain categories of goods, following revelations that it was re-exporting refined Russian oil products.

While Trump has not yet imposed new unilateral sanctions on China related to oil, his latest rhetoric strongly suggests that such tariffs are under consideration. Analysts say the proposed 100 percent import duties would mark a major escalation in the ongoing trade tensions between Washington and Beijing, effectively weaponizing tariffs as an indirect instrument of war pressure.

Can NATO nations realistically comply with this plan given energy dependencies and EU trade law?

Full NATO compliance appears unlikely in the near term. While many NATO members have already reduced their dependence on Russian oil since 2022, a complete embargo remains elusive. Turkey continues to be a significant importer of Russian crude, both for domestic consumption and refining. Hungary has defended its oil imports on the grounds of domestic energy security, relying on the southern leg of the Druzhba pipeline. Slovakia, too, cites infrastructure constraints and long-term contracts as reasons for continued Russian energy imports.

Further complicating matters is the EU’s trade architecture. For NATO members who are also part of the European Union, trade policy is governed by EU institutions, not individual national governments. The imposition of 50 to 100 percent tariffs on China would require unanimous approval at the EU level, and it would likely face legal scrutiny under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and existing bilateral trade treaties. European Commission officials have already expressed concerns that such tariffs could provoke retaliatory actions from China, destabilizing global supply chains and harming European industries.

Infrastructure challenges also loom large. Many countries in Central and Eastern Europe remain dependent on Russian pipeline infrastructure, and alternative supply routes or sources of oil would take significant time and capital to implement. According to industry analysts, these logistics issues make a near-term, full NATO-wide embargo highly improbable.

What would be the geopolitical and market consequences if Trump’s plan is implemented?

Should Trump’s proposal be fully adopted, the geopolitical consequences could be profound. Russia’s energy exports represent one of its last remaining sources of international revenue and foreign currency reserves. An all-NATO embargo, coupled with heavy Chinese tariff penalties, could dramatically slash the Kremlin’s income and accelerate its fiscal crisis. This, in theory, would restrict Russia’s ability to finance its war operations in Ukraine, potentially leading to internal political pressure on the Putin regime.

However, the risks of this strategy are equally significant. Imposing 100 percent tariffs on China would likely trigger swift retaliation from Beijing, potentially affecting critical imports in sectors like electronics, machinery, pharmaceuticals, and renewable energy components. It could also harm U.S. allies who are deeply enmeshed in Chinese supply chains. In short, the economic backlash could be global and intense.

From a market perspective, a NATO-wide Russian oil embargo could drive up global energy prices, especially in the winter months when European heating demand peaks. The disruption in supply would place upward pressure on Brent crude, which has already seen speculative volatility in 2025 due to geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and uncertainty in Chinese industrial demand.

Tariffs on China would increase input costs for Western manufacturers, leading to downstream price hikes in consumer goods. Inflationary pressures could resurface across Europe and North America, potentially complicating monetary policy decisions at the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank.

How are China, India, and key NATO countries reacting to Trump’s 2025 proposal?

China’s response has been swift and unequivocal. The Chinese government issued a formal statement warning against what it called “unilateral economic coercion” and condemned any attempt to use trade policy as a geopolitical weapon. Chinese trade officials emphasized that Beijing’s purchases of Russian oil are legal and in line with its sovereign energy needs. Privately, sources within China’s Ministry of Commerce have hinted at retaliatory tariffs and possible import restrictions on Western tech firms if the U.S. and its allies move forward with Trump’s proposal.

India finds itself in a delicate position. The country continues to import Russian crude, albeit at lower volumes than in 2023, and has been re-exporting some refined products to Europe. The imposition of a 50 percent U.S. tariff earlier this year has already created friction between New Delhi and Washington. Indian officials have expressed concern that Trump’s strategy, if executed fully, could compromise India’s domestic energy affordability and derail its economic growth.

Among NATO members, reactions are mixed. Poland and the Baltic states are likely to support the plan in principle, as they have consistently advocated for maximum pressure on Russia. Western European countries such as Germany, France, and Italy are more cautious, with leaders privately questioning the feasibility and legality of high tariffs on China. The UK has not made any public commitment, but officials in London are reportedly exploring the impact of partial tariffs or sector-specific measures instead of blanket duties.

How are investors and institutions interpreting this escalation in trade-energy policy?

Institutional sentiment suggests a cautious but rising concern around inflation, supply chain fragility, and sector-specific exposure. Energy companies with diversified supply chains, such as ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies, are likely to benefit from any rise in oil prices that results from a NATO-wide embargo. Shipping companies and oilfield services providers could also see upside.

Conversely, multinational manufacturers heavily dependent on Chinese intermediate goods are facing bearish analyst sentiment. U.S. firms in the consumer electronics and auto sectors—particularly those with tight margins and just-in-time logistics—may come under pressure. On Wall Street, equity strategists are warning that if these tariffs go from rhetoric to reality, they could shave 0.5 to 1 percent off global GDP growth projections for 2026.

Buy-side analysts are cautiously rotating out of consumer discretionary stocks with high China exposure and into energy, defense, and logistics. Hedge funds are also increasing their long positions in Brent crude and heating oil futures, betting on short-term supply shocks. Fixed-income traders are pricing in higher inflation expectations, with forward rate curves indicating a less aggressive path of rate cuts in 2026.

Could this new strategy actually accelerate the end of the war in Ukraine?

Trump’s underlying argument is that cutting off Russia’s oil revenue and pressuring China to stop acting as a lifeline would economically strangle Moscow and force a negotiated settlement. There is historical precedent for sanctions accelerating conflict resolution—such as apartheid-era South Africa or the Iran nuclear negotiations—but also examples where economic isolation only hardened resolve, such as North Korea or Cuba.

In the case of Russia, energy revenues remain vital, but the Kremlin has grown adept at re-routing exports, using ghost fleets, shadow banks, and non-Western financial systems. While a full NATO embargo would be disruptive, its long-term effectiveness depends on global enforcement and the ability to prevent leakage through third-party actors like India or UAE. Moreover, if China continues to act as a financial backstop, the effectiveness of even severe sanctions may be diluted.

That said, the symbolic power of a united NATO front could have diplomatic impact. It would send a message that the West is willing to absorb economic pain in pursuit of a strategic goal. The more NATO appears fractured or half-committed, the less likely Moscow is to see economic leverage as a serious threat.