By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a speech at the UN General Assembly, former US President Donald Trump called on European nations to immediately cease purchasing Russian energy, claiming they are “funding the war against themselves.” Trump argued that these purchases, along with those made by China and India, are prolonging the conflict in Ukraine. He stated the US is prepared to impose powerful tariffs to stop the bloodshed but emphasized that European cooperation on the same measures is essential for their effectiveness. Trump plans to discuss this issue with European leaders, despite Hungary’s resistance to abandoning Russian energy resources.
Read the original article here
Trump at UN: NATO states “funding war against themselves” by buying Russian energy.
Alright, let’s talk about this. Apparently, there’s a sentiment – and a rather strong one – that Trump, during a speech at the UN, pointed out a glaring issue: NATO states, particularly in Europe, were essentially funding the war in Ukraine by continuing to buy Russian energy. And, frankly, it seems like a lot of people, regardless of their feelings about the man himself, are agreeing with him. It’s one of those moments where even a broken clock is right, as the saying goes.
The core argument here is pretty simple. While these nations were simultaneously supporting Ukraine with aid, they were also lining Russia’s pockets with billions of dollars through the purchase of oil and gas. Essentially, by funding Russia’s energy, they were fueling the very war they were trying to stop. The implications are significant, as it directly contradicts the stated goals of many NATO members to isolate Russia and support Ukraine’s defense. The idea is that if you want to truly cripple an enemy, you don’t keep handing them money. Cut off the funds, and you cut off their ability to wage war. Simple in theory, complex in practice.
Of course, it’s not quite as straightforward as it seems. The EU, for instance, has made efforts to reduce its reliance on Russian energy. Some countries have been more proactive than others, with the most obvious example being France, which got its act together a long time ago and has been less reliant. This is partly because they understood the dangers of dependence and took it seriously. Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things, progress has been slow. Some countries are in a bind, reliant on Russian energy and not quite able to switch sources.
The thing is, Trump didn’t exactly come up with this analysis overnight. Plenty of people were talking about this problem early in the war, although they were ignored. Some people suggest this may have been a calculated move to push for US energy. They point out that it isn’t necessarily a selfless act. There’s the suggestion that the ultimate goal is to benefit American oil producers and give the US leverage over European nations. The subtext is clear: “Don’t buy Russian oil. Buy US and Middle Eastern petroleum. That way, I can profit.” Of course, the irony isn’t lost on anyone that the US still buys Russian oil through a backdoor deal. The issue is that it is so easy to be critical. It is much harder to develop alternative energy sources.
Now, it is important to acknowledge the political complexities here. Trump’s history with figures like Viktor Orbán of Hungary, who is seen as friendly to Putin, is important to consider. Many suggest that Trump’s silence or ambiguity regarding these countries is a strategic move. It’s the obvious thing to do, but it isn’t very palatable. Some people even believe he has a hidden agenda or a conspiracy theory.
Ultimately, though, even if Trump is motivated by self-interest or has other ulterior motives, the central point remains valid. Buying Russian energy does, indeed, fund the war. And a lot of people are feeling the sting of this. There are political moves being made, and some countries, like France, seem to be doing all they can to avoid the problem. As we all know, nothing is that easy.