By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On September 13th, former U.S. President Donald Trump stated he would impose “major” sanctions on Russia if all NATO members ceased buying Russian oil. He also proposed that NATO members place tariffs ranging from 50-100% on China to further pressure Russia, emphasizing the importance of China’s influence. While Trump has previously threatened sanctions, he has been slow to enact them, although he did implement a tariff on India. Despite condemnation from Brussels, some European nations continue to rely on Russian oil imports, highlighting the complexities of reducing dependence on Russian energy sources.
Read the original article here
Trump says he’ll sanction Moscow if all NATO allies stop buying Russian oil, and the immediate reaction is a collective eye roll. It’s the kind of statement that’s quickly followed by questions, skepticism, and the distinct feeling of déjà vu. We’ve heard it before: promises, conditions, and a whole lot of political maneuvering. The underlying sentiment seems to be: are we really supposed to believe this?
The core of the issue here is the conditional nature of the promise. Trump’s statement hinges on a unanimous action by all NATO allies, specifically stopping the purchase of Russian oil. This sets up an almost impossible scenario. Within NATO, there are nations with close ties to Russia, and they are demonstrably hesitant to cut off their oil supply. This effectively allows Trump to avoid taking any real action while feigning strength. It’s a tactic that is drawing accusations of protection of Russia.
The inclusion of Hungary in this equation seems very intentional. The country is led by Viktor Orbán, whose friendly relationship with Putin is well-known. Hungary has shown no signs of curtailing its oil purchases. The very existence of this relationship makes it extremely unlikely that the condition for sanctions, namely the unity of all NATO allies, will ever be met. Therefore, it sets up a situation where nothing actually happens.
It is a game of political chess. Trump seems to be leveraging the situation to delay harm to Russia. It is essentially a ‘No, you hang up first’ scenario, a childish approach to a serious global crisis. Instead of taking decisive action, he’s creating a blame game where any inaction can be justified. He’s essentially saying, “I’ll stop helping Putin if Orbán stops helping Putin,” which is a clever play, but in the end it does nothing.
It is almost certainly designed to be an empty promise, a way to appear tough on Russia without actually having to do anything. The sentiment is echoed multiple times: will he actually follow through? The general consensus is a resounding “no.” There’s an underlying assumption that this is all part of a calculated strategy to avoid taking action. It’s about appearing to be strong on Russia, to appease certain voters, and to avoid upsetting allies like Hungary.
There are several layers of potential motives here, including, the desire to have everyone buy oil only from his donors. The situation becomes even more complex when you consider the context. The “TACO” threat is again raised, reminding everyone of past broken promises and shifting goalposts.
This is all about control and narrative. Trump can blame other countries for not fulfilling the condition, while simultaneously maintaining a facade of strength. It’s a perfect example of how political rhetoric can be used to create an illusion of action. And this is not to say it is just Trump’s issue, it is just a situation that all are going to have to face.
The whole situation highlights the need for clear, decisive leadership in these difficult times. Instead of setting up these types of impossible conditions, the priority should be to find a way to deal with the crisis at hand.