Related videos:
After the violation of Polish airspace by Russian drones, the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, published a message on Saturday directed at NATO nations in which he urged them to take drastic economic measures against Russia, although he conditioned any U.S. action on his European allies acting first.
In a letter shared through his social media, Trump claimed to be "ready to impose significant sanctions on Russia" if —and only if— all NATO countries agree and begin to do the same, and when "they stop buying Russian oil."
In his message, the leader added that NATO’s commitment to victory in Ukraine "has been much less than 100%" and considered it "surprising" that some allies continue to purchase oil from Moscow while the conflict escalates.
The president also proposed that NATO impose tariffs of 50% to 100% on China as a mechanism to weaken its economic influence over Russia, and suggested that these tariffs be maintained until the war is over.
Although China has been the subject of verbal threats from Trump in recent weeks, so far only India has faced concrete sanctions: the administration has imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian products due to their ongoing importation of Russian oil.
Critiques of his stance
The president's reaction comes at a time of heightened tension, following the confirmation that at least 19 Russian drones crossed the border into Poland —a NATO member— prompting Warsaw to invoke Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
NATO has strengthened its military presence in Eastern Europe, but it has not yet classified the incident as a direct attack. Despite the context, Trump refrained from explicitly condemning the violation of Poland's airspace and focused on making any retaliation contingent on collective action from allies.
Trump's stance also reveals a transactional and conditional approach to collective security. By making the imposition of U.S. sanctions contingent on all NATO countries acting first, the president breaks with the principle of unconditional solidarity that governs the North Atlantic Treaty.
This logic weakens the perception of Washington's firm commitment to its allies and at a critical moment, when one of the Alliance members has suffered a direct violation of its airspace.
The striking stance of the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces has sparked criticism in his country. According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos survey cited by La Vanguardia, 54% of Americans— including one in five Republican voters—believe that the president is too aligned with Russia.
Critical voices have also emerged from the academic sphere. The Ukrainian-American economist Roman Sheremeta stated on social media that "Trump is looking for another excuse to avoid imposing serious sanctions on Russia" and pointed out that "there is no possibility that all NATO countries will agree to stop buying Russian oil while Orbán (Hungary) and Fico (Slovakia), friends of Trump and Putin, remain in power."
Strategic Assessment
From an institutional perspective, Trump's message includes proposals that go beyond NATO's mandate.
The Atlantic Alliance is a collective defense organization, with no authority to impose economic sanctions or trade tariffs. These decisions are the responsibility of each member state or organizations such as the European Union or the G7, which discussed new sanctions against Russia on Friday and potential measures against countries that continue to purchase Russian oil.
Analysts agree that revenue from energy exports remains the primary support for the Kremlin's war effort. However, drastically limiting purchases of Russian oil without multilateral economic coordination could lead to a global increase in oil prices, negatively impacting Western economies and reducing social support for sanctions.
Since 2023, Turkey— a NATO member— has been the third largest buyer of Russian oil, following China and India. Hungary and Slovakia also join them, making it virtually impossible to achieve a unified stance within the Alliance.
Conclusion
Trump's message reflects a conditional strategy focused on economic pressure, but lacking firm commitment or clear leadership in response to an act that jeopardizes the security of a NATO ally.
His stance leaves open the question of whether the United States will respond decisively to future provocations from Moscow, or if it will continue to subordinate its actions to external decisions.
Filed under: