President Donald Trump has publicly urged NATO and European Union partners to stop buying Russian oil and to impose stiff economic penalties on Moscow — and he has framed U.S. action as contingent on allied steps. The approach has puzzled and alarmed some Western officials: by pushing allies to take the lead while repeatedly delaying or conditioning unilateral U.S. measures, the president is reshaping the diplomatic and economic calculus around sanctions policy at a volatile moment for the war in Ukraine.

Trump’s recent appeal was explicit and wide-ranging. He told NATO members to halt purchases of Russian oil and proposed punitive tariffs on China as a way to choke off Beijing’s economic support for Moscow, declaring that the United States would only implement “major sanctions” once allied countries had begun doing the same. The plea comes amid uneven European energy dependencies, with several NATO states still importing some Russian hydrocarbons and major non-Western buyers continuing to purchase Russian supplies.

Why the president is shifting the burden to allies

A mix of diplomatic, economic and domestic-political factors helps explain why Mr. Trump is urging Europe and NATO to act first rather than immediately imposing sweeping unilateral U.S. sanctions. First, coordinated multilateral sanctions are much more effective at cutting state revenue streams than unilateral measures; when all major buyers cease purchases simultaneously, the economic shock to Russia is larger and harder to evade. By rhetorically demanding allied unanimity, the White House is stressing the superior coercive power of a coalition approach — while also signaling that the U.S. wants to avoid shouldering the full economic fallout alone.

Second, the United States faces unique domestic trade-offs that make unilateral, economy-wide energy sanctions politically and economically costly. Heavy-handed U.S. restrictions on global oil could trigger higher global prices, domestic fuel-price pain, and knock-on effects for key U.S. industries and households. Pressuring NATO partners to lead lets the administration claim solidarity while shifting immediate economic burdens to buyers closer to Russian supply chains or more exposed to those markets.

Strategic leverage and diplomatic messaging

Pressing allies publicly serves another strategic goal: it places diplomatic pressure on recalcitrant partners in plain sight. Naming holdout buyers and making a political spectacle of allied non-compliance can change bargaining dynamics in capitals that rely on energy imports or bilateral deals with Moscow. The strategy aims to convert private diplomacy into a public test of allied resolve, using reputational and political costs to prod countries that have been reluctant to sever energy ties.

But that public pressure carries risk. Singling out allies can strain NATO cohesion, complicate supply diversification efforts, and undercut the very consensus the president professes to seek. Some European governments view sustained, coalitional measures as preferable to high-profile U.S. ultimatums because they allow for phased, technically managed reductions in imports that minimize market shocks.

Tariffs, trade weapons and selective punishment

Another strand of the president’s approach is to employ trade instruments selectively — tariffs and duties — as a form of pressure short of direct sanctions on Moscow. Mr. Trump has proposed high tariffs on third countries he says enable Russian energy revenues; he has already used tariff threats and additional duties in disputes with India and has publicly suggested punitive tariffs on China tied to their economic links with Russia. Tariffs enable the administration to punish trading partners without immediately disrupting global energy flows in ways that could disproportionately harm U.S. consumers, while also signaling a willingness to use economic tools that directly affect bilateral trade relationships.

Analysts view this as a maneuver to widen the set of levers available to Washington: instead of relying solely on financial freezes and export controls, the administration can turn trade policy into a geopolitical instrument. The drawback is that broad tariffs aimed at third countries risk significant blowback, complicated international legal disputes, and higher prices for consumers globally.

Domestic politics and the optics of restraint

Domestic political calculation is an important explanatory thread. Repeated threats to “impose major sanctions” that are then conditioned on allied moves provide public signaling to constituencies at home — appearing tough on Russia while avoiding the immediate costs associated with large unilateral measures. For a president who weighs highly the optics of both strength and cost control, conditioning action on allied cooperation allows him to claim a hard line in rhetoric while delaying or limiting concrete steps that would affect U.S. markets and voters. This posture can be pitched as prudence to domestic audiences and as leverage to coax allies into greater action.

Experts caution that the ultimate impact of this approach depends on three hard realities: whether allies can coordinate quickly enough to cut purchasing simultaneously; whether global energy markets can absorb the resulting shocks without catastrophic price spikes; and how effectively sanctions can be enforced against clever evasion and intermediaries. Long-standing evidence from prior sanctions regimes shows coordination and enforcement are the decisive variables in whether penalties actually choke off state revenue. If allied buy-in is incomplete or staggered, Russia and its trading partners can exploit loopholes, rerouting flows through intermediaries or offering steep discounts to maintain demand.

Geopolitical logic: China, India and alternative buyers

The president’s emphasis on China and other big buyers reflects a geopolitical calculation: if Beijing and New Delhi continue substantial purchases, Western unilateral or partial allied measures will have limited effect. By proposing tariffs on countries that continue to import Russian energy, Mr. Trump seeks to penalize buyers directly and to create an economic incentive structure that makes Russian oil less attractive. The calculation also reflects concern that sustained energy ties will deepen strategic alignments between Moscow and Beijing, complicating Western efforts to isolate Russia and bluntting long-term leverage over both states.

Conditioning U.S. action on allied steps can therefore be read two ways: as a pragmatic attempt to maximize the impact of sanctions through coalition building; and as a tactical dodge that delays costly domestic consequences while keeping policy options open. Whether the approach succeeds will depend on the ability of the United States and its partners to translate high-stakes public rhetoric into rapid, well-enforced measures that close revenue channels without triggering destabilising price shocks.

What to watch next

Key indicators of whether Mr. Trump’s strategy is likely to work include diplomatic responses from major NATO capitals, the speed of coordination among EU energy purchasers, and concrete measures taken by big non-Western buyers. Enforcement mechanisms — customs checks, shipping transparency, and coordinated financial penalties — will determine whether any coalition action quickly translates into closed markets for Russian energy or whether evasion and substitution blunt the effect.

The president’s call for allies to act first changes the shape of Western pressure on Russia. It amplifies the need for visible cohesion and technical readiness among partners — and it exposes the tension between high-profile political posturing and the gritty operational work needed to make sanctions effective.

(Adapted from AlJazeera.com)