NYT: Trump’s threatened sanctions raise questions about impact on Russia’s economy

US President Donald Trump’s recent pledge to impose sweeping economic penalties on Russia and its trading partners has drawn skepticism from experts who question the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed measures.

Speaking at the White House on July 14 alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump said he is prepared to levy 100 per cent tariffs on both Russia and countries that continue trade with Moscow if no ceasefire is reached in Ukraine within 50 days. The move, he suggested, would be part of a broader effort to pressure the Kremlin as the war enters its third year.

However, details of Trump’s proposal remain vague, and analysts note that some of the suggested actions may have limited practical effect, Caliber.Az quotes an article by the New York Times.

While Trump’s plan would include direct tariffs on Russian imports to the US, such measures are unlikely to inflict significant economic damage on Moscow. According to data from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the United States imported only around $3 billion worth of goods from Russia in 2024. These imports are largely composed of essential materials such as fertilizer, iron, steel, and uranium used in American nuclear reactors. It remains unclear whether Trump would target these critical commodities.

More consequential, experts say, is Trump’s threat to impose “secondary” tariffs on third-party nations that continue to trade with Russia — particularly in the energy sector, which has been a major source of revenue for the Russian economy despite ongoing Western sanctions.

“The Russian economy has weathered punishing sanctions largely thanks to its continued oil and gas exports to nations that are not part of the Western-led sanctions regime,” noted Edward Fishman, a former U.S. State Department official and an expert on Russia sanctions.

Still, Fishman questioned Trump’s willingness to follow through on such measures, pointing to previous instances in which the president backed off from similar threats.

“If the goal here is to reduce Russia’s energy exports, it won’t work,” he wrote on social media, referencing Trump’s earlier retreat from imposing tariffs exceeding 125 per cent on Chinese goods.

Meanwhile, skepticism also surrounds the military component of Trump’s plan, which includes a promise to rapidly send Patriot missile systems and other arms to Ukraine.

Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, said Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown little interest in US overtures toward peace.

“He [Putin] is not ready to stop fighting,” she said. “He assesses, rightly in my view, that Russia has the battlefield advantage and that there is not much that the United States or Europe can do to pressure him or impose meaningful costs.”

Kavanagh added that current weapons stockpiles in the US and Europe limit what can be provided to Ukraine, at least in the short term.

“More aid to Ukraine is unlikely to shift the military balance in a major way, and Putin is prepared to weather the costs of additional sanctions,” she said. “A US strategy of indefinitely arming Ukraine is not sustainable.”

By Sabina Mammadli