 "Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte. AP File")
US President Donald Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Russia is being praised by some.
Trump, who has seemingly grown disgruntled with Vladimir Putin in recent weeks, has given Russia a 50-day deadline to end the war with Ukraine.
Trump has also announced that he will provide Ukraine weapons via North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) – which will finance the deal.
Meanwhile, Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, who met Trump at the White House, has taken aim at India and China over buying Russian oil.
But what did Rutte say? And what does he not know about Russian oil and Europe’s dependence on it?
Let’s take a closer look at why secondary tariffs over Russian oil will be bad news for Europe
What did Rutte say?
Rutte on Wednesday warned countries that continue to buy oil and gas from Russia.
This includes India, China and Brazil.
India has saved billions of dollars buy purchasing crude oil from Russia since 2022.
Trump has threatened to impose ‘biting’ secondary tariffs of 100 per cent on exports of Russian oil unless Moscow and Kyiv reach a peace deal in 50 days.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump backer, had unveiled such a bill last week.
Graham called the proposal, which would reportedly allow Trump to impose tariffs as high as 500 per cent , a ‘sledgehammer’ that would help Trump end the war in Ukraine.
“As for sanctions, the bill which will not only be against Russia, but will also target countries like China and India that buy Russian energy products that finance Putin’s war machine," Graham said.
Rutte has now called on leaders these countries to act.
“My encouragement to these three countries, particularly is, if you live now in Beijing, or in Delhi, or you are the president of Brazil, you might want to take a look into this, because this might hit you very hard,” Rutte said after a meeting with US Senators.
He said that they ought to pressure Putin to reach a peace agreement with Ukraine.
“So please make the phone call to Vladimir Putin and tell him that he has to get serious about peace talks, because otherwise this will slam back on Brazil, on India and on China in a massive way,” Rutte added.
However, such a bill, if passed and signed into law, would also be bad for Europe.
Why tariffs over Russian oil will be bad for Europe
In the aftermath of the Ukraine war, the West imposed sanctions on Russian oil and gas.
Several states including some in the EU have done their best to wean themselves off Russian oil.
In May 2022, Russian gas comprised 45 per cent of the EU’s imports.
That figure has dropped to 19 per cent in 2024.
The EU imported 150 billion cubic metres of Russian oil in 2021.
That figure has dropped to 52 billion cubic metres in 2024.
While the bloc also has plans to completely stop the import of Russian gas by 2027, many nations still remains dependent on Russian gas and refined oil.
This is mostly routed through other nations.
Slovakia and Hungary, who are pro-Moscow, still import Russian gas via pipeline.
They have opposed the ban on Russian gas.
These nations aren’t alone either.
When it comes to fossil fuels in 2024, France, Austria, Spain, Greece and Italy also replenished Russian coffers.
“Although Russian fossil fuel exports to the West have decreased, glaring loopholes in the sanctions’ regime persist”, a report from the report from the Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD) stated in December.
In 2024, Russia still comprised 18 per cent of the EU’s natural gas imports.
The European Union also spends more on Russian oil and gas than it gives financial aid to Ukraine.
Though Europe gave $22 billion to Ukraine in 2024, it bought $25 billion worth of fossil fuels from Russia that same year.
Trump’s announcement comes in the backdrop of Europe’s fuel inventories already being at a three-year low.
Many European countries have already seen inflation and energy prices spike – resulting in a cost of living crisis.
Experts say reducing Europe’s dependence on Russia is no mean feat.
As Pawel Czyzak, researcher at the UK-based energy think tank Ember, told DW, “It has been very difficult for Europe to exit Russian energy fully”.
They say it could make Europe plans to build up its fuel supplies ahead of winter more difficult.
Meanwhile, Norway, which is Europe’s top gas provider is set to cut the supply next month over planned maintenance.
Trump’s deadline would come at the same time as this work “which could introduce fresh uncertainty for European gas markets heading into autumn,” Rabobank strategist Florence Schmit was quoted as saying by Bloomberg.
It remains to be seen if the EU can stick together when it comes to Russian oil and gas.
‘Worried about delay’
Meanwhile, Republican US Senator Thom Tillis praised Trump for announcing the steps, but said the 50-day delay “worries” him.
He said he was concerned that “Putin would try to use the 50 days to win the war, or to be better positioned to negotiate a peace agreement after having murdered and potentially collected more ground as a basis for negotiation.
“So we should look at the current state of Ukraine today and say, no matter what you do over the next 50 days, any of your gains are off the table,” he added.
Rutte said Europe would find the money to ensure Ukraine was in the best possible position in peace talks.
He said that under the agreement with Trump, the U.S. would now “massively” supply Ukraine with weapons “not just air defense, also missiles, also ammunition paid for by the Europeans.”
Asked if long-range missiles for Ukraine were under discussion, Rutte said: “It is both defensive and offensive. So there’s all kinds of weapons, but we have not discussed in detail yesterday with the president. This is really being worked through now by the Pentagon, by the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, together with the Ukrainians.”
Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev, responding to Trump’s remarks, said Moscow “didn’t care”.
Medvedev dismissed the threat of a tariff on Russian oil as a “theatrical ultimatum”.
But Medvedev added that Trump’s remarks were very ‘serious’, and that Russia “needed time to analyse what was said in Washington”.
With inputs from agencies