100 Percent Secondary Tariffs if no end to the Russia-Ukraine war in 50 days President Trump Source Bloomberg
In a bold move that could reshape global energy markets and geopolitical dynamics, President Donald Trump has issued a stark ultimatum to Russia amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Drawing from recent reports, Trump has threatened to impose 100% secondary tariffs on Russia if the war does not conclude within 50 days. This announcement, made during discussions with NATO leaders, underscores a strategy to pressure Moscow economically while bolstering Ukraine’s defenses—albeit with Europe footing the bill for additional weaponry.
No Taxes for Me – Ask about investments with Tax Benefits
Trump’s Ultimatum: Tariffs as a Weapon Against Russia
According to insights from a recent Bloomberg report, President Trump explicitly warned of “very severe tariffs” at approximately 100% if no peace deal is reached in 50 days.
This threat comes as part of broader efforts to end the hostilities that have disrupted global energy supplies since Russia’s invasion began. Trump’s pledge includes sending more weapons to Ukraine, with the caveat that NATO—primarily European allies—will cover the costs.
This approach aims to maintain U.S. support for Kyiv without straining American taxpayers, while leveraging economic levers to force Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hand.
The concept of secondary tariffs, often intertwined with sanctions, targets not just Russia directly but also third-party nations facilitating Moscow’s evasion of existing restrictions. In the energy sector, this could mean penalizing countries like China and India, which have become major buyers of discounted Russian crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG). By imposing tariffs on these importers for exceeding the G7’s $60 per barrel price cap on Russian oil, the U.S. could significantly curtail Russia’s revenue streams, which are heavily reliant on energy exports.
The Energy Market Fallout: Oil Prices Poised to Surge
The potential implementation of these 100% secondary tariffs carries profound implications for global energy markets. Analysts warn that such measures could disrupt up to 1.5–2 million barrels per day (bpd) of Russian oil supply, tightening the global market and driving Brent crude prices toward $90–$100 per barrel by mid-2025.
This price spike would stem from reduced availability of cheap Russian oil, forcing importers like India (which relies on Russia for about 40% of its seaborne crude) and China (around 12%) to seek costlier alternatives from the Middle East or the U.S.Compounding this are upcoming policy changes, including the EU’s ban on transshipments of Russian LNG effective March 2025 and reinstated tariffs on Venezuelan oil in April 2025.
If Trump’s tariffs materialize, they could mirror the 25–50% penalties previously applied to Venezuelan imports, further constricting supply chains. For U.S. consumers, this translates to higher gasoline and heating costs, potentially undermining the administration’s “Drill Baby Drill” agenda aimed at boosting domestic production and energy independence.
While proponents argue that curbing Russia’s oil revenues—estimated at billions annually—could hasten a ceasefire, skeptics highlight the risks of market adaptations. Russia has already rerouted much of its exports to Asia, and enforcing secondary tariffs globally might prove challenging without full international buy-in.
Political Ramifications: A Double-Edged Sword for Trump
President Trump’s strategy places him in a precarious political position. On one hand, aggressive action against Russia aligns with his tough-on-adversaries image and could rally support among hawkish Republicans and NATO allies. However, the resultant oil price surge poses a “huge political problem,” as elevated energy costs could stall America’s economic recovery and fuel inflation.
Critics, including Democrats and some within his own party, are likely to seize on this, portraying the tariffs as a self-inflicted wound that benefits opponents in upcoming midterms.Indeed, a climb to $90–$100 oil could inadvertently hand Democrats a winning narrative, allowing them to criticize Republican policies for exacerbating household burdens while claiming credit for any eventual de-escalation.
With control of the House and Senate at stake, Trump’s dilemma underscores the tightrope between foreign policy assertiveness and domestic economic stability.
The Ukraine Critical Minerals Deal is Now A Problem
Russian troops seized control of the Shevchenko lithium deposit around June 26-27, 2025, as part of their ongoing summer offensive in Donetsk.
The village itself, located about 10 km from Velyka Novosilka (captured by Russia earlier in January 2025), offered little tactical value but held immense strategic importance due to the subsurface resources.
Battlefield maps from independent sources like Deep State confirmed the occupation through geolocated footage, despite ongoing clashes in the area.
Ukrainian forces put up fierce resistance, but Russian advances—supported by artillery, drones, and ground assaults—overran the site, which lies on the eastern outskirts of the village.
This is not Russia’s first seizure of Ukrainian lithium; earlier in the war, forces captured a deposit in Zaporizhzhia in 2022, and additional potential sites in Donetsk have fallen under Moscow’s control.
Analysts suggest these moves align with a broader Russian strategy to dominate resource-rich areas in eastern Ukraine, disrupting Kyiv’s economic recovery and Western investment plans.
Russia itself has substantial lithium reserves (about double Ukraine’s), but controlling these sites bolsters its leverage in global markets for batteries, electronics, and defense technologies.
And with the rumors that Zelensky has also signed deals with the Bank of London on critical minerals and other resources, it complicates the process.
Looking Ahead: Can Tariffs End the War?
As the 50-day clock ticks down, the energy world watches closely. Will these 100% secondary tariffs force Putin to the negotiating table, or will they backfire, entrenching higher prices and geopolitical tensions? For now, Trump’s bold rhetoric signals a willingness to wield economic power decisively, but the true test lies in execution and global response. Energy stakeholders, from producers to consumers, brace for volatility in what could be a pivotal chapter in the Russia-Ukraine saga.
As Stu has talked about on the podcast, President Putin has telegraphed that he would like to do business with the United States, and that tells me that that is a bigger reason to come to the negotiation table than threatening sanctions. As Irina Slav has always said, “Sanctions Don’t work As Intended” is spot on. And in this case, it will have a horrible effect if the refineries in India and China are sanctioned. The Jim Cramer effect should be applied to Lyndsey Graham and Senator Bloomenthal’s proposed sanction legislation. If they suggest anything, do the exact opposite.
The time is not yet ripe for peace talks, but “fair and good negotiations” may be possible in the future, the French president says The Ukraine conflict could reach a turning point by the end […]
Thesis Euronav (NYSE:EURN) is a Belgian oil tanker company which is considered by many as the best-managed, with a strong balance sheet. Euronav has in 2022 become the object of a merger deal with Norway’s […]
China hopes that the construction of a new natural gas pipeline connecting the country to Russia via Mongolia will soon see “substantial progress,” President Xi Jinping has said, following a meeting with Russian President Vladimir […]
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
