Not about Russia: why Trump wants the EU to impose 100% tariffs on China and India
10 September 15:40
US President Donald Trump’s recent statement about the need for the European Union to impose 100% duties on goods from China and India caused a wide response. According to Trump, such measures should increase pressure on Russia to end the war in Ukraine through economic influence on countries that actively buy Russian oil. However, experts are skeptical of this proposal, considering it a political maneuver rather than a real plan of action. What is behind Trump’s statement was analyzed by "Komersant Ukrainian"
Rhetoric instead of action
Oleg Fesenko, a prominent Ukrainian political analyst, categorically rejects the idea that Trump’s proposal is aimed at putting pressure on Russia. Fesenko believes that Trump’s call is not a sincere proposal to increase pressure on Russia, but rather a response to European calls for the US to increase sanctions. He describes it as the “fool himself” principle, i.e., an excuse for one’s own actions.
“I can tell you right away that this is not a proposal to increase pressure on Russia. This is a specific response to Europeans’ calls for Trump to increase sanctions against Russia. This is a response based on the principle of “fool yourself”. Sorry for the political incorrectness, but this is how it should be perceived.”
According to Fesenko, Trump is not actually seeking to impose sanctions on Russia jointly with Europe. He notes that the United States has not imposed 100% tariffs on China or India, and the increase in tariffs against India is related to trade negotiations, not just Russian oil.
“Just for comparison, is there a 100 percent duty on the part of the United States against China? No, there isn’t. Is there a hundred percent duty against India? Also no. Trump has increased duties against India, but any serious expert will tell you that this is not only due to the fact that Indians buy Russian oil. This is also a reason. It is one of the reasons, but not the only one. And many believe that this is not the main reason. This is pressure on India during trade negotiations.”
Fesenko emphasizes that Trump’s statement is more of a cop-out. He calls Trump’s approach cynical and points out that real joint sanctions require coordination between the US and the EU, not mutual accusations.
“So this is, to put it mildly, a bit cynical and not quite correct on Trump’s part. If we are talking about joint sanctions, then the United States and Europe should agree that they will impose them together. And what Trump is saying now is essentially an excuse. I will not impose them because you are not doing it. That’s how it should be perceived. Unfortunately, this is not Trump’s desire to increase pressure on Russia, but his unwillingness to impose additional pressure on Russia.”
Assessing the reality of imposing duties
Fesenko is skeptical about the likelihood of 100% duties being imposed. As for China, the chances are minimal due to its dependence on rare earth metals.
“How realistic is the scenario when both the US and Europe impose these duties together and impose 100%? Against China, they are extremely minimal. Because both the United States and the European Union depend on China for rare earth metals,” the political analyst explained.
As for India, the pressure is possible, but not necessarily 100%, and depends on India’s concessions, for example, reducing purchases of Russian oil.
“As for India, well, there will be some pressure. There is already some pressure from the US, and perhaps the EU can increase this pressure. If India makes certain concessions, for example, reduces purchases of Russian oil, since they started buying it only in 2022, when Russia introduced large discounts. Well, then there will be no sanctions. Therefore, the likelihood of high duties against India is also not very high,” Fesenko believes.
A game of distraction
Another political analyst, Oleh Lisovyi, interprets Trump’s call as an element of pressure and a search for those responsible for his own inaction. Trump promised more sanctions, but postponed them.
“This, in my opinion, is an element of pressure, because the United States promised to impose much more sanctions. And Trump postponed the ones that were imposed. At least for 90 days. This is an element, in my opinion, of finding someone to blame for what Trump himself is not doing,” the political analyst said.
Lisovyi explains potential scenarios. He sees this as a calculation for the EU’s refusal so that Trump can justify himself, or an invitation to a dialogue about lower duties.
“In other words, he is introducing an option that is realistic for Europe to implement in the current situation. And here, perhaps, there is an expectation that Europe will say that we cannot do this, and then Trump will say – you see, I am offering them, and they do not do it. Or it will be an invitation to a dialog on this topic. Not 100%, but maybe 50% in the future.”
Lisovyi also doubts the realism of the proposal. The political analyst attributes this to Trump’s inability to influence the war:
“So there are two scenarios here, but they are all long and do not seem to me, first of all, to be realistic. It’s a kind of game around Trump’s inability to influence the situation regarding the war.”
Influencing Russia: a hypothetical scenario
Even if the duties are hypothetically imposed, the effect on Russia will not be immediate. China will respond with countermeasures, and sanctions always take time.
“Of course, it would be very cool. But let’s be realistic even at this point. If Europe imposes 100% duties, China will also respond, and then either a discussion or a postponement will begin again,” Lisovyi believes.
He emphasizes that sanctions do not take effect immediately, referring to the European packages.
“Well, any sanctions do not work today for today. It still takes time for them to be launched. Look, even with the packages that Europe is introducing, there are articles that are being introduced, but then it turns out that this point will be introduced at the end of the year, and this point will be in three months, and so on. I think we should not count on immediate effect.”
Conclusion
Trump’s proposal to impose 100% tariffs on goods from China and India looks like a political game aimed at shifting responsibility, rather than a real step towards increasing pressure on Russia. Both political analysts agree that the likelihood of such measures being implemented is low, given the US and EU’s economic dependence on China and the complexity of trade relations with India.
This statement emphasizes the differences between the Western partners rather than helping to consolidate efforts against Russian aggression. Under the current circumstances, experts advise to take such initiatives critically, analyzing their real impact and motivation.
