"Nimbus SPB," an oil products tanker, floats in the Finnish Gulf past the Lakhta Center skyscraper, the headquarters of Russian gas monopoly Gazprom in St. Petersburg, Russia, on June 11, 2023. Oil prices have risen, meaning drivers are paying more for gasoline and truckers and farmers more for diesel. The increase also is complicating the global fight against inflation and feeding Russia's war chest to boot. (AP Photo/Dmitri Lovetsky) **FILE**
"Nimbus SPB," an oil products tanker, floats in the Finnish Gulf past the Lakhta Center skyscraper, the headquarters of Russian gas monopoly Gazprom in St. Petersburg, Russia, on June 11, 2023. Oil prices have risen, meaning drivers are paying more for gasoline and truckers and farmers more for diesel. The increase also is complicating the global fight against inflation and feeding Russia's war chest to boot. (AP Photo/Dmitri Lovetsky) **FILE**
The U.S. is weighing an all-out economic assault on the lifeblood of Russia’s economy, its energy exports, in what analysts say would be a dramatic, potentially high-risk move to influence the Kremlin’s decision-making and force an end to its war in Ukraine.
With strong backing from a bipartisan coalition in Congress, President Trump has floated massive financial penalties against Russia’s energy sector and any country that does business with it.
For the president, it appears to be something of a last resort, a step he’ll take only if Russian President Vladimir Putin refuses to sign on to a deal halting hostilities in Ukraine. The president told NBC News earlier this week he’s willing to target Russia’s oil because he’s angry with Mr. Putin for standing in the way of a ceasefire.
“I was pissed off about it. But if a deal isn’t made, and if I think it was Russia’s fault, I’m going to put secondary sanctions on Russia,” he said.
“Anybody buying oil from Russia will not be able to sell their product, any product, not just oil, into the United States,” Mr. Trump said, laying out a plan for stiff tariffs against Russian oil exports and penalties on all imports from countries that buy it, presumably including major global players China and India, Russia’s top customers.
The approach, analysts say, could follow one of two paths.
The more traditional route would involve the administration putting Russian energy firms on the Treasury’s “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons,” or SDN, list.
In that case, U.S. individuals and companies would be prohibited from doing business with those firms. And anyone abroad who does business with them would not have access to the American banking system.
The other avenue would be a more novel approach: Putting stiff, secondary tariffs on goods from any country buying Russian oil, which would be crushing for those nations that export goods into the lucrative American market.
In either case, it would represent the most aggressive American economic move so far against Russia and could have major geopolitical implications. For example, how would India — a nation the U.S. desperately wants as an ally to help counter China’s growing influence over the Indo-Pacific region — react to such tariffs?
Until now, the U.S. has been reluctant to use its full economic leverage against Russian energy exports because of fear that such actions could destabilize global markets and potentially lead to surges in fuel prices around the world.
But at the same time, there is virtually nothing else left for the U.S. and its allies to target through sanctions. Now may be the moment to employ what some specialists describe as the “nuclear option” against Mr. Putin’s economy, which is deeply dependent on revenues from oil sales.
“The one thing they can do is attack Russia’s current energy sales. That is the one big, juicy target that’s left that hasn’t been crippled by sanctions. If you want to use economic weapons to pressure Russia, you go after the energy sector,” said Emily Kilcrease, senior fellow and director of the Energy, Economics, and Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.
“We’re clearly in this position where we’ve tried a more limited, clever approach and it hasn’t worked,” she said in an interview. “We’re at a point now where if you really do want to bring the [Ukraine] conflict to a close, you need to ramp up pressure on Russia pretty significantly.”
The more clever approach employed by the U.S. and Europe over the past two years has been the implementation of a price cap on Russian oil. Since December 2022, that cap has been set at $60 per barrel of Russian crude oil. Western companies providing maritime services for the transport of that oil, such as insurance, do so only if the oil is sold at or below that $60 per barrel cap.
The approach worked on dual tracks: It limited Russia’s profits from energy exports and kept the global supply of oil relatively stable, preventing unexpected price surges or dangerous drops in supply.
It’s been somewhat successful, but Russia is still reaping huge profits. It received about $192 billion in revenue from oil and crude oil exports last year, according to data from the International Energy Agency.
The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies estimated in a study last year that Russia gets between 30% and 50% of its total federal budget revenues from the oil and gas industry.
From December 2022, when the price cap was implemented, through February of this year, China bought about 47% of Russia’s crude oil exports, followed by India at 38%, according to information compiled by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
Russia has also reaped greater profits through the use of its so-called “shadow fleet,” ships without proper insurance or identification transporting illicit oil at prices outside of the cap.
Just two days after Mr. Trump threatened new tariffs on Russian oil, a bipartisan coalition of 50 senators offered up a plan to impose a whopping 500% tariff on imported goods from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products.
The leaders of that effort, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, acknowledged how significant those tariffs would be.
“They are hard hitting for a reason,” the two senators said in a statement. “The dominating view in the United States Senate is that Russia is the aggressor, and that this horrific war and Putin’s aggression must end now and be deterred in the future.”
Asked about the potential impact on China from such secondary tariffs, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun brushed it off.
“China’s position on the Ukraine crisis is consistent and clear. We always believe that dialogue and negotiation are the only viable solution to the Ukraine crisis. Cooperation between China and Russia does not target any third party and will not be affected by any factor from any third party,” he said at a press conference Monday.
Despite the delicate geopolitics and high stakes, there seems to be no real way to hit the Russian energy sector without also targeting the buyers, such as China and India.
“You’d have to be willing, if you’re really trying to bring down the hammer on Russia, you would have to think about how to deal with the China angle and whether we’d be willing to use those economic tools against China,” said Ms. Kilcrease, the Center for a New America Security analyst. “The attack on Russia’s energy sector will be less successful if we don’t go after the buyers of that energy.”
• Ben Wolfgang can be reached at bwolfgang@washingtontimes.com.
Copyright © 2025 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.