Import tariffs, which U.S. President Donald Trump slapped on about 90 countries on April 2 and which some of America’s previously friendly neighbors described as attempts to make their economies “collapse,” had some surprise omissions. One of them has turned out be Russia, which made many wonder why. To hear U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explain it, Russia was spared because the sanctions imposed on the country after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 mean that U.S.-Russian trade had effectively stopped, according to NYT. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt offered a similar explanation, telling Axios that Russia was left off the list because U.S. sanctions already "preclude any meaningful trade."
But low levels of trade didn’t prevent Trump from slapping tariffs on other countries.1 For instance, the U.S. exported $526 million worth of goods and services to Russia last year, while importing $3,007 million, with America’s deficit in this bilateral trade totaling $2,481 million that year, according to theU.S. Census Bureau. In comparison, the volume of Angola’strade with the U.S. ($2.6 billion in goods last year) was lower than America’s trade with Russia, as was the deficit ($1 billion), but this African country still found itself with a32% import tariff.
So, low levels of trade don’t quite explain why Russia was spared. Perhaps the structure of U.S. imports does? As NYT’sAnatoly Kurmanaev has reminded us, Russia is a Top 3 supplier of fertilizer to the United States. However, Russia’s share in U.S. imports of this commodity has not exactly been game-changing; Russia accounted for 16% of $9.97 billion worth of fertilizer that U.S. imported in 2023.
Perhaps there has been another factor in the confluence of drivers of Trump’s decision to spare Russia from the tariffs. It could be that Trump still harbors hopes that, despite having stalled so far in the negotiations on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Russian President Vladimir Putin may eventually agree to implement Trump’s vision of first embracing a temporary but full ceasefire, and then using that halt to negotiate a permanent cessation of hostilities.
Whatever the reasons, Trump’s decision to spare Russia has not been lost on Russia’s ruling elite. Moreover, some top members of that elite, such as Dmitry Medvedev, could not help gloating over how some of America’s traditional allies were reeling from Trump’s tariffs, while Russia was untouched. Russian markets also, arguably, welcomed the omission of Russia from the trade war, with the Moscow Exchange and RTS indices rising by 1.1% after opening on April 3.
Not everyone was celebrating though.Dmitry Drize, political commentator at Russia’s Kommersant FM radio station, expressed faint hope that Trump’s Liberation Day is a nightmare the world will wake from. See what other influential and not-so-influential Russians said in response to Trump’s tariffs in the list below, with entries arranged in alphabetical order. They are followed by reactions from other post-Soviet republics (also in alphabetical order) and by a table of which of these republics were slapped with what tariffs, if at all (in addition to Russia, Belarus was spared, while Moldova was subjected to the highest tariffs among these states at 31%, and a 10% tariff was imposed on Ukraine).
Russians React to Trump’s Tariffs
Georgy Bovt, Russian political analyst, said: “The louder the universal cry that Trump's tariffs will destroy the global economy and plunge the world into a recession worse than in the 1930s, the stronger the suspicion that the fears may be exaggerated. Although a relative decline or at least a slowdown in global GDP growth is probably unavoidable. However, a catastrophe may not happen for the simple reason that the U.S. ‘partners,’ although they will introduce some retaliatory measures to save face, will by and large swallow the American antics. Because the U.S. is the largest consumer market in the world. And for this reason, they can afford such a dictate. And where will the ‘partners’ sell their consumer goods? For example, Vietnam, which has a huge surplus in trade with the U.S., where will it put all these electronics, household appliances and chips? Of course, he could have done so ‘in revenge’ against Russia. But it is a small market by global standards, it does not need that much. Plus, the sanctions.” (Bovt’s Telegram account, 04.01.25)
Dmitry Drize, Russian Kommersant FM’spolitical commentator, wrote: “It cannot be ruled out that everything will fall into place tomorrow. Trump will wake up in the morning and write that he changed his mind, that he was joking. Absolutely everything is possible now. However, there is reason to think very seriously and create such a mechanism so as not to depend on the whims of one person—you never know what will come into his head tomorrow.” (Kommersant, 04.03.25)
Sergei Markov, pro-Kremlin Russian analyst, said: “Russia sincerely wishes success to both America and Europe in their trade struggle with each other. Let Europe and America fight each other as hard as possible. We need to be tougher, tougher! EU, hit Trump! Trump, hit the EU! And even tougher!” Markov outlined Trump’s economic logic: U.S. growth (2.5%) trails global averages (4.4%) and China (7%), prompting tariffs to shift focus to domestic production. By balancing foreign tariffs and leveraging the U.S. market’s scale, Trump aims to incentivize corporate investment despite trade wars. Markov predicts initial price spikes followed by economic expansion, higher incomes and potential tariff reciprocity. He calls the strategy rational but anticipates backlash from globalists opposing protectionist policies. (Markov’s Telegram account, 04.03.25, Telegram, 04.03.25)
Dmitry Medvedev, ex-Russian president, wrote: “Trump has severely bent the global trading system, introducing tariffs against almost the entire world. The consequences will be global. Counter tariffs will be imposed on U.S. goods. Old trade chains will be broken, but new ones will emerge. And what about us? Russia already hardly trades with America, as well as with the EU: almost all turnover is sanctioned. But we are still developing—and at a fairly decent pace: in the first quarter of 2025, growth was about 3%. Therefore, there is no need to fuss. Following the immortal advice of Lao Tzu, it is worth sitting on the shore and waiting for the corpse of the enemy to float past us. The decomposing corpse of the EU economy.” (Medvedev’s Telegram account, 04.03.25)
Maxim Medvedkov, former chief negotiator for Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, said: “[T]hird-country supplies to Russia may increase, that is, imports that compete with domestic suppliers. It probably won't be the biggest problem if Russia imports more Harley-Davidson or American bourbon, which the European Union plans to stop buying. Consumers will be happy, and there are few domestic competing manufacturers. But if passenger cars, metals or chemicals start coming to us in increasing volumes, the problems could be significant.” (Kommersant, 04.03.25)
Olga Panina, PhD in Economics and associate professor at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, said Russia could become an alternative market for goods for countries with U.S. tariffs. According to the economist, Russia could benefit greatly from this if it could also offer competitive goods and services in the emerging markets. (Gazeta.ru, 04.03.25)
Tatyana Rybakova, Russian journalist, wrote: “It is possible that duties for Russia will be determined at the ceasefire talks—Putin’s special representative and secret billionaire Kirill Dmitriev has already arrived in Washington, and Steve Witkoff is flying there, too. It is also possible that particularly brutal duties have been prepared for Russia—in case of its intractability, although the trade turnover between the two countries is laughable. Option: duties will be introduced for buyers of Russian goods, even if they are not supplied to the USA.” (MT, 04.03.25)
Kirill Seleznev, Moscow-based Garda Capital stock market expert, said: “The decline in trade turnover will reach every country in a chain reaction, as was the case during the Great Depression of the 1920s. Countries then also tried to ‘protect’ their domestic market from their neighbors and competitors. As a result, we saw hyperinflation in Germany and famine in the USSR, although the crisis initially started in America, and nothing foreshadowed that it would spread further.” (Gazeta.ru, 04.03.25)
Kirill Shcherbakov, a senior lecturer at the Department of Economic Theory and Behavioral Economics at Synergy University, said: “For Russia, the new tariffs could create additional difficulties. Despite the sanctions, the U.S. remains an important economic partner for the Russian Federation, and any reduction in global demand could hit Russian exports. Russia traditionally exports such goods as metal, fertilizers and energy to the U.S. ... The main blow could fall on the oil sector.” “A reduction in social spending, a weakening ruble and an increase in inflation—this is what this could lead to,” he warned. Shcherbakov and other Russian economists stressed that the fall in oil prices due to new U.S. tariffs will entail the threat of a reduction in Russian budget revenues and a deterioration in the dynamics of economic growth in the Russian Federation. (Gazeta.ru, 04.03.25)
Mikhail Vasiliev, chief analyst of Russia’s Sovcombank, sees benefits for Russia in the deterioration of relations between China and the United States. "The deterioration of U.S.-China relations may lead to some improvement in Russia-U.S. and Russia-China relations. Warming relations with the U.S. may strengthen Russia's negotiating positions with China and other countries (India, etc.). Discounts on Russian raw materials may begin to decrease, which will have a positive effect on Russian exports and the ruble. And the weakening of control over compliance with sanctions by the U.S. may improve external payments and logistics in the trade of Russian goods, which is a positive factor for the ruble and a factor in slowing down inflation," the expert concluded. (Gazeta.ru, 04.03.25)
Unidentified Moscow Times reporters: “[T]he Kremlin is unlikely to significantly benefit from the tariffs in the longer term—especially as they may lead to a global economic slowdown that cuts into demand for Russian oil and gas.” (MT/AFP, 04.03.25)
Reactions of Other Former Soviet Republics to Trump’s Tariffs2
Armenia: (10%)
Suren Sargsyan, political analyst, wrote that the tariffs will lead to an increase in prices for Armenian products in the U.S. and will worsen their competitiveness. "Armenia has not remained on the sidelines of Trump's trade war: almost all countries are included in the new list of duties. However, there are exceptions, for example, Russia. Trump announced that a universal 10% duty on all imports will come into force in the U.S. on April 5," Sargsyan noted. (PanArmenian, 04.03.25)
Azerbaijan: (10%)
Economist Eldaniz Amirov noted that the United States’s share in Azerbaijan's total exports is very small. In 2024, Azerbaijan exported goods worth $26 billion. Of this amount, $134 million came from the United States, which is 0.6 percent. On the other hand, when a 10% tariff is applied, 4-5 cents of these 6 cents are transferred to the price of the product, he said. Therefore, the loss in Azerbaijan’s exports to the United States can be expressed in a figure that will not exceed $30,000. So this is not a large number. This cannot be considered a loss. There will simply be a problem with imports. (APA.az, 04.02.25)
Belarus: (no new tariffs)
Belarusian economist Alexander Kozlov said: "We are interested in the fact that any decisions that Trump makes, Russia will be the beneficiary of them to some extent. Because Russia and Belarus are a Union State, close in economic structure, economy and culture of the country. Taking into account our cooperation, integration of economies, Belarus will also receive some ‘goodies,’" Kozlov said. According to him, the introduction of duties on Europe will have a "plus effect" on Russia and Belarus. (Sputnik.by,3 04.03.25)
Estonia: (20%)
Uku Varblane, head of research at the Foresight Center, said: "Taking a step back, one could say that in some ways the goal pursued by U.S. President Donald Trump is understandable—namely, to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and encourage more foreign investment into the country. But the method of achieving that through tariffs is, to put it mildly, baffling ... It doesn't seem very realistic that industries like clothing or textiles, or other light manufacturing sectors that have moved to Asia and lower-wage countries through international division of labor, would be revived in the U.S. The idea that international trade is not a zero-sum game and that all parties actually benefit from it just doesn't seem logical or comprehensible to Trump.” (ERR, 04.03.25)
Georgia: (10%)
Levan Makhashvili, the European Integration Committee chair in the Georgian parliament, said: “Georgia, like other nations in the South Caucasus, has been subjected to a basic 10% tariff. In this context, we present a clear case to the Americans. Our trade turnover reveals that imports exceed 90%, while exports, which are now subject to tariffs, account for only 10%. The underlying reason for Trump’s trade policy lies in this imbalance, where foreign countries have been taking undue advantage of America’s relatively lenient approach.” (1TV.ge, 04.03.25)
Kazakhstan: (27%)
Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Trade said: "A preliminary analysis of the new trade measures taken by the American side showed that a significant part of Kazakhstan's exports to the United States are not subject to additional tariffs, since they are included in the list of exceptions provided for by the regulations of the U.S. administration.” (Tengrinews, 04.03.25)
Kyrgyzstan: (10%)
Arsen Imankulov, economist, said that the direct impact of the new American duties on the republic will be limited. According to the Office for the Administration of Foreign Trade of the United States, in 2024, Kyrgyzstan’s exports to the United States amounted to about $8 million. In the overall structure of exports, the KR is a small value of only 0.2%. “It is important to understand that these duties are imposed not only against Kyrgyzstan, but in fact against all states. Therefore, if we talk about the price competitiveness of our products, nothing will change radically,” said Arsen Imankulov. (24.kg, 04.03.25)
Latvia: (20%)
Edgars Rinkēvičs, Latvian president, said: “Before assessing the impact of the promised U.S. tariffs, it is important to first wait for a joint position from the European Union ... Today, the situation regarding the possible U.S. tariffs—expected not only against Europe but also other countries—might become clearer. The Prime Minister and I discussed the potential impact on Latvia’s economy.” (Baltic News Network, 04.02.25)
Lithuania: (10%)
Lukas Savickas, economy minister, said tariffs imposed by the United States on EU imports may dent Lithuania’s economic growth by 0.65% over three to four years. “Generally, the direct effect, according to the calculations of our ministry, would certainly have an impact on our GDP decline, which could be up to 0.65% in the medium term, over three to four years,” Savickas told the radio Žinių Radijas April 3. The impact of the tariffs on the Lithuanian economy would be “even more significant” if they were long-term, he said. (LRT, 04.03.25)
Moldova: (31%)
Dorin Recean, Moldovan PM, said: "We understand the concerns of our producers, who have essentially been working constantly to gain access to the American market, and the government will intervene to help these entrepreneurs maintain their competitiveness," Recean said. According to him, the U.S. decision will only affect 2.5% of Moldovan exports, since most Moldovan products are supplied to EU countries. (Interfax, 04.02.25)
Tajikistan: (10%)
To be updated
Turkmenistan: (10%)
To be updated
Ukraine: (10%)
Danylo Getmantsev, Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Finance, Tax and Customs Policy, doesn’t believe the new U.S. tariffs willaffect Ukraine's overall exports. However, Germantsev believes that some Ukrainian exports’ key sectors, like metal and pig iron, will be significantly impacted, as 72.6% of Ukraine’s pig iron exports go to the U.S. Additionally, U.S. tariffs on pipes will harm about 20% of Ukraine's pipe exports,rbc.ua reported. (RM, 04.03.25)
Yulia Svyrydenko, Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, said a new 10% U.S. tariff on Ukrainian goods will be “difficult but not critical” for the country’s wartime economy. She noted that Ukraine exported $874 million of goods to the U.S. in 2024, while importing $3.4 billion,FT reported. (RM, 04.03.25)
Uzbekistan: (10%)
Mirkomil Kholboev, economist, said: Last year, 86% of Uzbekistan's exports to the U.S. were services, which are duty-free. Overall, the direct impact of the tariffs on Uzbekistan will be minimal. First, the U.S. is not a major trading partner for the country. Second, the new tariffs will not affect the bulk of exports, he said. However, amid the uncertainty, the price of gold, Uzbekistan's main export commodity, is expected to reach new historical highs, according to the economist. (Kun.uz, 04.03.25)
Country Import Tariff4
1 Moldova 31%
2 Kazakhstan 27%
3 Latvia 20%
4 Lithuania 20%
5 Estonia 20%
6 Azerbaijan 10%
7 Armenia 10%
8 Georgia 10%
9 Kyrgyzstan 10%
10 Tajikistan 10%
11 Turkmenistan 10%
12 Uzbekistan 10%
13 Ukraine 10%
14 Russia No new tariffs imposed
15 Belarus No new tariffs imposed
Footnotes:
Lesotho, which accounts for <0.05% of America’s imports, was slapped with a 50% tariff, as was Saint Pierre & Miquelon, which also accounts for <0.05% of America’s imports, according to BBC.
The author would like to thank RM editor Ivan Arreguin-Toft for researching responses in Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia and Lithuania.
A Russian government-funded entity accused of publishing propaganda.
Sources: RM research, News.am and Telegram account of pro-Kremlin Russian analyst Sergei Markov.