A New York Post editorial on Tuesday urged President Donald Trump to impose "very severe" sanctions on Russia and its trading partners immediately, arguing the measures would squeeze Moscow’s economy and force it to the negotiating table in the war in Ukraine.
The editorial contends that senior U.S. military advisers told Trump that Russian forces are losing and paying a high price for limited gains, but says the president has conditioned new penalties on NATO consensus and on member states halting purchases of Russian oil. "I am ready to 'go' when you are," the editorial quoted Trump as saying, adding that he wants all NATO nations to agree and to stop buying Russian oil before acting.
The opinion piece cited comments attributed to Trump’s special envoy, retired Gen. Keith Kellogg, and to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, identified in the column as USAF Gen. Dan Caine, saying they had told the president before his meeting with President Vladimir Putin in Alaska that Russia was "in fact, losing this war." Kellogg was quoted as saying, "If he was winning, he'd be in Kyiv. If he’s winning, he’d be west of the Dnipro River."
The editorial said Trump had vowed the sanctions nine weeks earlier and that the Alaska summit had not produced the breakthroughs Team Trump had anticipated. It added that Russian tactics have included intensified drone and missile strikes on civilian areas and sporadic incursions of drones into NATO territory, which the column said were intended to raise fears of a wider conflict.
The Post editorial contended that Europe already has sharply reduced its dependence on Russian oil and that a coordinated global effort, including sanctions on trading partners and on China for energy shipments, would severely degrade Russia’s ability to sustain its war effort. The column said European buyers have curtailed Russian oil imports by about 90% since the start of the war and cited figures that the United States still imports some Russian-produced goods — including fertilizer, palladium and uranium — amounting to about $3 billion in 2024. It also cited a figure that China shipped roughly $160 billion in goods to Russia last year, including $63 billion in oil.
Congressional pressure to broaden sanctions was highlighted in the piece. The column said about 85 senators are prepared to back new penalties on nations that continue to buy Russian oil but that some Republicans are reluctant to act without a green light from the White House.
The editorial also singled out Turkey as a potential obstacle to a full NATO-aligned sanctions regime, noting that Ankara remains a significant buyer of Russian oil and that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has shown no sign of curtailing purchases.
Officials in the White House and the Defense Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the editorial's account. The Post’s column framed the debate as a test of presidential credibility, arguing that continued delays would undermine threats the president has made to use economic pressure against Moscow.
Observers of U.S. policy toward the war in Ukraine say coordination among allies, enforcement mechanisms and the potential economic repercussions for other countries are key factors in any decision to escalate sanctions. Some lawmakers and analysts have long argued that broad, multilateral measures are more effective than unilateral steps, while others say targeted, immediate sanctions can constrain Moscow’s ability to wage war and signal firm support for Ukraine.
The New York Post editorial reflects one voice in a broader domestic debate about the pace and scope of U.S. economic pressure on Russia, the role of allied coordination, and the administration's strategy for ending the conflict. Lawmakers in both parties have continued to weigh proposals that would expand sanctions authority, even as the White House signals interest in aligning measures with partner countries.