Photo: Cartoon movement
On 2 April 2025, the world woke up to a new reality: US President Donald Trump announced the introduction of massive “reciprocal” tariffs covering 183 countries and territories, calling it “Liberation Day” for US trade. However, there are notable exceptions to this global economic offensive: Russia, Cuba, Belarus and North Korea were left off the list. Why: As White House Press Secretary Carolyn Leavitt told Axios, “U.S. sanctions already prevent any meaningful trade” with these countries. At the same time, the paradox is that the volume of US trade with Russia in 2024 was $3.5 billion, more than with countries such as Mauritius or Brunei, which have been under tariff pressure. This news, backed up by data from the US Chamber of Commerce, opens up space for in-depth analysis: is this a strategic move or just a chaotic manifestation of protectionism?
Tariff geography: from Svalbard to penguins
The list of countries affected by the duties is striking in its eclecticism. It even includes remote territories such as Tokelau (population 1500) in the South Pacific and Svalbard (2500) in the Arctic, which are under the jurisdiction of New Zealand and Norway, respectively. Moreover, the list includes the Herd and Macdonald Islands, deserted pieces of land in the Indian Ocean where the only “economic agents” are penguins. This seemingly absurd choice underscores the ambitiousness of Trump’s plan: to cover the entire world, leaving exceptions only where sanctions already act as an economic barrier.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce cites specific figures: imports from Russia in 2024 totalled $3 billion (down 34.2% from 2023), while U.S. exports to Russia were only $526.1 million (down 12.3%). The trade deficit with Russia shrank to $2.5 billion. This data shows that sanctions have indeed narrowed the economic space between Washington and Moscow, but not to zero. Compare this with Mauritius or Brunei, whose trade with the US is negligible, and the question arises: is Trump’s selectivity more a political gesture than economic logic?
Israel: a reckoning for naivety
Another interesting case is that of Israel, which hoped to avoid a tariff blow by cancelling the last duties on American agricultural products. However, the hopes were in vain: The US imposed a 17% tariff on Israeli imports, which will come into effect on 9 April. Trump has repeatedly stressed that his trade policy is aimed not only at tariffs, but also at broader “injustices” such as VAT, currency manipulation, and subsidies. In the case of Israel, American economists have calculated a 34% “advantage”, taking into account the 83% tax on the purchase of American cars and the 18% VAT. The only surprising thing is the accusation of intellectual property rights infringement, as Israel has not been on the US list of violators in this area since 2014.
The economic consequences for Israel will be significant. The US absorbs 26% of Israel’s merchandise exports ($17.3 billion in 2024), including high-tech products (20%), medical equipment (13%), diamonds (10%) and pharmaceuticals (5%). Giants such as Intel Israel, Teva, ICL and Adama will be hit, but small exporters, for whom the US market is key, will be most affected. The fate of the trilateral agreements with Egypt and Jordan, which provided duty-free access to the US, remains unclear, adding to the uncertainty.
Philosophy of protectionism: economics or politics?
Trump’s approach to trade is reminiscent of the words of Thomas Hobbes: “Human life in its natural state is a war of all against all.” In his economic paradigm, the world is an arena where every country must prove its loyalty or pay the price. But will it work? Economists such as Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations warn that Trump’s chaotic policy of imposing and then cancelling tariffs could lead to inflation and the disruption of global supply chains. The Israeli example shows that even allies are not immune to this pressure.
Despite the sanctions burden, Russia maintains a minimal trade presence in the US. This may indicate Trump’s pragmatism: why impose duties where the economic lever has already been exhausted? At the same time, the inclusion of such “exotic” players as Tokelau and Svalbard in the list hints at symbolism: America is demonstrating that its economic power does not recognise borders – even where only penguins guard them.
The result: a chess game without rules
Trump’s trade war is not just an economic manoeuvre, but a geopolitical experiment that challenges the established world order. For intelligent readers, this is an opportunity to think about whether such a strategy can “make America great again” or whether it will only accelerate the fragmentation of the global economy. So far, the answer lies over the horizon, somewhere between the Arctic and Antarctic, where penguins indifferently watch human ambitions.
