US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker has accused BRICS nations—India, China, and Brazil—of indirectly funding Russia’s war in Ukraine through oil purchases and trade ties. His remarks, made in a Fox News interview, have gone viral, sparking accusations of US hypocrisy as Washington itself has spent over $130 billion on Ukraine. The controversy highlights deepening tensions between NATO and BRICS in a shifting multipolar world.
US Ambassador to NATO Accuses BRICS Nations of Funding Ukraine War
In a development stirring global debate, US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker has directly accused key BRICS nations—India, China, and Brazil—of indirectly funding Russia’s war in Ukraine. The comments, made during a Fox News interview on September 9, 2025, have gone viral on social media, highlighting the growing divide between Western alliances and emerging powers of the Global South. Critics, however, are questioning whether the US itself is guilty of double standards, having spent over $130 billion in support of Ukraine since the war began.
Who is Matthew Whitaker and why are his remarks important?
Matthew Whitaker, a former acting US Attorney General under Donald Trump, was appointed as US Permanent Representative to NATO in early 2025 after Trump’s return to the White House. Known for his hawkish stance on foreign policy, Whitaker has been vocal about countering both Russian aggression and China’s growing global influence. In his latest interview, Whitaker said that India, China, and Brazil are effectively keeping Moscow’s war machine running by maintaining trade ties, oil purchases, and economic links with Russia despite Western sanctions.
Key remarks from Whitaker included: “India, China, and Brazil… they’re the ones buying Russian oil, providing the revenue that funds this war. The free world needs to stand united against this.” He urged NATO members to pressure BRICS countries into isolating Russia economically while stressing the need for continued US arms shipments to Ukraine, including “deeper strike capabilities” to push back against Russian advances.
This is not Whitaker’s first time raising concerns about BRICS. In an August 30, 2025, interview, he suggested Ukraine might be open to a ceasefire along current frontlines in exchange for NATO security guarantees, but he warned that BRICS was undermining global stability. His rhetoric closely aligns with the Trump administration’s broader strategy of rallying NATO against the multipolar challenge represented by BRICS, which expanded in 2024 to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE.
The viral reaction on social media
The September 9 Fox News interview clip has been widely shared on X and YouTube. An account named @RT_India_news, for example, has received over 30,000 views as of September 10. Many posts criticize what they see as US hypocrisy, juxtaposing Whitaker’s remarks with figures showing massive American spending in Ukraine. Users ask whether “the free world” is merely a term for countries aligned with Washington rather than those pursuing true independence.
BRICS’ role: economic necessity or war funding?
BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, plus its new members) promotes itself as a counterbalance to Western-dominated institutions such as NATO and the IMF. Whitaker’s criticism centers particularly on three major players:
China: Beijing has expanded trade with Russia significantly, importing record levels of discounted oil and gas. In 2024, China imported over 2.2 million barrels of Russian oil per day, while total bilateral trade reached $240 billion, up 26% year-on-year. Western intelligence also alleges that Chinese dual-use technologies such as drones and semiconductors end up in Russian hands, though Beijing denies supplying direct military aid.
India: As a non-aligned country, India has ramped up imports of Russian oil to more than 1.5 million barrels per day since 2022, offsetting the vacuum left by Western buyers. This has saved India billions of dollars but drawn warnings of secondary sanctions from the United States. In 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has met Vladimir Putin several times, stressing peace initiatives but also boosting bilateral trade, which now stands at $65 billion.
Brazil: Under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil has pursued pragmatic relations with Russia, continuing fertilizer exports and energy imports. Trade grew 20% in 2024, and Brazil abstained from UN votes condemning Moscow’s actions. At the same time, Brazil has hosted BRICS summits pushing de-dollarization and the use of local currencies for trade. Lula maintains that Brazil is not funding the war but instead promoting dialogue.
Critics of Whitaker’s stance argue that these relationships are driven by economic necessity in developing countries battling inflation and energy insecurity rather than political endorsement of Moscow’s war. BRICS leaders reiterated at their 2025 Kazan Summit that they support a multipolar world order and reject Western pressure.
US spending in Ukraine: the $130.6 billion figure
The Kiel Institute for the World Economy estimates that total US aid to Ukraine since 2022 has reached $130.6 billion as of June 2025. This includes $66.5 billion in military support such as weapons, ammunition, and training, $44.2 billion in financial aid to keep Ukraine’s government running, $15.9 billion in humanitarian assistance, and $4 billion in energy subsidies and reconstruction efforts. This figure excludes indirect costs such as US troop deployments in Europe, which add roughly another $35 billion.
By comparison, the EU has collectively provided around $120 billion, with total Western assistance exceeding $300 billion. The US alone accounts for nearly 40 percent of this support. Critics of the Biden and Trump administrations alike have warned against a “blank check” approach, while supporters insist the aid is vital to prevent Russia from expanding further into Europe.
The “free world” debate and accusations of hypocrisy
Whitaker’s repeated use of the term “free world” has drawn sharp reactions. At a February 2025 Heritage Foundation event, he declared: “The free world must unite against authoritarianism from Moscow to Beijing.” But for many in the Global South, the phrase rings hollow. Commentators on X, like @GauravShuklaMIT, joked that “the free world” only seems to mean those who submit to US and NATO pressure.
This irony resonates especially in countries such as India and Brazil, which are democracies yet resist aligning fully with Washington. BRICS advocates argue that true sovereignty means rejecting a US-dominated global order, citing America’s own history of controversial military interventions in Iraq and Libya as examples of hypocrisy.
Geopolitical stakes: NATO vs BRICS
The fallout from Whitaker’s comments underscores a shifting world order. NATO’s 2025 summit in The Hague discussed imposing tougher sanctions on BRICS-linked trade, while BRICS leaders are advancing plans for a $100 billion development bank to rival the World Bank. Meanwhile, Trump’s administration is weighing tariffs on China and India, moves that could widen fractures between major global economies.
As the war drags on and rhetoric intensifies, the clash between NATO and BRICS is becoming not just about Ukraine, but about the future balance of power in a multipolar world.