New Delhi, Aug. 5 -- A diplomatic paradox is once again playing out in full view as US President Donald Trump intensifies pressure on India for its continued imports of Russian crude oil. Amid the escalating rhetoric, a resurfaced video of former US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti has sparked renewed scrutiny. In the clip, Garcetti openly states that India was encouraged by Washington to purchase Russian oil- albeit under a price cap mechanism designed to stabilise global energy markets during the early stages of the Ukraine war. His admission that this was "part of the policy design" has reignited a broader conversation about America's selective memory and shifting standards when it comes to global trade and geopolitical alliances. This wasn't a one-off statement. In fact, during the height of Western sanctions on Russia, various US officials-including then-Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen-explicitly acknowledged that India's continued import of Russian oil was not only permissible but even beneficial, so long as it avoided Western financial and shipping services. Yellen emphasised in late 2022 that India could purchase oil beyond the price cap, as long as it did not rely on G7 mechanisms, thereby underlining the transactional and pragmatic nature of American diplomacy at the time. By February 2024, the US State Department's Geoffrey Pyatt even praised India's role in stabilising global crude prices. The underlying objective was clear: keep global oil prices manageable while isolating Russia diplomatically. In this equation, India wasn't a rogue actor-it was a convenient ally. That narrative, however, has taken a sharp U-turn.
Fast forward to 2025, and the tone from Washington-especially from President Trump-has become far more confrontational. Accusing India of profiting from cheap Russian crude and displaying indifference toward the war in Ukraine, Trump has declared a tariff hike on Indian goods. These new levies, expected to jump from 10 to 25 per cent, are framed as punishment for India's unwillingness to scale down its energy ties with Moscow. Trump has also suggested that India is acting against American interests and, by extension, against the global cause of pressuring Russia into ending its war with Ukraine. But behind this seemingly moralistic stance lies a deeper, more transactional motive: oil. Trump's re-election campaign has received substantial backing from American fossil fuel giants. His administration is now offering generous tax breaks-close to $18 billion-to the oil and gas sector. Against this backdrop, Trump's tariff threat appears less about Ukraine and more about redirecting India's energy dependence from Russia to the United States. Since the beginning of 2025, US crude exports to India have surged by over 50 per cent. India now sources 8 per cent of its oil imports from the US. The message is unmistakable: buy more American oil or face economic consequences. This is not diplomacy-it's coercive capitalism dressed in the garb of geopolitical ethics. India, to its credit, has not backed down. The Ministry of External Affairs has categorically dismissed the tariffs as "unjustified and unreasonable," asserting that India has every right to diversify its energy sources in line with national interest. New Delhi has also reminded Washington that its decision to import Russian crude was triggered by Europe's sudden shift away from Russian energy after the war broke out-thereby diverting traditional supply chains and prompting India to seek alternatives. With inflation and economic stability at stake, India's reliance on discounted Russian crude has allowed it to manage fuel prices domestically and keep its import bill in check. As of mid-2025, India imports nearly 1.75 million barrels of Russian oil per day, accounting for more than a third of its total crude needs. In return, Moscow has found a lifeline market, helping it offset sanctions-induced losses. The latest flare-up raises uncomfortable questions about the credibility of US foreign policy. If India was once praised for acting as a stabilising force in energy markets, how can the same conduct now be grounds for penalisation? This sudden shift reveals a deeper inconsistency in America's global posturing-one that changes with its political leadership and lobbyist interests. Moreover, Washington's fluctuating standards risk alienating partners like India, which has consistently walked the tightrope between maintaining strategic autonomy and engaging with the West.
India is not just another trade partner. It is the United States' largest export market in the Global South and a key pillar in Washington's Indo-Pacific strategy. But if the relationship is reduced to transactional exchanges-where policy dictates shift with domestic electoral calculations-the trust deficit will only widen. India's message is clear: it will prioritise sovereignty, energy security, and economic pragmatism over rhetorical pressure. And while India remains open to importing more American oil, it refuses to do so under duress or at the cost of its strategic flexibility. At its core, this dispute underscores the fragile balancing act that defines today's global order. As countries navigate a multipolar world, national interest-not alignment- is the new currency of diplomacy. Washington must recognise that influence cannot be bought with tariffs, nor retained through public rebukes. India's resilience in the face of pressure is not an act of defiance but one of self-preservation-and that is a principle any mature democracy should understand.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.