India, Oil, and the Hollow U.S. Narrative
For India, the path is clear: protect its economy, support its citizens, expand its global influence, and weather the bluster. The U.S. administration of today will pass; India’s patience will endure.
White House trade advisor Peter Navarro’s attempt to brand the Ukraine conflict as “PM Modi’s war” reflects both a distortion of India’s energy choices and the hollowness of U.S. moralizing.
By accusing India of financing Russia’s aggression through discounted oil purchases, Navarro overlooks Washington’s own contradictions, profiting from arms sales to NATO, turning a blind eye to Palestine, and weaponizing tariffs in a way that damages alliances rather than strengthening them.
India’s Oil Imperative: Energy Security, Not Ideology
When the Ukraine war began in February 2022, India’s Russian oil imports were negligible. Yet as global energy prices surged, discounted crude from Moscow became a vital hedge for India’s economy:
- Imports surged to about 1.7 million barrels per day in 2024, averaging 1.6 million bpd in early 2025.
- Value ballooned from less than $2.5 billion in 2021–22 to over $31 billion in 2022–23.
- India’s share of Russia’s crude exports during wartime crossed 20%, worth over ₹13 lakh crore.
New Delhi never hid its rationale: securing affordable energy for 1.4 billion people. Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar’s rebuttal was pointed: “Europe buys more oil from Russia in an afternoon than India buys in a month.”
Europe’s Double Standards
If India is guilty of buying Russian crude, what of Europe? After banning direct Russian oil, European states began importing refined petroleum from India.
- Exports of petroleum products from India to Europe quadrupled, climbing from $5.9 billion in 2019 to $20.5 billion recently.
- Volumes rose by more than 250,000% between 2018–19 and 2023–24.
- In 2023–24 alone, Europe imported $19.2 billion worth of refined fuels from India—much of it derived from Russian crude.
In short, Europe burns Russian oil laundered through Indian refineries. To accuse India while quietly enabling the same flows reveals a double standard.
Diversified Imports, Strategic Choices
India’s energy strategy has not been one-dimensional. In 2023–24, it imported 232.5 million tonnes of crude: about 46% from West Asia, 39% from the CIS (including Russia), and the rest from other sources, including the U.S. Russian oil accounted for just over one-fifth of the value, reflecting discounts rather than dependence.
India continues to balance its suppliers, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, the U.S., and Russia. The “Russia-only” narrative collapses when confronted with data.
Multipolar Diplomacy: Walking Several Roads
India’s diplomacy reflects its pragmatic approach. It is a pillar of the U.S.-led Quad, alongside Japan and Australia, while simultaneously being a member of the China- and Russia-led SCO. It is building bridges with the West through I2U2 (India, Israel, UAE, U.S.) and a trilateral with France and the UAE, even as it buys discounted oil from Moscow and technology from Washington.
This balancing act is no accident. India prizes strategic autonomy, engaging with competing blocs to maximize leverage. To frame this as “arrogance” is to misunderstand the logic of a multipolar order.
The Ambition–Capacity Gap
India’s global ambitions – to act as an energy broker, a technology hub, and a geopolitical swing state – still outpace its economic and military capacities. To close this gap, India must invest in:
- infrastructure,
- defense modernization,
- regional leadership, and
- human capital.
Without this, New Delhi remains more a reactive manager of contradictions than an agenda-setter.
Domestic Cushion Against Tariffs
Tariffs imposed by the U.S. will hurt exporters, particularly in the textile, jewelry, and agriculture sectors. To protect constituents, India can:
- Recycle savings from discounted Russian oil into subsidies for affected industries.
- Provide export credit and insurance to tide businesses through tariff shocks.
- Incentivize diversification to Africa, ASEAN, and Latin America.
- Push for rupee-settlement trade to reduce dollar exposure.
- Upgrade domestic supply chains for higher-value exports.
Such steps would turn global adversity into an opportunity for self-reliance.
Arms, Gaza, and U.S. Hypocrisy
If Navarro can call Ukraine’s war “Modi’s war,” then why not call America’s own arms sales what they are – death business? Washington supplies NATO with weapons that are then gifted to Ukraine, prolonging the war and multiplying casualties. For U.S. defense contractors, Ukraine is a market; for Ukrainians, it is death.
The double standards are glaring. Where is this moral fervor when it comes to Gaza and Palestine? Why are Russian bombs in Ukraine seen as existential threats to democracy, while Israeli bombs in Gaza are excused as “security”? Russia is certainly not attacking the U.K., France, or Germany, yet NATO countries bleed their treasuries and risk escalation for a war that is not their own. Is it prudent governance to prolong the war on foreign soil while declaring peace is the objective behind it?
India’s Long-Term Retaliation Strategy
Rather than bending to U.S. tariffs and rhetoric, India should respond with patience and resolve:
- No hasty negotiations: refuse to rush to the table, unsettling Washington’s urgency.
- Selective trade continuity: maintain exports in unaffected sectors, while cancelling unfixed U.S. deals.
- Diversify partners: deepen defense ties with France, Iran, the U.K., and Germany; quietly explore Sino-Indian arms-manufacturing projects to shock markets as well as the users of Chinese arms and planes; join hands with Brazil for the development of Embraer planes as Indo-Brazil projects. With BRICS, these opportunities should not look far-fetched.
- Reject alliances of entrapment: NATO-style structures have no relevance for India. Its objective is business and peace, not war.
- Play the long game: U.S. administrations change every four years; India’s continuity for the present outlasts their tantrums.
A Hollow Diatribe
Navarro’s claim that “taxpayers lose because we fund Modi’s war” collapses under scrutiny. The U.S. funds the war because it sells arms to the countries involved. Europe continues to sustain its war efforts because it still imports Russian oil through India at a sustainable rate. Had it not been the case, the oil market would have ballooned, hurting all. And Washington prolongs the war by refusing to recognize multipolarity.
India, meanwhile, has balanced its oil trade, diversified its diplomacy, and sought only to secure its people’s energy needs. It has shouldered none of NATO’s illusions, nor accepted the arrogance of dictation.
The hollowness of this U.S. approach is revealed in its domestic contradictions. On the one hand, it calls China the “greatest threat.” On the other hand, it plans to host nearly 600,000 Chinese students while tightening immigration for Indians. On the one hand, it castigates India for Russian oil. On the other hand, it sells shale gas to Europe. On the one hand, it lectures India on morality. On the other hand, it bankrolls weapons in Gaza.
The Way Forward
The road to peace does not run through New Delhi. It runs through Washington’s capacity to abandon hypocrisy, accept multipolarity, and stop weaponizing trade. If the U.S. truly values its partnership with India, it must drop the arrogance of dictation.
Peace cannot be built on selective scapegoating. Nor can alliances endure when one partner indulges in browbeating while privately profiting from the war.
For India, the path is clear: protect its economy, support its citizens, expand its global influence, and weather the bluster. The U.S. administration of today will pass; India’s patience will endure.
Data sources: Reuters; NBR; BBC; Economic Times; The Print; Al Jazeera; TradeImex; World Trade Scanner; NDTV.
Recommended for you
Leave a Reply
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
