In recent weeks, sharp political and economic rifts have emerged between the United States and India, triggered by White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro’s scathing comments over India’s continuing imports of discounted Russian crude oil.

Navarro accused New Delhi of “perpetuating” the Ukraine War by serving as what he described as a “laundromat for the Kremlin.” He argued that by purchasing crude from Russia at heavily discounted rates, refining it, and then selling processed petroleum products at higher margins, India was effectively helping Moscow to sustain its war economy.

According to him, this mechanism enabled Russia to finance its military campaign in Ukraine while Indian refiners and traders earned profits from arbitrage opportunities. Highlighting India’s drastic policy shift since 2022, Navarro drew attention to the fact that before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, India sourced less than 1% of its crude oil from Russia, whereas it now sources approximately 35–40% of its crude from Moscow.

He dismissed New Delhi’s justification of energy security, insisting that India does not “need” Russian oil and was instead profiteering at the expense of global stability.

Navarro’s remarks mark a notable escalation in Washington’s tone, particularly as they coincide with former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley calling for a more constructive approach toward New Delhi. Haley stressed that undermining the U.S.–India strategic partnership would be a “strategic disaster” for Washington, especially when India remains the only realistic counterweight to Beijing’s growing influence across Asia.

Her viewpoint emphasised that India should be viewed as a “prized democratic partner,” urging President Trump to directly engage Prime Minister Narendra Modi to reverse strains in the bilateral relationship. This contrast in messaging—one hawkish from Navarro and another conciliatory from Haley—suggests internal divisions in the U.S. approach to India amidst the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Further sharpening the debate was the intervention of renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs, who strongly criticised the U.S. administration’s recent decision to impose steep tariffs on Indian goods. Calling the move “self-destructive,” Sachs argued that Washington’s coercive trade measures did not constitute a strategy but sabotage, as they risk undoing over two decades of painstaking efforts to deepen U.S.–India ties.

He warned that such steps risk unifying BRICS countries around a stronger anti-Western axis, thereby undermining Washington’s broader foreign policy interests.

His concern is reflected in the latest measures by the Trump administration, which hiked tariffs on Indian goods twice in July, now totalling 50%, specifically citing India’s crude oil purchases from Moscow as justification.

Defending Washington’s decision, Navarro claimed that these tariffs were necessary because India was “cheating” the U.S. on trade by maintaining high tariff and non-tariff barriers, which in his assessment caused a “massive trade deficit” that hurt American workers and corporations.

Navarro explained the sequencing, saying that the first 25% tariff hike was because of what he called “cheating on trade,” while the second 25% was punishment for India’s Russian oil imports. He further warned that the cycle was detrimental to American taxpayers since U.S. aid flows into Ukraine to counter Moscow’s war machine indirectly benefited from Indian-Russian transactions.

To his mind, “the road to peace runs through New Delhi,” suggesting that unless India reconsidered its energy partnership with Moscow, prolongation of the war was inevitable.

India, however, has firmly rejected these accusations. External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar recently clarified that India’s policy of diversifying supplies is shaped by the energy needs of 1.4 billion people and global market factors. In a pointed rebuttal, he observed the irony of the U.S. pressuring India despite the fact that China remains the largest buyer of Russian oil, while the European Union is still Moscow’s biggest LNG customer.

Jaishankar added that Washington had, until recently, encouraged India to purchase Russian crude to help stabilise global energy prices during turbulent periods of supply insecurity. He also highlighted that India had simultaneously increased imports of U.S. oil, demonstrating that New Delhi was maintaining a balanced approach to global markets.

Calling U.S. tariff hikes perplexing, he stressed that punitive measures against India overlooked the broader geopolitical context and ignored the trade surges and energy ties other countries maintained with Russia.

Interestingly, Navarro’s criticism of India resonated strongly against the backdrop of comments made by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who revealed in a press conference with Donald Trump in Alaska on August 16 that bilateral trade between the two nations had already risen by 20% since Trump’s return to power.

This underscores the growing economic interdependence between New Delhi and Moscow, reaffirmed by discounted oil trade as well as defence and technology partnerships, despite Western sanctions.

Meanwhile, China has sided openly with India on this issue. Chinese Ambassador to India Xu Feihong criticised the United States’ decision to impose 50% tariffs on Indian goods, warning that “silence or compromise only emboldens the bully.” Xu argued that tariff wars risk dismantling global free trade systems and replacing them with power politics and protectionism.

He called for stronger cooperation between India and China within multilateral frameworks such as the WTO to safeguard the interests of developing nations and uphold global economic fairness. His remarks suggest that Beijing sees this as an opportunity to draw New Delhi closer within the Global South narrative, positioning both countries against Washington’s use of unilateral tariffs as leverage.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has maintained a firm position, stating that it would take all necessary steps to protect national interests.

In an official statement, the MEA noted that U.S. targeting of India’s energy partnerships with Russia was “extremely unfortunate,” especially since these decisions were grounded in ensuring the energy security of its vast population, not geopolitical manoeuvring. Moreover, the MEA emphasised that India was not acting differently from many other major economies, which too continue importing Russian commodities out of national interest.

Navarro’s blistering criticism, juxtaposed against Haley’s diplomatic appeal and Sachs’ economic warnings, highlights the deep divisions within the U.S. policy establishment on how best to handle India’s growing global role.

With Washington imposing steep tariffs, New Delhi asserting its sovereignty, Beijing lending its support, and Moscow enjoying strengthened trade ties, the episode illustrates a rapidly changing geopolitical and economic environment.

India has positioned itself as a pragmatic actor pursuing energy security, while the U.S. is struggling to reconcile the tension between its strategic need for India as a partner against China and its frustration over India’s economic ties with Moscow.

The road ahead is likely to see heightened diplomatic negotiations, but also friction, as both countries weigh the costs of confrontation against the strategic value of cooperation.

Based On ANI Report