On August 22, 2025, White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro made pointed remarks about India’s evolving role in the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict, calling Prime Minister Narendra Modi “a great leader,” while simultaneously criticising India’s energy imports and trade policies.

Speaking in Washington, Navarro emphasised that “the road to peace runs through New Delhi,” underscoring the U.S. administration’s view that India has now become central to determining the trajectory of the war and its economic consequences. His comments illustrate both the recognition of India as a crucial partner and the frustration within Washington over India’s continued reliance on Russian oil.

Navarro highlighted that prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, India imported less than one percent of its crude oil from Russia. However, since then, Russian oil has surged to account for nearly 35–40% of India’s imports. He argued that India does not “need” Russian crude, framing the purchases instead as a form of commercial profiteering.

According to Navarro, Russian refiners sell discounted crude to partners—including Indian refiners—who then process it and resell refined products to Europe, Africa, and Asia at premium rates. While economically beneficial to Indian refiners, this process channels revenues back to Moscow, enabling Russia to sustain its war effort, thereby prolonging the conflict. Navarro went so far as to call India a “laundromat for the Kremlin,” accusing it of indirectly funding the war while benefitting from arbitrage in the oil markets.

Beyond energy imports, Navarro also criticised India’s trade barriers, describing them as “Maharaja tariffs” and non-tariff obstacles that significantly contribute to the United States’ trade deficit with India. He pointed out that Washington now runs a “massive” trade deficit, which he argued diminishes American competitiveness and burdens U.S. workers and businesses.

Navarro linked this economic imbalance directly to U.S. taxpayer costs, claiming that revenues India generates from trade with the U.S. are then diverted to Russian crude purchases, setting off a cycle that forces the U.S. to spend more on military aid to Ukraine. He praised former President Donald Trump’s tariff strategy as a way of reshaping this “chessboard,” asserting that Washington needs to hold New Delhi accountable while simultaneously leveraging its influence toward ending the war.

Navarro’s criticisms were not confined to trade and oil. He accused India of becoming increasingly accommodative toward China, suggesting that New Delhi has been “cosying up” to President Xi Jinping. This remark feeds into broader U.S. anxieties over India’s balancing act between the West, Russia, and China within its foreign policy framework.

By presenting India as simultaneously a partner and a problematic actor, Navarro’s comments reveal the difficulty Washington faces in reconciling its strategic dependence on India to counter China with its frustration at Indian policies deemed contrary to U.S. objectives in Europe and the global energy market.

His remarks have drawn contrasting responses across the policy spectrum. Nikki Haley, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, took a different approach, cautioning against alienating New Delhi. Writing in Newsweek, she described India as a “prized free and democratic partner,” warning that undermining the 25-year momentum of U.S.–India relations would be a “strategic disaster.” Haley urged President Trump to engage Prime Minister Modi in direct dialogue “sooner rather than later,” framing India as the only viable counterweight to China’s growing dominance in Asia. Haley’s call illustrates a competing perspective within Washington—that despite India’s energy decisions, alienating New Delhi risks driving it closer to China and Russia, thereby undercutting long-term U.S. strategic interests.

Renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs added another layer of critique, denouncing the U.S. decision to impose steep tariffs on Indian goods as “bizarre,” “self-destructive,” and “the stupidest tactical move in U.S. foreign policy.” He argued that instead of functioning as a coherent strategy, the tariffs represent sabotage of American foreign policy objectives by damaging ties with a vital partner. Sachs further warned that punitive measures have strengthened cohesion among the BRICS countries, potentially accelerating their efforts to build alternative global trade, currency, and governance mechanisms—an outcome contrary to Washington’s interests.

China’s response to these developments was equally significant. Chinese Ambassador to India, Xu Feihong, expressed firm opposition to the U.S. tariffs, warning that “silence or compromise only emboldens the bully.” Xu pledged that China would stand with India to uphold the WTO-led multilateral trading system, positioning Beijing as a champion of fairness and justice for developing economies while condemning Washington’s reliance on protectionist tariffs as a bargaining chip. He underlined that U.S. trade wars disrupt the global system, promote “power politics,” and strengthen the “law of the jungle.” By aligning rhetorically with India against American tariff aggression, Beijing further attempts to draw New Delhi closer in the broader geopolitical contest with Washington.

The escalation of U.S. tariffs has been dramatic. In July 2025, Trump announced a 25% tariff on Indian goods, with hopes of an interim trade deal that might have prevented escalation. However, India’s continued importation of Russian crude triggered the imposition of an additional 25%, raising the total tariff rate to 50%. This sharp increase has put significant pressure on Indian exporters while further straining bilateral trade ties that had previously benefited from decades of steady liberalisation and cooperation.

In conclusion, Navarro’s remarks illustrate both recognition of India’s central role in shaping global outcomes and America’s frustrations with New Delhi’s independent path. The U.S. faces an acute strategic dilemma: on one hand, India’s purchasing of Russian oil and pursuit of profits through refining undermine Western sanctions and prolong the Ukraine war; on the other, alienating India through tariffs and public criticism risks undermining one of Washington’s most important long-term strategic partnerships, particularly given the challenge posed by China. While figures such as Navarro advocate a harder line, others like Haley and Sachs warn of the dangers of rupturing U.S.–India relations. 

Meanwhile, China seeks to exploit this rift by positioning itself as India’s partner against U.S. “economic bullying.” With Washington and New Delhi now locked in a high-stakes negotiation shaped by trade, energy, and geopolitics, the coming months will determine whether the U.S.–India partnership strengthens in the face of global challenges or fractures under competing pressures.

Based On ANI Report