The latest comments from United States Senator Lindsey Graham have added a fresh dimension to Washington’s already evolving stance on Russia under the Trump administration.

Graham, a close Republican ally of President Donald Trump, advised that the United States must "crush" the Russian economy by targeting not just Russia itself, but also countries continuing to purchase its oil and gas.

By framing energy exports as Moscow’s most critical economic lifeline, Graham argued that cutting off global demand is the surest way to pressure President Vladimir Putin into reconsidering his military actions.

His remarks, however, highlight a stark contradiction within the administration’s broader engagement with Russia, as President Trump only days earlier spoke of growing US-Russia trade ties and emphasized areas of potential cooperation, particularly in technology, space, and Arctic development.

Trump’s own posture on the issue reflects a balancing act between pressuring allies and adversaries over Russian oil imports, while simultaneously nurturing selective engagement with Moscow. In a recent interview aboard Air Force One, Trump suggested that India – one of Russia’s largest oil clients in recent years – had already reduced purchases significantly, undermining a key pillar of Moscow’s commodity-based economy.

He hinted that the threat of imposing secondary sanctions on countries buying Russian energy could devastate Russia if fully enforced, though he left open the possibility of withholding such measures to keep diplomatic leverage. This statement aligns with Graham’s aggressive proposal but also projects Trump’s preference for using sanctions threats as bargaining chips rather than automatic instruments of policy.

India finds itself at the core of this unfolding geopolitical and economic drama. For New Delhi, Russian crude imports had provided a discounted lifeline amid inflationary pressures, with nearly 40 percent of India’s oil supplies sourced from Moscow at their peak.

However, Trump’s moves to impose a steep 50 percent tariff on Indian exports to the US appear intended to penalize what Washington sees as India’s willingness to provide a financial cushion to the Russian economy.

The tariff decision, already a massive blow to Indian exporters in sectors such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, and technology services, signals an escalation in economic pressure on New Delhi.

Trump’s framing of India as a diminishing oil client for Russia may therefore serve a dual purpose: to weaken Russia’s resource revenues while simultaneously justifying punitive US actions against Indian imports.

Meanwhile, Putin’s recent remarks during a press conference in Alaska underscore the paradox of this policy environment. The Russian leader highlighted that bilateral trade between Moscow and Washington has grown by 20 percent since Trump’s return to office, emphasising untapped opportunities for cooperation in fields like digitization, high technology, space research, and Arctic ventures.

Putin’s message suggested optimism for pragmatic engagement, positioning Russia as open to “turning the page” in US-Russia relations despite military and energy-related tensions.

This narrative directly clashes with the hawkish tone from Graham and the coercive economic strategy outlined by Trump, raising questions about whether Washington’s approach seeks confrontation, selective cooperation, or a shifting mixture of the two.

From a strategic standpoint, Graham’s call for sanctions enforcement against third-party oil importers poses serious risks to US foreign policy.

Aggressive secondary sanctions could alienate key partners such as India and potentially even affect other major global energy consumers like China and Turkey.

With India already under strain from tariffs and having demonstrated resistance to Western pressure on oil procurement, penalising New Delhi further may drive it closer to alternative trade networks, possibly strengthening ties with Russia and China rather than weakening them.

Moreover, such steps might undercut Washington’s own stated interest in using India as a strategic counterweight to Beijing in the Indo-Pacific.

The evolving US approach reveals a complex, often contradictory mix of pressure and partnership. On one hand, hawks like Graham advocate uncompromising measures to strangle Russia’s economic capacity through energy sanctions; on the other, Trump’s own rhetoric emphasizes diplomacy, selective threats, and even new avenues for US-Russia collaboration.

For India, however, the fallout is immediate and severe — with tariffs already imposed and the spectre of sanctions looming, New Delhi faces growing pressures that could disrupt trade and strategic relations.

The situation underscores the fragility of Trump’s balancing act: attempting to coerce adversaries while managing delicate partnerships, all against the backdrop of an uncertain global energy order and an intensifying geopolitical contest.

Based On ANI Report