United States Vice President JD Vance, in a recent interview with NBC News’ Meet the Press, defended the Trump administration’s decision to impose secondary sanctions and tariffs on India, framing the measures as part of Washington’s broader strategy to exert economic pressure on Russia in response to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

According to Vance, tariffs on India are not directed at New Delhi per se, but rather aimed at disrupting Moscow’s ability to profit from its oil-dependent economy, one of the few lifelines sustaining Russia amid heavy Western sanctions.

He emphasised that these punitive policies were designed to serve as “aggressive economic leverage,” while also leaving Russia a pathway to reintegration into the global economy, contingent upon halting its military aggression against Ukraine.

This underscores Washington’s attempt to balance coercion with conditional engagement, presenting Moscow with both penalties and incentives depending on its behaviour.

When questioned about scepticism voiced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who noted that sanctions alone may not compel Russian President Vladimir Putin to accept a ceasefire, Vance partly agreed but rejected the notion that sanctions were futile. He clarified that sanctions were still on the table, but decisions regarding their imposition would continue to be made on a case-by-case basis.

In his assessment, Russia’s reluctance to stop the war lies in “complicated reasons” tied to its geopolitical and strategic considerations, rather than the inadequacy of Western sanctions.

The Vice President indicated that the United States still holds significant “cards left to play” and stressed that the administration had already pursued more aggressive economic actions against Moscow than previous American governments.

This positioning highlights a belief within the administration that calibrated economic coercion, alongside diplomacy, remains the most viable route to exert leverage over the Kremlin.

Vance also addressed criticisms that Washington had adopted a softer stance toward China, despite Beijing being the largest buyer of Russian oil. He noted that the United States already maintains a steep 54 percent tariff on Chinese imports, suggesting that Washington has indeed implemented substantial punitive measures against the People’s Republic of China.

At the same time, he mentioned that diplomatic engagement with Chinese leaders was ongoing, focusing on persuading Beijing to play a more constructive role in efforts to end the war. This dual-track approach combines punitive tariffs with dialogue, effectively signalling Washington’s intent to prevent China from undermining Western sanctions on Russia while still leaving open channels for negotiation on broader strategic cooperation.

On the issue of flexibility, Vance hinted that U.S. sanctions and tariffs are not necessarily permanent but could be adjusted depending on Russia’s negotiating position and the trajectory of the conflict.

He suggested that sanctions might be scaled back if constructive diplomatic progress with Moscow were made, while additional pressure could be applied if Russia remained unyielding.

This flexible policy framework allows the administration to calibrate its strategies dynamically, balancing punitive actions with potential diplomatic incentives.

His remarks also suggest that while India, China, and other countries may face increased economic restrictions in the short term, they could see relief if their cooperation contributes to an eventual peace deal.

In terms of direct U.S. commitments to Ukraine, the Vice President reiterated Washington’s continued support in the form of security guarantees, logistical backing, and defence cooperation aimed at ensuring Ukraine would not face the risk of another invasion in the future.

He praised the progress that has already been made in strengthening Kyiv’s defences while reaffirming that Washington’s objective remains a secure and sovereign Ukraine capable of resisting Russian aggression.

At the same time, Vance highlighted the administration’s intensive diplomatic efforts to bring both Moscow and Kyiv to the negotiating table, recognising that prolongation of the conflict is detrimental not only to Ukraine but also to Europe, the U.S., and ultimately Russia itself.

By combining heavy economic pressure with attempts at active diplomacy, the Trump administration is attempting to maneuver both sides toward compromise and conflict resolution.

Overall, Vance’s remarks illuminate the administration’s approach as one of “strategic coercive diplomacy”—using secondary sanctions, tariffs, and economic isolation measures against Russia’s trading partners, including India and China, while simultaneously engaging in negotiations and offering conditional incentives for de-escalation.

His statements reflect Washington’s view that the path to ending the conflict will not be obtained by sanctions alone, but through a calculated mix of military support for Ukraine, deterrence against Russia, pressure on countries that sustain Moscow’s economy, and relentless diplomatic outreach seeking a middle ground.

This multifaceted approach underscores the complexity of the geopolitical equation, where the United States seeks to maximise leverage while keeping open a channel for peace.

Based On ANI Report