The latest remarks by US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker have triggered another round of tension over Russia’s wartime economy and the global flow of energy trade.

In an interview to Fox News on September 9, Whitaker claimed that Moscow’s military operations in Ukraine were largely sustained by the sale of Russian oil to countries such as India, China, and Brazil.

He asserted that although cracks were emerging within Russia’s economic structure due to sanctions, the revenues from energy exports were still serving as the primary financial lifeline for the Kremlin.

Building on this argument, Whitaker called for the imposition of new tariffs and expanded sanctions against these buying states, stressing the need for coordination between the United States, the European Union, and the “broader free world” to ensure that Vladimir Putin is pressured into ending the war.

According to him, only such collective, international measures can reduce the cost of doing business with Russia and make its continued aggression in Ukraine unsustainable.

His comments underscore Washington’s view that countries purchasing discounted Russian crude are indirectly financing the war. Whitaker noted specifically that India, China, and Brazil have emerged as key markets absorbing Russia’s redirected oil supplies after Western sanctions closed off most of Europe.

He argued that sanctioning these countries would be the “next stage” in disrupting Moscow’s revenue streams and that without such action, existing sanctions would not deliver the intended outcome.

At the same time, he highlighted that Ukraine had already shown openness to a negotiated settlement, including a willingness to freeze the current front lines if backed by adequate international guarantees. This, he said, placed a burden on the global community to ensure diplomatic initiatives are supported by intensified economic measures against Russia and its trading partners.

The United States has repeatedly accused India in particular of benefiting economically from heavily discounted Russian oil, re-exporting refined products to Western markets, and thereby weakening the bite of sanctions.

This comes despite former President Donald Trump’s more tempered stance towards India after imposing sweeping tariffs earlier this year. Under Washington’s new tariff regime, Indian imports are subject to a baseline 50 per cent duty, with an additional 25 per cent penalty linked expressly to India’s ongoing energy transactions with Moscow.

Officials in New Delhi have responded sharply, describing the targeting of India as “unjustified and unreasonable” while reaffirming that the country will “take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security.”

India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has also sought to deflect criticism by highlighting what it portrays as Western inconsistency. It published figures showing that the European Union’s bilateral trade with Russia in 2024 alone amounted to EUR 67.5 billion in goods, with an additional EUR 17.2 billion in services in 2023.

Further, European Union imports of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) reached a record 16.5 million tonnes in 2024, surpassing the previous high of 15.21 million tons in 2022 despite strict sanctions rhetoric.

The MEA pointedly compared these numbers with India’s relatively modest trade with Russia, insisting that claims of India being a key financier of Moscow’s war were exaggerated when contrasted with continuing European and US imports.

The statement also stressed that EU–Russia trade spans a broad spectrum beyond energy, including fertilisers, mining products, chemicals, steel, and machinery.

The MEA further observed that the United States itself remains dependent on Russian supplies of critical commodities such as uranium hexafluoride for the nuclear power industry, palladium for electric vehicle production, and fertilisers, along with chemicals.

In India’s view, such trade demonstrates selective enforcement and political targeting rather than a consistent principle of sanctioning war-funding commodity streams.

Taken together, Whitaker’s remarks and the responses from New Delhi underscore the growing geopolitical friction surrounding secondary sanctions. The US sees India, China, and Brazil as backdoor enablers of Moscow’s war, while these countries argue that Western powers continue their own trading practices with Russia and should not expect developing economies to shoulder disproportionate burdens.

China’s position as Russia’s largest single buyer of crude oil, Europe’s sustained LNG imports, and the US’s reliance on Russian metals and nuclear-related imports all complicate Washington’s demands for a united sanctions front.

Amid this contention, India, already affected by steep tariffs on its exports to the United States, finds itself forced into balancing its energy security needs with mounting strategic and diplomatic pressure from the West.

Based On ANI Report