-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
Facing tariffs and pressure from the West, India’s oil trade with Russia underscores how external coercion can sharpen sovereignty and reshape global alignments.
In the history of diplomacy and international relations, significant pressure from dominant powers has often produced outcomes that are only favourable to them. Possessing unparalleled military and economic resources, these powers possess the leverage to compel weaker or less resourced states to make concessions and comply with their strategic objectives. As Thucydides observed in The History of the Peloponnesian War, “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” highlighting the enduring dynamics of power and coercion among states. However, this dynamic is not universal. Historical and contemporary examples demonstrate that external pressure can, paradoxically, stimulate greater independence rather than compliance, as states leverage newfound capacities to assert their interests and make strategic choices aligned with national priorities. Thus, while coercive influence remains a common instrument of powerful states, the interaction between internal capacities and external pressures often produces outcomes that enhance sovereignty rather than diminish it.
As Thucydides observed in The History of the Peloponnesian War, “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,”
The contemporary international system is undergoing profound structural transformations, characterised by the erosion of unipolarity and the emergence of a more polycentric global order. This shift is evident in the increasing assertiveness of Global South nations—especially the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries— in pursuing autonomous foreign policies and safeguarding their sovereignty. Among these nations, India has notably enhanced its strategic agency, exemplified by its energy policy decisions. India's energy trade has undergone a significant transformation over the recent period. Before the Russia-Ukraine conflict, India sourced approximately 1 percent of its crude oil imports from Russia. However, by 2024, this figure surged to nearly 30-40 percent, making Russia India's largest oil supplier. It even surpassed traditional suppliers such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. This shift can be attributed to the reorientation of global energy markets following the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict, which redirected Russian oil supplies and created opportunities for India to procure oil at discounted rates.
In 2024, India imported approximately 1.8 million barrels of Russian crude oil per day, accounting for around 37 percent of Russia's total oil exports during that period. The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) reported that India purchased oil worth approximately US$13.39 billion from Russia since early 2022, accounting for over 20 percent of Russia's total crude export earnings during that period .
In response to India's continued imports of Russian oil, the United States (US) imposed a 50 percent tariff on Indian goods, comprising a 25 percent standard tariff and an additional 25 percent punitive tariff. This move was widely perceived as an attempt to coerce India into altering its energy trade policy. However, India has consistently defended its sovereign right to determine its economic partnerships, emphasising that its energy policy is driven by market realities, economic rationality, and strategic imperatives rather than political alignment.
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in India characteris ed Washington’s actions as “ unjustified and unreasonable”, affirming that India would implement all necessary measures to protect its national interests and economic security. Indian officials further highlighted the inconsistency of US criticism, noting that the latter continues to import Russian uranium, palladium, fertilisers , and chemical products, which reflects a selective application of coercive pressure.
India has consistently defended its sovereign right to determine its economic partnerships, emphasising that its energy policy is driven by market realities, economic rationality, and strategic imperatives rather than political alignment.
India's engagement with Russian oil exemplifies a pragmatic approach to energy security, driven by economic considerations and strategic imperatives. Despite external pressures, India has maintained its energy trade with Russia, upholding its sovereignty and commitment to national development objectives. This stance aligns with the broader theoretical notion of a ‘ post-Western’ world, wherein emerging powers such as India play an active role in shaping the international order.
India’s engagement with Russian hydrocarbons underscores the centrality of energy security to the country’s foreign policy and economic strategy. A senior Indian diplomat recently observed that Russia has supplied crude oil to India at “highly attractive” prices, allowing New Delhi to secure substantial economic benefits. Nearly 90 percent of bilateral transactions are reportedly denominated in rubles and rupees, a practice that not only insulates trade from dollar volatility but also reflects a broader structural trend toward regional currency settlements in South–South trade.
This strategic orientation is rooted in material necessity. With India importing approximately 85 percent of its crude oil requirements, access to discounted Russian supplies offers not only fiscal relief but also diversification of its energy portfolio. Such diversification has become particularly salient in the aftermath of the Ukraine conflict, which restructured global energy flows by diverting Russian exports toward Asian markets.
The settlement of Russian–Indian trade in national currencies represents more than a technical adjustment; it embodies what has been described as the ‘ geopolitics of money’. By shifting transactions away from the dollar, New Delhi signals both economic pragmatism and a commitment to enhancing financial sovereignty. Some scholars have argued that such practices contribute incrementally to a fragmented monetary order in which the dollar remains dominant but increasingly contested. The symbolism of the ruble–rupee trade resonates beyond bilateral relations. It aligns with a wider Global South discourse of autonomy, wherein emerging powers seek to challenge what Amitav Acharya terms the “hierarchical liberal order” by constructing plurilateral mechanisms of exchange. Thus, de-dollarisation , even in its partial form, should be interpreted as a political act with systemic implications.
The settlement of Russian–Indian trade in national currencies represents more than a technical adjustment; it embodies what has been described as the ‘ geopolitics of money’.
The resumption of Indian purchases of Russian Urals crude, as reported by Bloomberg, occurred despite the US imposing an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian imports. American officials have sought to delegitimise these transactions. White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro contended in the Financial Times that the surge in imports reflected speculative manoeuvring by India’s petroleum lobby rather than structural domestic demand. Similarly, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that discounted Russian crude disproportionately enriched India’s wealthiest families, framing the trade as an elite capture of rents rather than a matter of national economic security.
These critiques exemplify the limitations of the coercive diplomacy practised by the US. John Mearsheimer and Kenneth Waltz long emphasised that great powers attempt to discipline secondary states through material instruments. However, the Indian case illustrates the declining effectiveness of such measures in a multipolari sing order. Despite tariff threats, sanctions pressure, and diplomatic signalling , New Delhi has sustained an energy policy guided by cost efficiency and market rationality rather than external conditionalities.
The case of India reflects a broader systemic transformation toward what some scholars characteri se as a “post-Western world.” As one of the principal engines of global growth, India is increasingly positioning itself as a sovereign actor—resisting unilateral Western pressure while simultaneously deepening partnerships with other nations in the Global South, including Russia and China. This trajectory challenges the durability of US-led economic governance and raises questions about the future of the liberal international order. The persistence of Indo–Russian energy cooperation suggests that alternative avenues of globalisation are not only conceivable but already operative.
Georgi Asatryan (PhD) is an Associate Professor at Moscow State University and Plekhanov Russian University of Economics.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Georgi Asatryan (PhD) is an Associate Professor at Moscow State University and Plekhanov Russian University of Economics. ...
Read More +
PREV
