Washington’s latest line of attack on New Delhi over Russian oil imports reveals more double standards than genuine concern. Senior Trump administration figures, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Adviser Peter Navarro, have sharpened their criticism of India, arguing that by buying discounted Russian crude, New Delhi is indirectly funding Moscow’s war effort in Ukraine. Their claims, however, gloss over inconvenient facts and ignore China’s far larger energy dependence on Russia.
India in the Crosshairs
India, they allege, is importing more oil than it needs, with private refiners pocketing billions by selling refined fuels abroad. Navarro has gone so far as to suggest that peace in Ukraine runs through New Delhi, blaming Indian crude purchases for prolonging the conflict. Yet, as India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has repeatedly underlined, New Delhi has neither caused nor fueled the Ukraine war. From the beginning, India has called for diplomacy and dialogue. It is the West that has armed Ukraine with billions in weaponry, hoping to strategically weaken Russia. Now, with those aims faltering, Washington is searching for scapegoats.
Hypocrisy in Plain Sight
What Navarro and Bessent omit is that the US and EU themselves imposed the price cap on Russian oil, explicitly encouraging India to buy at discounted rates to stabilize global supply. Indian refiners are not forcing anyone to purchase their products European buyers themselves are among the biggest customers of Indian diesel and jet fuel. US firms, too, have profited from this trade.
Meanwhile, the West has not hesitated to secure its own windfalls. The US has compelled Europe to lock in $750 billion worth of American LNG over three years as part of a tariff deal, while also pushing European states to buy billions in US-made arms for Ukraine. If profiteering is immoral, why is it excused when American corporations reap the benefits?
Business for Some, Punishment for Others
Navarro’s outrage over India’s refiners making profits ignores his own country’s ethos that “business is business.” The Trump administration now derides Indian companies as “laundromats” for Russia, even though they operate fully within international rules created by the West itself. Jaishankar has pointed out the irony: a US government built on corporate interests suddenly objects when others engage in legitimate commerce.
China Gets a Free Pass
Even more glaring is Washington’s selective silence on Beijing. China imported over 108 million metric tons of Russian oil and gas in 2024, locking in supplies through pipelines and long-term contracts. These flows are immune to price caps, yet there is no penalty for Beijing. Instead, Trump has chosen to extend a tariff pause for China to secure what he calls a “beautiful deal,” despite also accusing Beijing of aiding Russia militarily.
Navarro argues that India’s Russian oil share has surged from 1% to around 30% of imports, while China’s has stayed steady. This is misleading. India’s oil strategy has always been highly diversified: in 2025, roughly 20–23% comes from Iraq, 16–18% from Saudi Arabia, 18–20% from Russia, 8–10% from the UAE, 6–7% from the US, and 5–6% from Nigeria and other African states. China, in contrast, offsets Russian imports with large volumes from Iran another supplier under US sanctions, which Washington chooses to ignore.
A Discriminatory Pressure Campaign
The pressure campaign against India is both unjustified and discriminatory. India imports 85% of its crude needs, and its refining sector plays a vital role in meeting global demand at a time of sanctions-induced disruption. Unlike China, India has balanced its sources and acted transparently. Yet Washington singles it out, while quietly accepting Chinese energy ties with Moscow.
Trump’s advisers may claim moral high ground, but their arguments crumble under scrutiny. In reality, US criticism has less to do with oil and more to do with forcing strategic compliance. India has no reason to bend. Its oil policy remains pragmatic, diversified, and lawful unlike Washington’s shifting goalposts.