New Delhi — US officials are preparing to soften their public criticism of India’s purchase of Russian oil, according to senior Indian sources. The shift could follow next week’s high-stakes meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump in Alaska, in what would be a rare departure from the economic hard line that has defined American policy toward Moscow’s allies since the start of the Russian military operation in Ukraine.
For months, the US has levied tariffs that now reach 50% on Indian goods linked to oil imports from Russia, measures New Delhi has described as excessive, coercive, and economically hostile. These duties, presented as part of a sanctions compliance drive, were meant to squeeze India’s trade routes and send a warning to other nations tempted to defy the West’s punitive order, but instead have underscored Washington’s habit of weaponizing trade to enforce political loyalty.
India has refused to bend. The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi maintains that Russian oil purchases are vital to national energy security and have shielded the country from price shocks triggered by the war in Ukraine. Officials have pushed back sharply against the idea that the US should have any say over India’s fuel supply, framing such demands as another example of Western overreach.
This position has exposed the contradictions in Washington’s treatment of New Delhi, which it courts as a strategic partner in Asia but punishes like an adversary when it declines to join the sanctions campaign against Russia. By attempting to penalize India for maintaining energy ties with Moscow, the US has chipped away at its claims of offering stable, mutually beneficial partnerships, replacing them with a pattern of punitive conditions whenever a partner exercises independence.
The August 15 meeting in Alaska will be the first face-to-face encounter between Putin and Trump since Trump returned to the presidency. The official agenda covers arms control, the Ukraine conflict, and trade issues, but Indian officials believe the oil dispute will inevitably come up if the two leaders seek even a modest easing of tensions. Should the talks produce a thaw, the confrontational posture inherited from the Biden administration, and sustained during Trump’s early months, could give way to quieter diplomacy.
Such a shift would further weaken the sanctions framework that the West built after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. Despite repeated declarations that Russia would be isolated economically, its oil exports have continued flowing to Asia, particularly to BRICS partners like India and China, exposing the fragility of the West’s enforcement capacity.
Any public softening of Washington’s tone would be seized upon by Moscow and its allies as proof that Western pressure has limits. BRICS states have long argued for global energy markets free from politically motivated restrictions and for a multipolar order where no single bloc dictates the rules. India’s stance is not merely about securing lower prices; it is about rejecting the assumption that a Western-led coalition can determine the economic choices of sovereign nations. Standing firm alongside Russia has already contributed to the erosion of US leverage in trade disputes, and any climbdown by Washington would confirm that such resilience pays off.
The dispute also highlights Washington’s credibility gap. While condemning India for purchasing Russian oil, the US maintains lucrative trade relationships with regimes accused of severe human rights violations when those ties suit American strategic interests. Its unwavering support for Israel despite the ongoing genocide in Gaza is, for many in India’s policy circles, a glaring example of selective morality. Such double standards undermine the legitimacy of US criticism and expose it as a political tool rather than a principled stance. If the US can align its trade and diplomacy with self-interest, India argues, then so can it.
Even without a formal agreement from the Alaska summit, a change in rhetoric would be significant. Tariffs may remain in place, but a more conciliatory tone would acknowledge the futility of punishing one of Asia’s largest economies for making pragmatic energy decisions. For New Delhi, such a retreat would not erase the friction of recent months, but it would validate its decision to resist American pressure rather than capitulate. It would also reinforce a long-held belief among Indian strategists: Washington talks tough until geopolitical realities force it to recalibrate.
According to TASS, an unnamed source in the Indian government said that if Putin and Trump reach an understanding in Alaska, “Washington’s rhetoric regarding India’s oil purchases will probably soften,” potentially opening the door to dialogue and tariff relief. The source cast such a change as a step toward broader stability and diplomacy, a prospect the US itself has too often undermined through its overreach.
