Oil sanctions: What can India do without Russian crude?
India
keep inflation in check and economy stable amid all the global turbulence. India relies on imports to meet more than 85% of its crude oil needs. While the Middle East was historically the main supplier, Russia has taken the lead in the past three years. But now India's steady supply of cheap Russian oil is under serious threat.
Frustrated with Russian President
Vladimir Putin
's double game of unabated attacks on Ukraine while appearing to be ready for a peace deal, US President Donald
Trump
announced early this week sanctions on buyers of Russian oil unless Russia agrees to a peace deal. Trump's threat of sanctions came with a 50-day grace period. 'We're very, very unhappy with (Russia). And we're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a (Ukraine peace) deal in 50 days. Tariffs at about 100%, you'd call them secondary tariffs,' Trump said on Monday.
NATO
secretary general Mark Rutte also threatened India, China and Brazil with 100% secondary sanctions if they continue doing business with Russia, even as he urged the leaders of these countries to press Putin to take peace talks with Ukraine seriously. Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham is pushing for the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, a bipartisan legislative proposal that threatens an unprecedented 500% tariff on all US imports from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, petrochemicals or uranium.
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Select a Course Category
Artificial Intelligence
MCA
Data Science
Data Analytics
PGDM
Leadership
Management
Cybersecurity
healthcare
Healthcare
Public Policy
MBA
Finance
Digital Marketing
Design Thinking
Data Science
Degree
CXO
others
Product Management
Project Management
Operations Management
Others
Technology
Skills you'll gain:
Duration:
7 Months
S P Jain Institute of Management and Research
CERT-SPJIMR Exec Cert Prog in AI for Biz India
Starts on
undefined
Get Details
Secondary tariffs mean that countries engaged in trade with Russia would face a 100% tariff when exporting goods to the US. India and China are the top two buyers of Russian oil. Earlier, India had to yield to Trump's oil sanctions when it stopped buying oil from Iran in 2019 after Trump, during his previous term as president, threatened secondary sanctions on buyers of Iranian oil.
Can India continue buying Russian oil?
Petroleum and Natural Gas of India Hardeep Singh Puri on Thursday said India is unfazed by US sanction threats as oil markets remain well supplied, adding that the prices will come down. Commenting on the threat of secondary sanctions, the minister said, "Russia is 10 per cent of global production. We have the analysis that if Russia were not included, the prices would have gone to 130 dollars a barrel. Even Turkey, China, Brazil and even the EU have bought oil and gas from Russia." Last week, the minister had said India's continued purchase of crude oil from Russia helped stabilise energy prices globally, and halting oil trade from Russia would have spiralled crude prices to over $120-130 per barrel. "I'm not worried at all. If something happens, we'll deal with it," Puri has said.
Live Events
You Might Also Like:
'Double standards': India claps back at NATO over sanctions warning on Russia oil deals
'There are two possibilities: one, the whole world consumes 10% less — which means some people won't get heating in winter; some won't get air conditioning in summer; some of the transport will stop flying,' Puri said. 'Or, you start buying more from the remaining 90% (suppliers). You know what that would do to prices? The prices would skyrocket,' he said.
Puri's comments indicate threats made by Trump and Nato of secondary sanctions may after all just be a negotiating tactic with Russia. As per a recent ET report, people familiar with the matter say that some NATO member states and European countries that have imposed sanctions against Russia continue to purchase Russian oil via third countries. The
European Union
plans to completely stop the import of Russian gas by 2027, but many nations still remain dependent on Russian gas and refined oil, they said, pointing out that in 2024, 18% of the EU's natural gas imports came from Russia.
Is Trump bluffing?
The oil market barely reacted to Trump's threats of secondary sanctions on Tuesday, with Brent trading around $69 per barrel, similar to levels seen over the past week. As per an ET report, refinery executives said if implemented, the proposed tariff could effectively shut Russia out of the global oil market, pushing prices to $120 per barrel or more, derailing Trump's own low-energy-price agenda and fuelling global inflation. Russia exports about 4.5–5.0 million barrels per day (mbd) of crude oil, roughly 5% of total global demand. In addition, it exports about 2 mbd of refined products.
Conversely, if India and China were targeted with 100% tariffs for continuing to buy Russian oil, the resulting spike in US import costs from these countries could burden American consumers and prove politically difficult for Trump to manage, executives said. 'This whole tariff game is about Trump trying to strike deals with countries, including Russia, not about disrupting energy trade or dealing with high inflation at home,' an executive told ET. Another executive said Trump's warning was just a ploy to induce seriousness in negotiations with Russia, whose leader Vladimir Putin has been following a dual-track strategy—engaging with Trump over the phone and talking of a peace deal, while simultaneously hammering Ukraine with an increasing barrage of missiles and drones.
You Might Also Like:
Oil executives brush aside Trump's tariff threat on Russian crude
How India can manage without Russian oil
If it really comes down to secondary sanctions, as threatened by Trump and Nato's Rutte, how will India manage without Russian oil which is now more than 33% of India's total oil imports? According to a Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) analysis, since the ban on Russian oil, China has bought 47% of Russia's crude exports, followed by India (38%), the EU (6%), and Turkiye (6%). In FY22, Russia made up just 2.1% of India's oil imports. Come financial year 2024-25, Russia's share in India's value of oil imports is a staggering 35.1%.
In FY22, India bought $2,256 million of Russian oil - three years later that number stands at a whopping $50,285 million. India's oil imports from Russia rose marginally in the first half of this year, with private refiners
Reliance Industries Ltd
and Nayara Energy making almost half of the overall purchases from Moscow, according to data provided by sources to Reuters. India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, received about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil in January-June this year, up 1% from a year ago, the data showed.
Indian refiners expect that any move by Trump is unlikely to disrupt oil supplies but could wipe out the thinning discount on Russian crude, as traditional and new suppliers ramp up output, refinery officials told Reuters.
Since secondary tariffs will apply to the whole country and affect all merchandise exports, unlike the scenario where only the entities doing business with sanctioned Russian entities are penalised, India will find it tough to continue buying Russian oil because sanctions will weigh heavier than the advantage India gets from buying Russian oil on which discount has now thinned.
Indian refiners will have no other way than pivot towards its traditional West Asian suppliers and new players such as Brazil to make up for lost Russian supplies. These new barrels will, however, come at a higher cost, ranging around $4-5/barrel. Arranging alternative supplies will not be difficult, as 'there is enough energy available in the world,' according to oil minister Puri. 'Oil prices are still between $65 and $70,' he said.
India is already diversifying its oil imports. Puri said that India has broadened its oil import network. India has diversified the sources of supplies from 27 to 40 countries now, he said. Data from S&P Global Commodity Insights showed India's crude imports from the US surged more than 50 per cent in the first half of 2025 compared to the same period last year, a sign that Indian refiners are once again warming up to non-OPEC sources. Shipments from Brazil saw the sharpest rise, growing 80 per cent year-on-year to 73,000 bpd from 41,000 bpd.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
No deal on ceasefire as Russia, Ukraine conclude brief talks in Turkey
Russia and Ukraine discussed further prisoner swaps on Wednesday at a brief session of peace talks in Istanbul, but the sides remained far apart on ceasefire terms and a possible meeting of their leaders. Ukraine's chief delegate said a meeting was proposed before the end of August between Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy (L) and Russian President Vladimir Putin. "We have progress on the humanitarian track, with no progress on a cessation of hostilities," Ukraine's chief delegate Rustem Umerov said after talks that lasted just 40 minutes. He said Ukraine had proposed a meeting before the end of August between Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He added: "By agreeing to this proposal, Russia can clearly demonstrate its constructive approach." Russia's chief delegate Vladimir Medinsky said the point of a leaders' meeting should be to sign an agreement, not to "discuss everything from scratch". He renewed Moscow's call for a series of short ceasefires of 24-48 hours to enable the retrieval of bodies. Ukraine says it wants an immediate and much longer ceasefire. The talks took place just over a week after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened heavy new sanctions on Russia and countries that buy its exports unless a peace deal was reached within 50 days. There was no sign of any progress towards that goal, although both sides said there was discussion of further humanitarian exchanges following a series of prisoner swaps, the latest of which took place on Wednesday. Medinsky said the negotiators agreed to exchange at least 1,200 more prisoners of war from each side, and Russia had offered to hand over another 3,000 Ukrainian bodies. He said Moscow was working through a list of 339 names of Ukrainian children that Kyiv accuses it of abducting. Russia denies that charge and says it has offered protection to children separated from their parents during the war. "Some of the children have already been returned back to Ukraine. Work is under way on the rest. If their legal parents, close relatives, representatives are found, these children will immediately return home," Medinsky said. Umerov said Kyiv was expecting "further progress" on POWs, adding: "We continue to insist on the release of civilians, including children." Ukrainian authorities say at least 19,000 children have been forcibly deported. SHORTEST TALKS YET Before the talks, the Kremlin had played down expectations, describing the two sides' positions as diametrically opposed and saying no one should expect miracles. At 40 minutes, the meeting was even shorter than the two sides' previous encounters on May 16 and June 2, which lasted a combined total of under three hours. Oleksandr Bevz, a member of the Ukrainian delegation, said Kyiv had proposed a Putin-Zelenskiy meeting in August because that would fall within the deadline set by Trump for a deal. Putin turned down a previous challenge from Zelenskiy to meet in person and has said he does not see him as a legitimate leader because Ukraine, which is under martial law, did not hold new elections when Zelenskiy's five-year mandate expired last year. Trump has patched up relations with Zelenskiy after a public row with him at the White House in February, and has lately expressed growing frustration with Putin. Three sources close to the Kremlin told Reuters last week that Putin, unfazed by Trump's ultimatum, would keep fighting in Ukraine until the West engaged on his terms for peace, and that his territorial demands may widen as Russian forces advance.
Mint
10 minutes ago
- Mint
Russiagate reignited: Tulsi Gabbard says Barack Obama engineered false intel, DOJ to review charges
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard ignited a political firestorm on Wednesday (July 23), alleging that former President Barack Obama and his national security team engineered a 'contrived narrative' that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to aid Donald Trump. 'There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false,' Gabbard said during a tense White House press briefing. 'They knew it would promote this contrived narrative… selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn't.' Gabbard's claims follow the release of newly declassified intelligence documents that, according to her, expose efforts by the Obama administration to politicise intelligence findings. She said the materials show there was no direct information proving that Russian President Vladimir Putin actively supported Trump in 2016. 'All [the documents] come back to and confirm the same report: There was a gross politicization and manipulation of intelligence by the Obama administration intended to delegitimize President Trump even before he was inaugurated,' Gabbard stated. 'Ultimately, they sought to usurp the will of the American people.' Gabbard confirmed that the declassified material has been referred to federal law enforcement agencies for further investigation. 'We have referred and will continue to refer all of these documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI,' she said. 'The evidence that we have found, and that we have released, directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact.' A day earlier, President Donald Trump directly accused Obama of being the 'ringleader' behind the 2016 Russia probe, escalating his long-standing claims that the investigation was politically motivated. Gabbard alleges 'treasonous conspiracy' by Obama-era officials to undermine Trump in 2016 Gabbard on Friday in her explosive claim said that former President Barack Obama and senior members of his administration orchestrated a 'treasonous conspiracy' to delegitimize Donald Trump ahead of the 2016 presidential election. 'No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,' Gabbard said in a statement. 'We must ensure nothing like this ever happens again.' The released memo from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) identifies several high-profile intelligence figures allegedly involved in reviewing and crafting the intelligence community's assessment of Russian meddling in the election. The names include former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former FBI Director James Comey. Gabbard claims these officials collaborated to create a politically motivated assessment intended to delegitimise Trump's presidency even before he was sworn in. Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush dismissed the allegations as absurd. 'These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,' Rodenbush said in a statement. 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.' He added, 'Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.'
Deccan Herald
10 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
The new arsenal of punitive sanctions
Have you ever considered economic sanctions or tariffs to be weapons of mass destruction (WMD)? How about drones and social media? Wikipedia describes a WMD as a biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear, or any other weapon that can kill or significantly harm many people or cause great damage to artificial structures, natural structures, or the biosphere. However, this definition is by no means officially accepted since most governments limit their definition of WMD to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN) capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties. By including the word 'biosphere', the Wikipedia definition takes into account the damage caused to the environment when CBRN weapons are any case, neither of the two definitions specifies what constitutes significant harm to people or structures and how this is to be measured. In the 9/11 terrorist attacks, commercial aircraft carrying full tanks of jet fuel were used. Accepted definitions of WMD certainly do not include commercial aircraft as weapons, do they?.Calls for including certain classes of cyberweapons (e.g., drones and malware) have been rejected because they cannot directly injure or kill human beings as efficiently as guns or bombs, and they do not meet the legal and historical definitions of WMD. History cannot be altered, but surely, the laws surrounding WMD can be origin of the term 'weapon of mass destruction' can be traced back to 1937 when William Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Christmas address, spoke of the appalling slaughter and suffering inflicted on Spain and China and remarked, "Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?" He was acutely aware of the 1937 bombings of cities by the fascists in Spain and by the Japanese in China as well as the chemical attacks on Abyssinia by Italy in updated legal definition of WMD, one that takes into account different contexts in which what constitutes a weapon, the nature of the destruction (kinetic, economic, psychological etc.), and the scale of destruction, is called for. This difficult task should be entrusted to the United Nations and not left to individual governments, no matter how powerful, or select organisations such as NATO, which hardly represent much of the world..I would suggest that the current WMD interpretation of the word 'weapon' go beyond its conventional CBRN meaning and be made flexible to include sanctions, tariffs, drones, and social media, all of which have proven themselves capable of producing a great deal of harm, be it physical, economic, or psychological, across the globe. When applied to social media, WMD stands for weapon of mass destruction as well as weapon of mass serve as a foreign policy tool used by the US, EU, and others to influence the behaviour of other countries. The US has imposed two-thirds of the world's sanctions since the 1990s. According to The Washington Post, in 2024, it imposed "three times as many sanctions as any other country or international body,' and 60% of low-income countries (e.g., Somalia, Darfur, and Libya) were under some form of US financial sanction. Comprehensive sanctions are currently in place for all of Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Russia, and Syria. Sanctions prohibit US citizens from engaging in financial transactions with individuals, entities, or governments on the sanctions list, except by licence from the US Government, and require the US to oppose loans by the World Bank and other international financial institutions. The sanctions on Cuba and Iran date back to 1962 and 1979, respectively. If a country is sanctioned by the US, a third country wishing to conduct business with the sanctioned country is itself subject to US and sanctions are directed at individuals (e.g., Putin) or entities (International Criminal Court) that engage in activities contrary to US foreign policy or national security goals. The ICC has been sanctioned because it dared to brand the genocidal leader of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, as a war criminal and issued a global warrant for his arrest. There are currently 37 active sanctions programmes – not one of them is directed at Israel despite its genocidal activities in why should sanctions be made part of any redefinition of WMD? Consider this. US sanctions on Venezuela have resulted in over 100,000 deaths since the country was prevented from access to medicine and medical devices. In May 1996, Madeleine Albright, the US Ambassador to the UN, when asked to comment on the fact that over 500,000 Iraqi children died from the comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990, and whether the price was worth it, had this to say, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it." She was rewarded for her callousness by being appointed US Secretary of a 2020 interview, the same Albright remarked, "We learned in many ways that comprehensive sanctions often hurt the people of the country and don't really accomplish what is wanted in order to change the behaviour of the country being sanctioned. So we began to look at something called 'smart sanctions' or 'targeted sanctions.'" This use of the word 'smart' came long before AI entered the common man's vocabulary. Denis Halliday, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq, resigned in October 1998 after a 34-year career with the UN to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying he didn't want to administer a programme "that satisfies the definition of genocide.".The 1941 siege of Leningrad has now been replaced by the 2025 sanctions on Saint Petersburg. Not much has changed in the intervening 84 years, has it?.(The writer is a retired professor; he has written extensively and presented lectures on the societal and geo-political implications of technology)
