logo
A reminder for Trump: US wanted India to buy Russian crude to keep oil market stable, prices in check

A reminder for Trump: US wanted India to buy Russian crude to keep oil market stable, prices in check

Indian Express4 hours ago
US President Donald Trump seems frustrated with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin over the war in Ukraine, clearly wanting the over three-and-half-year-old war to end, while Putin appears unyielding. The American president, meanwhile, believes he has a lever the he can use to push Putin's buttons. That lever is India's significant oil imports from Russia. Trump has been berating India over its Russian oil imports and pressuring New Delhi into cutting down on imports from Moscow in the hope that threatening or penalising a key trade partner would force the Kremlin's hand into ending the war in Ukraine.
While Trump evidently finds it convenient to go after India on the issue at a time when New Delhi and Washington are locked in tense trade pact negotiations, it is worth noting that the US had a major role to play in India ramping up oil imports from Russia, for which New Delhi is now being vilified by Trump and his administration. Over the course of the war in Ukraine, US officials have publicly stated that India's purchase of Russian oil had Washington's endorsement, at least implicitly.
In his latest salvo, Trump on Monday said that threatened that he will 'substantially' raise tariffs on New Delhi for profiting from exporting fuels derived from Russian oil. Trump's latest attack came just days after he announced 25 per cent tariffs and an unspecified 'penalty' on India for its defence and energy imports from Russia. Responding sharply to Trump's remarks, India said that while it has been targeted by the US and the European Union for importing oil from Russia, these imports began as its traditional supplies were diverted to Europe, and the US at that time 'actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets stability'.
When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2024, Moscow's share in New Delhi's oil imports was less than 2 per cent. The reasons were obvious: Russia was a far-away geography and already had established markets where a bulk of its crude was exported. India, on the other hand, depended significantly on West Asian suppliers like Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which are located close by.
With much of the West shunning Russian crude following the invasion, Russia began offering discounts on its oil to willing buyers. Indian refiners were quick to avail the opportunity, leading to Russia—earlier a peripheral supplier of oil to India—emerging as India's biggest source of crude within a matter of months, displacing the traditional West Asian suppliers. Russia now accounts for 35-40 per cent of India's total oil imports by volume. As Europe decided to stop the import of refined petroleum fuels from Russia, Indian refiners increased fuel exports to the continent.
Apart from alleging that India was helping fund the war in Ukraine by buying Russian oil, critics of India's oil and fuel trade argued that the country's refiners were facilitating a backdoor entry into Europe for fuels made from Russian crude. There was, however, nothing illegitimate about this trade as there was no specific ban on fuel imports from countries that were buying Russian oil. That ban has now been announced by the EU, and is slated to take effect from January 2026.
Despite the noise from sections of the West against India over the country's hefty purchases of Russian crude, this shift in oil and petroleum product trade had Washington's blessings, as the US wanted energy markets to remain stable and well-supplied. In a recent interaction with CNBC International, global energy expert and Rapidan Energy Group President Bob McNally said that it was the Biden administration that 'begged' India to buy Russian crude to keep global energy prices in check.
'The Indians must be having some confusion (due to Trump's stance) because Joe Biden went to India after the invasion of Russia and begged them to take Russian oil…they begged India, 'Please take the oil', so that crude prices would remain low, and they did. Now we're flipping around, saying, 'What are you doing taking all this Russian oil?' The point is Trump is serious…he is frustrated with Putin,' said McNally, who served as the Special Assistant to the President on the White House National Economic Council and Senior Director for International Energy on the National Security Council during George W Bush's first term as US President.
India's actions in line with US policy: Biden era officials
Various US government officials during the Biden presidency also publicly acknowledged that India's actions helped balance the international oil market, and were in line with what the US wanted in order to keep the global market well-supplied. Had most of the Russian oil gone off the market—as happened with Iran and Venezuela—international oil prices would have shot up, which would have hit the global economy that was still fragile coming out of the pandemic.
At an event in May 2024, the then US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti said, 'Actually, they (India) bought Russian oil because we wanted somebody to buy Russian oil at a price cap. That was not a violation or anything. It was actually the design of the policy because as a commodity we didn't want oil prices going up, and they fulfilled that.'
Garcetti was correct, as Rusian oil was and continues to be sanction-free, and only a price cap of $60 per barrel was introduced in December 2022 on seaborne Russian crude by the US and its allies. The cap prohibits export of Russian seaborne crude at over $60 per barrel if the trade involves Western shipping or insurance services. Oil importers like India, which are not part of the price cap coalition comprising G7 countries and their allies, are not bound by the price cap as long as their purchase of Russian oil does not involve any shipping or insurance service from providers in the coalition countries.
In April last year, senior US officials had said at a New Delhi event that the US neither expected India to reduce its oil imports from Russia and had not even requested it to do so. The then US Treasury Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Eric Van Nostrand had said that the objective of the sanctions and G7 price cap regime was not to push Russian crude out of the market, but to keep it flowing while limiting Kremlin's revenue from oil exports, which in turn impaired Russia's ability to fund the war in Ukraine.
'The price cap is designed to leave Russia with only bad options…We want him (Putin) to choose between three bad things: selling with coalition services under the price cap, selling outside the price cap, or shutting his oil in and not putting it to market. With a strong and robust price cap regime, Putin is going to prefer to sell as much as he can outside the price cap. But in order to maximise his sales outside the price cap, when a large part of the global coalition is already involved in the price cap, he is going to have to offer it cheaper,' Nostrand said.
Anna Morris, the then US Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crime, said at the same event that from a technical standpoint, Russian oil once refined into petroleum fuels and products could no longer be considered of Russian origin, dismissing the argument that India refiners were facilitating Russian petroleum's entry into Europe.
'I also want to specify that once Russian oil is refined, from a technical perspective it is no longer Russian oil…If it is refined in a country and then sent forward, from a sanctions perspective that is an import from the country of purchase, it is not an import from Russia,' Morris said.
While the Biden administration seemed satisfied with the price cap, while letting Russian oil flow, Trump has taken a much more aggressive stance, threatening financial costs on importers of Russian energy.
Sukalp Sharma is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express and writes on a host of subjects and sectors, notably energy and aviation. He has over 13 years of experience in journalism with a body of work spanning areas like politics, development, equity markets, corporates, trade, and economic policy. He considers himself an above-average photographer, which goes well with his love for travel. ... Read More
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Army says no ceasefire violation along LoC
Army says no ceasefire violation along LoC

The Hindu

time9 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

Army says no ceasefire violation along LoC

The Army on Tuesday (August 5, 2025) said there has been no ceasefire violation along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir. 'There have been some media and social media reports regarding ceasefire violation in Poonch region. It is clarified that there has been no ceasefire violation along the LoC. Please avoid spreading unverified information,' the Army said in a statement in New Delhi. Earlier, official sources in Jammu said the Pakistan Army had on Tuesday evening (August 5, 2025) indulged in 'unprovoked' firing on forward Indian posts along the LoC, prompting strong retaliation by the Indian Army. The exchange of small arms firing between the two sides continued for nearly 15 minutes in the Mankote sector but there was no immediate report of any casualties, the sources had said, adding it was the first instance of ceasefire violation since Operation Sindoor. Indian and Pakistani militaries engaged in intense clashes between May 7 and 10 after India launched missile strikes targeting terror infrastructure across the border under Operation Sindoor to avenge the Pahalgam terror attack.

US to initially impose ‘small tariff' on pharma imports, Trump says
US to initially impose ‘small tariff' on pharma imports, Trump says

Indian Express

time9 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

US to initially impose ‘small tariff' on pharma imports, Trump says

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that the United States would initially place a 'small tariff' on pharmaceutical imports before hiking it to 150% within 18 months and eventually to 250% in an effort to boost domestic production. 'In one year, one and a half years maximum, it's going to go to 150% and then it's going to go to 250% because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country,' Trump told CNBC in an interview. He did not specify the initial tariff rate on pharmaceuticals. Trump said last month that pharmaceutical tariffs could reach as high as 200%. He said in February that sectoral tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductor chips would start at '25% or higher,' rising substantially over the course of a year. Trump said on Tuesday that he plans to announce tariffs on semiconductors and chips in the 'next week or so,' but gave no further details. The United States has been conducting a national security review of the pharmaceutical sector, and the industry has been preparing for possible sector-specific tariffs. The administration has not announced when the results of that probe will be released. Several drugmakers have pledged multibillion-dollar investments in U.S. manufacturing as Trump threatens import tariffs, with AstraZeneca recently committing $50 billion to expand its American operations. PhRMA, the main lobbying group for the industry, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A framework agreement between the United States and the EU sets out that tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors are currently zero, but if the United States raises tariffs following its import investigation, they will be capped at 15%.

Trump says banks discriminate against his supporters while White House prepares order
Trump says banks discriminate against his supporters while White House prepares order

Indian Express

time9 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

Trump says banks discriminate against his supporters while White House prepares order

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he believes that banks discriminate against him and his supporters, adding that Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase had previously refused to accept his deposits. 'They totally discriminate against, I think, me maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives,' he told CNBC in an interview. 'I think the word might be Trump supporters more than conservatives.' Trump made the comments when asked about a report by the Wall Street Journal that said he planned to punish banks that discriminated against conservatives, but did not address the order specifically. The order instructs regulators to review banks for 'politicized or unlawful debanking' practices, according to a draft reviewed by Reuters. 'Well, they did discriminate,' Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan Chase after his first term in office. 'I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash … and they told me, 'I'm sorry sir, we can't have you. You have 20 days to get out.'' Trump said, without providing evidence, that he believed that the banks' refusal to take his deposits indicated that the administration of former President Joe Biden had encouraged banking regulators to 'destroy Trump.' Trump said he subsequently tried to deposit funds with Bank of America and was also refused, and eventually split the cash among a number of smaller banks. 'The banks discriminated against me very badly,' he said. In a statement, JPMorgan did not address the president's specific claim that it had discriminated against him. 'We don't close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,' JPMorgan said. 'We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.' Bank of America also did not address Trump's specific claims in the CNBC interview. 'REPUTATIONAL RISK' ISSUE During President Joe Biden's administration, regulators could have asked the banks why they were providing banking services to Trump because of the 'reputational risk' issue, a source familiar with the matter said. Another source said that banks were under intense scrutiny and pressure with regards to what qualified as a reputational risk for banks and they needed to be careful due to Trump's legal entanglements. The source also added that at present JPMorgan continues to have a banking relationship with members of the Trump family that dates back to years ago and that they also bank a number of campaign accounts related to Trump. After President Trump took power, the Federal Reserve announced in June it was directing its supervisors to no longer consider 'reputational risk' when examining banks, scrapping a metric that had been a focus of industry complaints. The Wall Street Journal reported late Monday that the expected executive order would instruct regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions breach the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws by dropping customers for political reasons. It said the order could be signed as early as this week, authorizing monetary penalties, consent decrees or other disciplinary measures against violators. The White House had no immediate comment on the reported order. 'What the White House is doing is telling the banks not to hide behind regulations to deny loans or banking relationships,' said Wells Fargo bank analyst Mike Mayo. 'The banks can use their normal underwriting standards and deny services, but not blame regulators or use reputational risk as a justification.' Bank of America said it welcomed the Trump administration's efforts to provide regulatory clarity to banks. 'We've provided detailed proposals and will continue to work with the administration and Congress to improve the regulatory framework,' the bank said. Trump in January said the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America denied services to conservatives. At the time, the two banks denied making banking decisions based on politics. 'This seems to be rhetoric that will likely be forgotten by lunchtime,' said David Wagner, head of equities at Aptus Capital Advisors. 'I don't see any material impact on banks, as there are many other drivers that will ultimately presage performance for banks, such as deregulation.' JPMorgan and Bank of America shares both fell over 1%, in line with a decline for the broader S&P Bank index. Banks have consistently argued that any complaints about 'debanking' should be aimed at regulators, as they argue onerous rules and bank supervisors policing firms can discourage them from engaging in certain activities. 'The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion,' the Bank Policy Institute, an industry group, said in a statement. 'The banking agencies have already taken steps to address issues like reputational risk, and we're hopeful that any forthcoming executive order will reinforce this progress by directing regulators to confront the flawed regulatory framework that gave rise to these concerns in the first place.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store