The contradictions in America’s stance on India’s role in the Ukraine war are as revealing as they are troubling. What started as a deliberate strategy to keep global oil markets stable has now morphed into a narrative of blame, exposing Washington’s tendency to shift principles when political expediency demands it. India, at the request of the United States, acted as the stabilising force in global energy markets by absorbing Russian oil flows under the price cap mechanism. This wasn’t India freelancing—it was India carrying out exactly what Washington encouraged. Yet, when circumstances changed, the same action that was once celebrated suddenly became vilified.
At the heart of this reversal lies the duplicity of American foreign policy. Garcetti’s admission that India’s purchases were a “small victory” for US diplomacy highlights how calculated the initial strategy was. The goal was simple: keep oil flowing without allowing Russia to pocket extraordinary profits. India’s refiners played their part, ensuring markets didn’t spiral out of control and consumers worldwide, including in America, were shielded from skyrocketing fuel prices. This was not an act of defiance against the West; it was an act of compliance with the West’s own requests.
But once the panic eased and political rhetoric took center stage, Washington’s appreciation gave way to scapegoating. Suddenly, the purchases were no longer stabilising but “funding Putin’s war.” The swiftness with which praise turned into condemnation demonstrates that the United States’ foreign policy narrative is less about facts and more about optics. By slapping tariffs on Indian goods, Washington effectively punished India for helping prevent the very economic shock Americans feared most in 2022.
The irony grows sharper when one considers Peter Navarro’s accusations that India is aligning itself with authoritarians. The United States has, for decades, maintained alliances with regimes far less democratic than India. Whether it’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia, military aid to Egypt, or transactional partnerships with Pakistan, Washington has consistently overlooked authoritarian tendencies when it serves strategic or economic goals. To single out India for “engaging with Russia” while maintaining these relationships is the definition of selective morality.
Meanwhile, India’s position has remained consistent and principled. From the earliest stages of the conflict, Modi stressed dialogue and diplomacy over escalation. India’s approach wasn’t rooted in opportunism but in a long-standing doctrine of non-alignment and peaceful negotiation. By participating in peace summits and delivering humanitarian assistance, India reinforced its role as a responsible global actor.
The irony of the present moment is that Trump’s own policy instincts echo India’s stance. By leaning into dialogue with Putin and moving away from a weapons-centric approach, he is following the same roadmap that India laid out from the start. What is now framed as Trump’s bold strategy is, in fact, a rebranding of India’s playbook. The hypocrisy is undeniable: Washington vilifies India for urging peace and dialogue, only to later embrace the same strategy under different political leadership.
