Is the Ukraine War Modi’s to Own?

What piques Trump most is not India’s oil trade but its newly stiffened spine. It is time Indians recognised this and responded with unity in rebuffing Uncle Sam’s posturing.

To call the Ukraine war ‘Modi’s war’ as Peter Navarro, trade adviser to US President Donald Trump recently did, is to stretch the bounds of absurdity. If Trump’s imposition of punitive tariffs on India’s imports – 25 percent duty plus a further 25 percent ‘penalty’ on top - was unfair, Navarro’s remark was downright foolish. Yet it reflects a familiar theme - America’s readiness to preach virtue while quietly practising vice.

Consider what Eric Garcetti, America’s ambassador to India, admitted at the 2024 Conference on Diversity in International Affairs. India, he said, bought Russian oil because Washington wanted someone to buy Russian oil but at a price cap. This was “not a violation” he conceded, but the very design of America’s sanctions policy. Without India, global oil markets would have spun into chaos. In other words, India did precisely what America needed, only to be pilloried later for doing so.

The charge of hypocrisy sticks. Western leaders present themselves as guardians of liberal order, yet their economic conduct tells another story. The trade statistics with Russia since the invasion of Ukraine are revealing. America’s own trade with Russia amounted to $5.2 billion in 2024, up nearly 20 percent on the year before, according to Russian officials. By mid-2025 the figure was already $2.5 billion.

Germany, supposedly weaned off Russian energy, still imports liquefied natural gas via the French port of Dunkirk, channelled through its state-owned firm SEFE. Its trade with Russia stood at €1.4 billion last year. The European Union as a whole transacted around $67.5 billion with Russia in 2024, mainly in chemicals, metals and LNG. Britain’s trade, though smaller, totalled £1.7 billion. Notably, London imported £560m worth of oil products refined from Russian crude, effectively outsourcing sanctions-busting.

Add it up, and America and its closest allies traded nearly $79 billion with Russia in 2024. India’s commerce with Russia, by contrast, reached $68.7 billion - less than that of the Western bloc. Of this, $50 billion was in oil, roughly a third of India’s total crude imports.

If numbers are the yardstick, China is in another league altogether. Sino-Russian trade soared to $237 billion in 2024, more than triple India’s tally. Chinese crude imports alone touched $62.6 billion, a quarter higher than India’s. Yet Trump singles out India for tariffs, while Navarro accuses Narendra Modi of ‘owning’ the Ukraine war. Neither man spares a word for Beijing.

The explanation lies less in geopolitics than in Trumpian pique. India has steadfastly refused to open its markets to America’s genetically modified crops and dairy products, citing the interests of its farmers and public health. Modi has also refused to grant Trump a role in the recent Indo-Pakistan ceasefire, thereby torpedoing his fanciful quest for a Nobel Peace Prize. In Washington’s eyes, India’s economic self-assertion and diplomatic independence amount to ingratitude.

This tantrum-prone approach is not cost-free for America. An Ipsos survey in 2024 showed that in 26 of 29 countries polled, citizens’ faith in America’s positive influence on world affairs had declined. Even in Canada, once a reliable admirer, the numbers slipped. Trump’s mercantilist bullying may please his domestic base, but abroad it undermines the very credibility America needs to hold coalitions together.

For India, the lesson is to keep perspective. The West’s claim to moral high ground is compromised by its own behaviour. Europe has not stopped trading with Russia; America itself has not. China has ramped up its dependence. Against this backdrop, India’s purchases of discounted Russian oil look pragmatic, not perfidious. Far from underwriting Russia’s war, India has stabilised world markets by ensuring that supplies did not dry up.

For Trump, the rhetoric has a convenient domestic utility. Bashing China risks angering corporate America; bashing India is safer. The India tariff can be sold to voters as protecting American farmers and manufacturers, while casting Modi as a geopolitical spoiler provides a useful scapegoat. Navarro’s line, though ludicrous, will resonate in a campaign season that rewards soundbites over substance.

India, however, is not without leverage. Its vast market, its growing economy, and its role as a counterweight to China in the Indo-Pacific make it too important to alienate. Japan, Australia and Europe all court Indian trade and investment. Even America, despite its bluster, knows that strategic co-operation with India is indispensable if it hopes to contain Chinese power.

Ironically, what Trump and Navarro portray as weakness is in fact a measure of India’s strength. Modi’s refusal to be hectored into line reflects a more confident India that buys oil where it must, guards its markets where it should, and refuses to let outsiders dictate its diplomacy.

Uncle Sam’s hypocrisy is unlikely to vanish. But nor is India obliged to indulge it. What unnerves Trump most is not India’s oil trade but its newly stiffened spine. It is time Indians recognised these realities and responded with unity in rebuffing Uncle Sam’s posturing.

(The author is a retired naval aviation officer and defence and geopolitical analyst. Views personal.)