Decoding Trump’s Tariff Threats To India: Fuelled By Sour Putin Ties, Frustration Over Ukraine? | Explainers News

Last Updated:August 05, 2025, 10:12 IST

Experts say Trump’s attack on India has less to do with oil and more with Putin, a show of frustration over his failed Ukraine ceasefire bid, with New Delhi caught in the crossfire

US President Donald Trump (left), Indian PM Narendra Modi (right). (Image: PTI)

When US President Donald Trump lashed out at India on Monday, accusing it of buying Russian oil, profiting from war, and turning a blind eye to Ukrainian deaths, it raised more questions than it answered. Why would a close partner like India face such blunt accusations? Why now, and why in such stark moral terms?

According to analysts, the answer may lie not in New Delhi but in Moscow. The real trigger, they suggest, could be the collapse of Trump’s diplomatic outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the looming pressure of a self-imposed ultimatum. Trump had returned to office in January 2025 with a bold promise: that he would end the Ukraine war “within one week.”

But after months of unanswered diplomatic overtures and shifting timelines, he publicly set August 8 as the final date for a ceasefire deal. With that deadline now days away and no signs of Russian cooperation, his frustration appears to be spilling over.

India, analysts say, could now be collateral damage. “If Putin were not ignoring Trump’s calls to stop waging war in Ukraine, Trump likely would not be going after India so hard for buying Russian oil,” said Michael Kugelman, a Washington DC-based South Asia analyst. “He’s clearly taking his frustration with Putin out on India.”

Kugelman added that trade could be a secondary factor. “In 2021, before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, India was actually the top destination for American oil,” he noted. After the war began, India shifted sharply toward discounted Russian crude. While Trump may want to claw back that lost market, Kugelman warned that the current tariff threats go beyond oil economics. “Don’t overlook the pique-at-Putin factor,” he said, referring to the idea that Trump’s anger at Putin for ignoring his ceasefire push is being redirected at India, one of Moscow’s most visible oil customers.

Trump’s Ukraine Pledge: From Summit Signals To Ceasefire Deadlines

In the early days of his second term, Trump appeared confident. He reopened channels with Russia, sent his envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow four times, and made friendly overtures. The US under Trump even blocked a UN resolution condemning Russian aggression. Russian media cheered the shift. In one meeting, Putin gifted Witkoff a portrait of Trump, a symbol of how far the optics had moved from hostility to accommodation.

But Trump’s primary objective, an immediate ceasefire, proved elusive. In late July, after repeated attempts to engage Moscow, he publicly declared August 8 a non-negotiable deadline for Russia to halt hostilities in Ukraine, slashing an earlier 50-day window to just ten days. As the deadline neared, his rhetoric turned sharply hostile: he began describing Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities as “disgusting” and “disgraceful,” and warned of sweeping sanctions and secondary tariffs on nations trading with Moscow. Then came a flashpoint.

After Trump called Russia and India “dead economies”, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev hit back with a nuclear-laced taunt, mocking Trump’s “walking dead” rhetoric and warning of the “Dead Hand,” a Cold War-era automated retaliation system. Within hours, Trump responded by ordering two US nuclear submarines to undisclosed “appropriate regions.”

Though unrelated to the ceasefire plan, the move marked a symbolic escalation. From public threats to military signalling, Trump was now visibly pivoting to a harder anti-Russia posture, driven by a mix of diplomatic failure and personal pique.

Despite these provocations, Putin showed no signs of backing down. Kremlin-linked media began portraying the US-Russia dynamic as a standoff with no off-ramp. A Russian tabloid, Moskovsky Komsomolets, described it as a collision between two unstoppable trains: “The Trump locomotive and the Putin locomotive are speeding towards each other. And neither is about to turn off or stop and reverse.”

The August 4 Outburst

Trump’s August 4 post on Truth Social marked a turning point. It went beyond economic grievance and accused India of moral complicity. He wrote: “India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then… selling it on the Open Market for big profits. They don’t care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA.”

This came just days after he had imposed a 25 per cent blanket tariff on Indian exports and described India as “our friend” but with tariffs that were “far too high.” The tone had quickly pivoted from pressure to punishment.

Experts believe this escalation is tied to Trump’s faltering Russia strategy. With the August 8 ceasefire deadline approaching, and no movement from Putin, India, despite being neither a belligerent nor a negotiator in the war, has become a convenient scapegoat.

India’s Response

The Indian government responded swiftly. In a rare six-point statement, the Ministry of External Affairs dismantled Trump’s narrative. It pointed out that India only increased oil imports from Russia after traditional suppliers redirected their shipments to Europe, and that this shift had the explicit encouragement of the US, which at the time was trying to stabilise global oil markets.

More significantly, India called out the West’s double standards. The European Union, the statement noted, traded goods worth €67.5 billion with Russia in 2024, far more than India’s total. The US itself continues to import Russian uranium, palladium, and fertilisers. “The targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable,” the statement said, asserting that India would “take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security.”

The government also denied Trump’s claim that India was profiteering from oil by reselling it globally. Ajay Srivastava, a former trade official and co-founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative, said that the accusation was not supported by any credible evidence. “India’s refineries, both public and private, buy based on price, logistics and security,” he explained. “There is no government mandate to buy Russian oil, nor proof of strategic resale to third parties.”

Strategic Experts Back India’s Stand

India’s sharp response has found backing from key foreign policy voices. Former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal wrote on X that “India has issued this statement that explains the rationale of its decision to buy oil from Russia and the hypocrisy and double standards of the US and Europe… India is conveying that it will not cow down to threats.”

Strategic affairs analyst Brahma Chellaney called Trump’s behaviour erratic and dangerous. “With his scorched-earth tariff policies and disdain for norms, Trump is a bull in the geopolitical china shop. Dealing with him is a challenge for any country—even more so for risk-averse India.” Chellaney added that the irony is glaring: while the West criticises India for buying Russian oil, it continues sending far more money to Moscow through its own trade, even as it fuels a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

Is This Really About Oil, Or About Trump’s Image?

Beyond the data and diplomacy, this episode may ultimately be about Trump’s political credibility. His early vow to end the Ukraine war within days gave him a narrative advantage. But with no ceasefire, no diplomatic win, and Putin openly defying his timelines, Trump’s political frustration is now manifesting in trade policy.

Rather than hitting Russia with further penalties, which could undermine his earlier stance of engagement, he is using India as a pressure valve, analysts say. His inner circle, including Stephen Miller and other senior aides, have repeated the “India is funding the war” line on US television, reinforcing that this narrative may be part of a broader deflection strategy.

Caught In The Crossfire Of A Broken Promise

India didn’t start the war in Ukraine. It has taken no sides, issued no ultimatums, and positioned itself as a buyer in a volatile energy market. Yet it now finds itself accused of indifference to war, profiteering, and moral failure, not because of its actions, but because Trump’s dealmaking with Putin has stalled.

The strategic partnership between India and the US is unlikely to collapse over tariffs or oil. But the current rhetoric marks a serious departure from the measured tone that usually defines bilateral ties. It also raises questions about how far Trump is willing to go to salvage a promise he may not be able to keep.

With August 8 now looming, and Steve Witkoff returning to Moscow for what could be a last-ditch effort at a deal, one thing may be clear: Trump’s war of words with India may not be about Delhi’s policies, but about Washington’s failures.

Karishma Jain

Karishma Jain, Chief Sub Editor at News18.com, writes and edits opinion pieces on a variety of subjects, including Indian politics and policy, culture and the arts, technology and social change. Follow her @kar…Read More

Karishma Jain, Chief Sub Editor at News18.com, writes and edits opinion pieces on a variety of subjects, including Indian politics and policy, culture and the arts, technology and social change. Follow her @kar… Read More

view comments

Read More