India can lessen reliance on Russian oil if US emerges as key supplier
This Week in Asia Economics Published: 5:30pm, 18 Feb 2025
Analysts expect Delhi to welcome the move by Washington, which could induce Russia to sell its oil at market rates. India and China are among the top buyers of cheap Russian oil.
'Russian oil will remain important [for India] but the wartime surge will decline soon enough. The US will fill that gap,' said Uday Chandra, a political scientist at Georgetown University.
Trump has suggested he would meet Russian President Vladimir Putin this week, raising hopes that negotiations could end three years of fighting in Ukraine.
India, which imports 85 per cent of its oil needs, has increasingly relied on supplies of discounted Russian oil in recent years. From less than 1 per cent before the Ukraine war, Russia later accounted for 40 per cent of India's oil imports. But its share is estimated to have dropped to 25-30 per cent since the US imposed fresh sanctions on entities transporting Russian oil late last year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
an hour ago
- South China Morning Post
Can China build on eased trade tensions with US amid Trump's many distractions?
While the US-China talks in London earlier this month suggested Beijing had the negotiating edge over Washington's other major trading partners, observers warn that China may need to temper expectations of a restoration of senior-level exchanges. Advertisement US President Donald Trump's competing priorities – both domestically and internationally – could distract his administration from the pressing need to establish a lasting agreement on US-China trade relations, they said. But while the Trump administration remains in the early stages of formulating its China policy, Beijing should advance a leader-driven process to stabilise bilateral ties, laying the groundwork for a trade agreement ahead of a potential summit. Sourabh Gupta, a senior policy specialist with the Institute for China-America Studies in Washington, said the framework reached in London was 'a genuine de-escalation of trade tensions'. 'At least, that's how the two sides envision it,' he said, noting that the framework essentially marked a return to last month's Geneva agreement, with both parties having 'a vested interest in getting to 'yes' on a trade deal'. Advertisement According to Gupta, the outcome of the talks – alongside the first call between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump since the latter started his second term – has placed China as a 'front-runner' in Washington's negotiations with major trading partners. While the London framework represents a temporary truce rather than a comprehensive deal, no other US trading partner has secured a comparable agreement, despite parallel negotiations with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, India and others.
RTHK
2 hours ago
- RTHK
Israel targets Tehran and Fordow in latest strikes
Israel targets Tehran and Fordow in latest strikes Iranians protest in Tehran against the US attack on nuclear sites. Photo: West Asia News Agency/Reuters Iran's underground enrichment site at Fordow was hit again on Monday while Iran fired a salvo of missiles and drones at Israel and warned the United States that its military now has a 'free hand' to attack American targets in the wake of the Trump administration's massive strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The Fordow facility was one of those hit in Sunday's attack, and it was struck again on Monday, Iranian state television reported. There was no immediate word on damage nor who launched the attack, though Israel said earlier it was conducting airstrikes on Iran. In Vienna, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said he expected there to be heavy damage at the Fordow facility already following the Sunday's US airstrike with sophisticated bunker-buster bombs. 'Given the explosive payload utilised... very significant damage... is expected to have occurred,' said Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. With the strikes on Sunday on Iranian nuclear sites, the United States inserted itself into Israel's war, prompting fears of a wider regional conflict. Iran said the United States had crossed 'a very big red line' with its risky gambit to strike the three sites with missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs . Israel said its defence systems were operating to intercept the latest Iranian threat, which apparently targeted the north and central areas of the country, and told people to head to shelters. Iran described the attack a new wave of its Operation 'True Promise 3,' saying it was targeting the Israeli cities of Haifa and Tel Aviv, according to Iranian state television. Explosions were also heard in Jerusalem. There were no immediate reports of damage. In Iran, witnesses reported Israeli airstrikes hit areas around Iran's capital, Tehran, around midday. They hit a power supply system in the Iranian capital, triggering outages in some areas around the city, Iranian media reported. The power distribution line in northern Tehran "was damaged, causing outages in some areas", Fars news agency reported. (AP)
Asia Times
4 hours ago
- Asia Times
How India should read and react to Trump
On June 21, 2025, US President Donald Trump once again claimed that he had brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan—saying he had 'stopped the war' while invoking Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistan's Army Chief General Asim Munir, and lamenting that he still 'won't get a Nobel Peace Prize.' This marked the 15th time Trump has made such a claim. India's position, however, remains unequivocal: PM Modi, in a June 18 phone call with Trump, reaffirmed that India had never accepted third-party mediation and that the ceasefire was the result of 'direct military-to-military communication between the Directors General of Military Operations,' initiated by Pakistan. India's Ministry of External Affairs and Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri echoed this, stressing that India ' has not accepted, and will never accept, mediation ,' and that there was no discussion of a trade-for-ceasefire linkage. Trump's repetition of this narrative underscores a pattern of diplomatic overreach, factual distortion, and personal grandstanding in critical international matters. India should now stop responding to every statement Trump makes regarding this claim. Although he holds the office of the US President, it is important to recognize that he is also an impulsive and transactional leader who has openly admitted, 'I myself don't know what I will do next.' Taking his remarks at face value only amplifies them and makes New Delhi appear reactive to a personality who thrives on attention, disruption, and strategic ambiguity. Recently, Trump hosted Pakistan's Army Chief, General Asim Munir, at the White House and praised what he called Pakistan's 'very, very strong leadership.' Earlier, US CENTCOM Commander General Michael Kurilla described Pakistan as a 'phenomenal partner in the counterterrorism world,' citing its role in intelligence-led operations against ISIS-K. However, Trump's current overtures toward Pakistan must be viewed through a geopolitical lens, particularly in the context of the ongoing Israel–Iran conflict. Following Israel's strikes on Iran, the region remains volatile, and Trump appears to be seeking Pakistan's support—or at least its neutrality—given its long border with Iran and its past role in hosting US military infrastructure. Analysts suggest that if the conflict escalates, Pakistan could serve as a potential logistical or strategic partner for the United States. This should not be interpreted as a deep strategic realignment with Pakistan. During his first term, Trump openly accused Islamabad of 'lies and deceit' and suspended nearly US$2 billion in military aid, citing its duplicity in the War on Terror. In a widely noted tweet, Trump said: 'The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools… They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan… No more! ' Trump knows Pakistan well. He understands that it has never been a reliable security partner—receiving US aid while simultaneously sheltering the very Taliban forces that American troops were fighting in Afghanistan. Given this history, it is unlikely that he has had a genuine change of heart. Pakistan, in turn, is playing to Trump's well-known desire for admiration—offering flattery and even passing a parliamentary resolution nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump's repeated claims of mediating between India and Pakistan are a misrepresentation of facts. Even if India continues to issue categorical denials, he is likely to repeat the same narrative. His pattern of exaggeration—claiming he could end the Russia–Ukraine war in 24 hours or bring lasting peace to the Middle East—underscores that India is dealing with a deeply unpredictable and performative figure. It Is time for India to stop responding to Trump's provocations and instead focus on the broader strategic trajectory of the India–US relationship. New Delhi should engage consistently with the broader US foreign policy establishment—including career officials in the State Department, Congress, leading think tanks, and the strategic community—that recognizes India as central to a free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific. Unlike the narrow, tactical US–Pakistan cooperation—mostly limited to military coordination between the Pentagon and Rawalpindi during crisis scenarios—the India–US partnership is broad-based, resilient, and multidimensional. It spans government-to-government, business-to-business, people-to-people, academic-to-academic, and civil society linkages. These diverse connections make the partnership stronger and more enduring. Even when one track faces challenges, others reinforce the foundation. Key initiatives like the US–India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (iCET), launched in January 2023 by the national security advisors of both countries, provide a structured framework for cooperation in AI, quantum technologies, semiconductors, space, and defense innovation. The INDUS-X initiative, launched in June 2023, accelerates collaboration between defense startups. Meanwhile, the TRUST framework (Technology Resilience and Underpinning Sectors of Trust), introduced in policy discourse in 2023–24, focuses on building secure supply chains and trusted technology ecosystems. The evolving COMPACT initiative (Comprehensive Partnership for Advanced and Critical Technologies) reflects a long-term vision for co-development and co-production in critical tech and energy. In essence, the India–US relationship touches nearly every facet of human interaction—from innovation to education, energy to health, security to sustainability. As Prime Minister Modi aptly stated during his 2023 US visit, 'no corner of human enterprise is untouched by the partnership between our two great countries, which spans the seas to the stars. ' It is anchored in shared democratic values, institutional trust, and strategic convergence. Unlike the instrumental and transactional US–Pakistan dynamic, India–US ties are part of a long-term strategic alignment, not subject to the whims of personalities or the volatility of immediate crises. Whenever the US reaches out to Pakistan, Indian public discourse often interprets it as a zero-sum game—where any engagement with Islamabad is viewed as a loss for India. This mindset reflects outdated 'hyphenation' thinking, which wrongly assumes that India and Pakistan occupy equivalent roles in global politics. In reality, the two countries hold vastly different positions: India is a rising global power, with a $3.7 trillion economy and the world's third-largest military, while Pakistan remains a struggling regional actor—economically constrained, strategically dependent, and possessing niche utility in specific security scenarios. Trump's latest attempt to equate the two should be seen as a tactical move to secure Pakistan's cooperation in a specific context—most notably the Israel–Iran crisis—rather than a meaningful change in the U.S. strategic outlook. As Michael Kugelman of the Wilson Center has observed, 'This is likely a case of Trump being intrigued by the complexity and intractability of India–Pakistan relations and wanting to crack the code… but not necessarily reflecting US policy.' He further cautioned that the India–US relationship could suffer if it continues to be framed in Islamabad's shadow—a framing that Washington's broader strategic community has largely resisted. The appropriate response for New Delhi is not to react to every provocative statement, but to anchor the bilateral relationship in long-term shared interests—spanning strategic, technological, economic, academic, and civil-society domains. Washington's strategic elite understand this distinction. As Kugelman noted to Reuters, 'India is now a much closer US partner than Pakistan,' reflecting a solid alignment in Indo-Pacific strategy and global vision. India must clearly articulate its concerns to the US whenever military cooperation with Pakistan poses risks to its national security. Strategic clarity and proactive diplomatic engagement are essential. However, this must not translate into letting the broader India–US relationship be held hostage to Trump's unpredictable rhetoric. Instead, New Delhi should remain focused on strengthening cooperation across key domains—economic, technological, defense, academic, and civil society—regardless of momentary political noise. Trump should be seen for what he is: a transactional and often erratic actor, whose positions frequently shift based on political expediency or personal ego. The way forward for India is to deepen institutional engagement with enduring pillars of the US strategic community—Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon and influential think tanks. Let Trump say what he wants; the India–US partnership is anchored in long-term strategic convergence and shared democratic values—far too vital to be disrupted by one man's craving for attention. Dr Imran Khurshid is associate research fellow, International Centre for Peace Studies, New Delhi, and adjunct research fellow, The Peninsula Foundation
