Targeting India over its energy trade with Russia has damaged Washington’s hard-won trust with New Delhi
By Kanwal Sibal, retired Indian foreign secretary and former Ambassador to Russia between 2004 and 2007. He also held ambassadorial positions in Turkey, Egypt, France and was Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington DC.
By Kanwal Sibal, retired Indian foreign secretary and former Ambassador to Russia between 2004 and 2007. He also held ambassadorial positions in Turkey, Egypt, France and was Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington DC.
US President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office August 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. © Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
US President Donald Trump promised during his election campaign that he would not involve America in any wars, arguing that entanglements in foreign conflicts have debilitated the country in a number of ways. However, Trump’s foreign policy contains too many contradictions.
Trump’s main focus during his campaign and immediately after taking office was on ending the Ukraine conflict. Yet he later ordered military action against the Yemeni Houthis and, more provocatively and unlawfully, against Iran’s nuclear facilities – something the US had not done before, despite years of tensions with Tehran.
Washington continues to be complicit in Israel’s destruction of Gaza, its bombing of Lebanon, and its occupation of parts of Syria. Trump has also ordered a flotilla of warships off Venezuela’s shores after placing a $50 million bounty on its president.
At the same time, Trump has been bold in engaging Russia and pushing to end the Ukraine conflict, ignoring deep hostility toward Moscow within the US political establishment and even among his own advisers. The Trump-Putin summit in Alaska was a dramatic event that caused panic in Europe and sidelined Zelensky. Members of the European ‘coalition of the willing’ – determined to support Zelensky with arms and funds to prolong the conflict – rushed to Washington to lobby Trump not to bypass them, not to concede to Russian demands, and to ensure they were included in negotiations on security guarantees for Ukraine.
Trump’s rhetoric, and that of the Europeans, has focused on a ceasefire, ostensibly to halt the bloodshed, but in reality to break Russia’s momentum, ease the pressure on Ukraine, allowing it to regroup, and to rebuild its defenses. After Alaska, however, Trump shifted to Russia’s position of prioritizing a peace agreement – much to the dismay of both Europe and Ukraine.
Europe has been humiliated by Trump. For the European powers, being excluded from decisions about their own security is deflating, with major implications for their global prestige. The image of European leaders lined up in the Oval Office before Trump, seated like he waspresiding over a staff meeting, was shattering for France, Germany, and the UK in particular.
Trump has made it clear that NATO membership for Ukraine is off the table and that the US will not put boots on the ground. Putin cautioned in Alaska against European interference, which Britain and France nonetheless signaled by announcing their readiness to deploy troops after a peace settlement. Russia has rejected the idea of NATO countries sending a ‘peacekeeping force’ to Ukraine, and this remains a contentious issue.
On security guarantees, Europe and Ukraine want NATO-style commitments akin to Article 5. But the Western camp is divided. The US has hinted at offering air cover, while Russia insists that any guarantees must include it and be underwritten by the UN Security Council. Guarantees cannot, Moscow argues, be directed against Russia but must be structured in partnership with it – another thorny point.
With regard to territorial concessions, Zelensky’s refusal to compromise is a crucial obstacle. His political survival depends on it. For Moscow, the incorporation of four former Ukrainian provinces into the Russian Federation cannot be reversed.
Even while pursuing peace, Trump has issued periodic threats of harsh sanctions on Russia. He has claimed that he asked Zelensky whether he would attack Moscow if provided with long-range missiles, and has said he warned Putin directly that continued attacks might force the US to bomb Moscow – a threat he believes Putin did not altogether dismiss.
Trump has set short timelines for a Putin-Zelensky meeting, with himself as mediator. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov insists that the summit would require careful preparation, as is typically the case, and has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy to sign a peace deal given the absence of elections. Putin, speaking in Beijing, publicly called on Zelensky to have talks in Moscow, but Kiev rejected the proposal.
Contrary to his peace posture, Trump has approved $90 billion in US arms sales – funded by Europe and destined for Ukraine – as well as an $825 million package including 3,350 extended-range missiles.
He has also increased pressure on Russia indirectly by targeting India. Ahead of the Alaska summit, Trump announced an additional 25% tariff on India for buying Russian oil and defense equipment, on top of an earlier 25% tariff imposed over India’s tariffs. On August 27, Trump’s 50% tariffs against India took effect.
Trump said the new tariff was meant to signal to Russia that he could choke its oil revenues by blocking key buyers like India. He claims this pressure helped bring Putin to Alaska.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Adviser Navarro have elevated India’s oil purchases to a major US-India issue, accusing New Delhi of profiteering, acting as a “laundromat” for the Kremlin, and enabling the war. They even labeled the Ukraine conflict “Modi’s war” and claimed that the “road to peace runs through New Delhi.”
This overblown rhetoric, aimed at straining India-Russia ties, has not succeeded in swaying New Delhi. India has refused to buckle under Trump’s pressure.
On Friday, Trump made yet another cryptic post on Truth Social. “Looks like we’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China. May they have a long and prosperous future together!” he said. If taken literally, the post implies that the US has concluded that India-US ties have irretrievably broken down. New Delhi, which has so far abstained from diplomatic rhetoric leading to a further deterioration of relations and which has maintained that it is not shutting the door on future positive interactions with the US, will watch closely for any possibilities of new coercive steps against it.
As for Russia, Trump’s style is unique, and Putin seems to consider it worthwhile to work with him pragmatically. For Moscow, there are many upsides: Trump’s outreach breaks the ice, pressures Zelensky, deepens European disarray, revives talks on nuclear disarmament and Arctic issues, and even opens space for economic cooperation.
With India, however, Trump has significantly set back relations and eroded the trust that was carefully built over the past two decades.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
