Opinion India, Russia, and the cost of credibility in trade deal with US
If discounted Russian oil was essential to protect Indian households from inflation, why is it suddenly expendable? If energy security justified moral silence on Ukraine, why does it not justify resisting the US now?
either Russia nor China offers a serious alternative to economic engagement with the US and Europe. India exports barely $5 billion worth of goods to Russia and around $15 billion to China, compared to nearly $80 billion each to the US and Europe(File) For decades, India described itself not merely as a power, but as a principle. Strategic autonomy was not meant to be a negotiating tactic. It was presented as an ethic, a promise that India would act independently, resist coercion, and anchor its foreign policy in values as much as interests. In the post-colonial imagination, India was to be something larger than a market or a military weight. It was to be a moral voice for the Global South: Non-aligned, sovereign, credible. That credibility is now at stake.
And not because India chose one side or another in a great-power contest. Countries make hard choices all the time. Credibility is not lost by choosing; it is lost by pretending not to choose. For three years, India refused to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It abstained at the United Nations. It avoided the word “aggression.” It framed the largest war in Europe since 1945 as a “conflict.” New Delhi’s position remained studiously neutral.
The justification was always the same: Energy security. Discounted crude was protecting the poor from inflation. Strategic autonomy required resisting Western pressure. Critics were scolded for naïveté. Principles, we were reminded, do not fill petrol tanks.
Then, with the US trade deal signed earlier this week after almost a year of negotiations, India agreed to curb purchases of Russian crude and diversify away from Moscow. What had been described for three years as unavoidable suddenly became negotiable. The same dependence that supposedly prevented India from condemning a war of aggression dissolved the moment tariffs and market access entered the conversation. If it were existential, how could it be traded away in a commercial negotiation? That used to be India’s neighbours becoming client states of the West, never India.
This is the real damage of the reversal. It is not about Russia. It is not about the United States. It is about trust. Foreign policy ultimately runs on credibility. India once claimed to speak for the Global South, for post-colonial nations that remembered what it meant to be invaded, partitioned, and coerced. For a country that built its diplomatic identity on anti-colonial solidarity, that choice carries weight. If India had maintained its position consistently, resisting both Western pressure and commercial leverage, it could at least claim principle.
India’s leaders repeatedly said cheap Russian oil was shielding the poor from inflation. At one point, Russian crude accounted for more than a third of India’s imports, often far below benchmark prices. That discount, they argued, stabilised everything: transport, agriculture, and food prices. Fair enough. Energy matters. But if those same imports can now be curtailed for the sake of a trade agreement, then they were never existential. Meanwhile, the world takes note. The Global South needs countries that can articulate norms, defend sovereignty, and speak clearly when aggression occurs. A country that prices its principles should not be surprised when others price it too.
None of this means India should isolate itself or sacrifice economic growth for symbolism. Trade is necessary. Energy security is real. Pragmatism is unavoidable. But you cannot argue for three years that survival requires silence on aggression, and then reverse course when a better offer arrives. And improvisation erodes standing faster than any adversary could.
The tragedy is that India does not lack the ingredients for genuine leadership. It has demographic scale, economic momentum, technological talent, and a powerful anti-colonial legacy. It could speak with authority on sovereignty, development, and fairness in global systems. But in diplomacy, reputation compounds slowly and evaporates quickly. Three years of carefully defended “necessity” have collapsed with this one deal.
The writer is the humanitarian food security and diplomacy ambassador, India, for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office
Share
