Washington’s task is not to demand exclusivity from New Delhi but to make a US-India partnership the most attractive option.
Last week, the world was presented with a striking image: Chinese president Xi Jinping, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, and Russian president Vladimir Putin standing shoulder to shoulder in Tianjin at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit. The photograph conveyed more than diplomatic ritual; it symbolized the growing cohesion among key members of the BRICS and the Global South in response to US pressure.
For Washington, this image should serve as a wake-up call. If America’s policies push New Delhi closer to Moscow and Beijing, the United States risks undermining both its Indo-Pacific strategy and its global leadership.
In recent months, Washington has sought to penalize India for purchasing discounted Russian oil by imposing steep tariffs on Indian goods. The logic is straightforward: increase India’s costs, shrink Moscow’s revenue stream, and weaken Russia’s ability to sustain its war in Ukraine. Yet this logic is deeply flawed. Punitive tariffs will neither alter India’s energy calculus nor accelerate an end to the war. Instead, they risk undermining one of America’s most important strategic partnerships, pushing New Delhi closer to Moscow and Beijing at precisely the moment when US strategy requires the opposite.
At the same time, global realignments are shifting the balance of power. The BRICS bloc—China, Russia, India, Brazil, and South Africa, now expanded to include several additional members—has grown more cohesive in the face of Washington’s trade measures. What began as a loose association of emerging economies with diverse interests is increasingly finding common cause in resisting US economic pressure. Beijing, Moscow, and New Delhi recently met in China for their first trilateral summit in years, underscoring the potential for a more consolidated counterweight to the West.
If the United States is to sustain its global leadership, it must avoid pushing India into such alignments. Instead, Washington should seek to anchor India more firmly within its strategic orbit—through energy cooperation, technology partnerships, trade agreements, and diplomatic respect. The path forward is not punishment, but partnership.
Why Tariffs on India Won’t Work
India’s reliance on Russian oil is rooted in domestic economic necessity, not an urge to defy US policy. Discounted Russian crude has accounted for over one-third of India’s oil imports, saving New Delhi billions of dollars annually and helping keep fuel prices affordable for its 1.4 billion citizens. A sudden cutoff could impose an $11 billion shock—an untenable burden for any Indian government to bear.
Indian leaders also argue that they have remained within the G7’s oil price cap, thereby helping stabilize global prices. Moreover, India has already been diversifying its ties in line with US interests, reducing its dependence on Russian arms, cutting imports from Iran and Venezuela, and steadily increasing purchases of American crude. These moves demonstrate not disregard for US concerns but rather a careful balancing of energy security, affordability, and strategic autonomy.
Punitive tariffs do not accelerate this diversification; they entrench resistance. They fuel perceptions in New Delhi that the United States is a fickle partner, willing to weaponize economic pressure at India’s expense. They also hand Moscow and Beijing an invaluable talking point—that Washington bullies its friends while demanding loyalty.
The Risk of Driving India Closer to China and Russia
For decades, India’s foreign policy has revolved around “strategic autonomy.” When squeezed, New Delhi instinctively broadens its options. Chinese leaders have adeptly exploited this instinct. Beijing has reminded India of its vulnerabilities through customs slowdowns on critical imports like rare-earth magnets, fertilizers, and industrial machinery. Foxconn’s recall of Chinese engineers from iPhone plants in India further exposed the risks of supply chain dependence.
Meanwhile, Chinese troops have remained entrenched along the Himalayan frontier since the deadly Galwan clash of 2020, leaving large buffer zones off-limits to Indian patrols. Yet, faced with uncertainty about US backing, New Delhi has softened its rhetoric, replacing demands for restoration of the pre-2020 status quo with talk of a “positive trajectory” in relations. Even on sensitive issues such as Tibet, India has muted its response to Beijing’s warnings, signaling a preference for fragile normalization over confrontation.
Within this environment, the Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral forums are beginning to look less like ideological partnerships and more like insurance policies. Moscow views them as proof of non-isolation. Beijing sees them as a means to maintain its continental flank stability. India prefers to see it as a hedge against coercion from either side. Trump-era tariffs only intensified these dynamics. Former Indian trade officials observed that punitive US measures created “common incentives” for BRICS countries to lessen their reliance on the dollar and deepen intra-bloc trade.
The United States has declared India a “central pillar” of its Indo-Pacific strategy—a fellow democracy, a vital counterweight to China, and a bridge to the Global South. Yet Washington’s tariff policy undermines these very objectives.
In the short term, tariffs will not loosen Russia’s grip on Ukrainian territory. What they will do is erode goodwill in New Delhi, drain diplomatic bandwidth, and complicate cooperation on security initiatives. India has already played a role as a net security provider by arming the Philippines, sharing intelligence with Southeast Asian partners, and expanding defense exercises with the United States and Japan. Tariff disputes only distract from these vital efforts.
Over the longer term, the risks grow starker. A tighter RIC alignment, coupled with a more unified BRICS, could offer Russia diplomatic lifelines, help China blunt Western sanctions, and provide India with multilateral platforms to resist US pressure. Such an outcome would erode Washington’s leverage not only in Asia but also across the Global South, where India’s voice carries particular weight.
A Smarter US India Strategy
Rather than coercion, Washington should pursue a policy architecture that makes partnership with the United States the most advantageous path for India. Several steps can help achieve this goal.
First, energy cooperation. Washington and New Delhi should craft a long-term energy pact guaranteeing Indian access to US liquefied natural gas and crude at competitive prices. This agreement should be supported by investments in Indian infrastructure, including pipelines, storage facilities, and ports, necessary to handle the increased imports. Coordinated releases from strategic reserves and financing mechanisms to cushion price spikes would ensure political sustainability in India. By linking fossil fuel supplies with joint investments in renewables, grid storage, and hydrogen technology, both countries can prepare for a cleaner energy future while meeting their current needs.
Second, technology partnerships. India is more than a consumer market—it is a technological powerhouse. With its vast pool of engineers and its thriving startup ecosystem, India is well-positioned to shape the future of artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and clean energy innovation. Washington should fully integrate New Delhi into its technology ecosystem by establishing joint AI research hubs in Bengaluru and Hyderabad, co-developing semiconductor capacity, and building sovereign cloud infrastructure tailored to meet Indian regulatory standards. Collaborative leadership on AI ethics and safety would also ensure India’s voice is heard in shaping global rules.
Third, trade and economic ties. The United States remains India’s largest export market, with Indian exports to the United States in 2024 totaling $87.4 billion—far more than exports to Russia or China. Washington should expand this advantage by negotiating sector-specific trade agreements, particularly in pharmaceuticals, IT services, and clean energy goods. Reducing tariff barriers on Indian products like textiles and pharmaceuticals would build goodwill while reinforcing economic interdependence.
Fourth, diplomatic respect and strategic reassurance. India remains deeply wary of Chinese ambitions, particularly Beijing’s ties with Pakistan and its dam projects on the Tibetan Plateau. Washington should reassure New Delhi that US engagement with China will not come at India’s expense. High-level strategic dialogues, regular trilateral meetings with Japan and Australia, and robust support for India’s leadership in the Quad would send a clear signal of enduring partnership.
Managing India’s Ambiguities
Critics note that India’s behavior has at times frustrated Washington, including its continued oil imports from Russia, its neutrality on Ukraine, and its resistance to Western pressure. These concerns are not misplaced. Yet, they must be understood in context. India’s neutrality reflects both domestic economic imperatives and a desire to prevent Russia from becoming overly dependent on China. Its oil imports have helped cushion its economy from global shocks, ensuring stability in a democracy of 1.4 billion people.
The United States should not expect India to align fully with Western positions. Instead, it should aim to ensure that when India balances, it balances toward the United States rather than away. That requires incentives, not punishments. It also requires recognition that India will pursue multiple partnerships simultaneously, including with Europe, Japan, and the Global South. Washington’s task is not to demand exclusivity but to make partnership with the United States the most attractive option.
The Stakes for US Leadership in the Indo-Pacific
The stakes extend beyond the Indo-Pacific. A mismanaged India policy risks accelerating trends already underway, including BRICS countries experimenting with non-dollar settlement systems, central banks buying gold to hedge against US sanctions, and the emergence of parallel financial architectures in Asia and beyond. While the dollar will remain dominant, its monopolistic position is under steady challenge.
Conversely, a smart India policy would strengthen US leadership. India’s credibility with the Global South gives it a unique capacity to amplify American positions on issues from supply chain resilience to climate change. Its ability to counterbalance China in the Indo-Pacific is indispensable. And its role as a democratic partner in an era of rising authoritarian assertiveness is invaluable.
From Coercion to Cooperation with India
The United States faces a fundamental choice. It can continue down the path of tariffs and coercion, hoping to punish India into compliance. Or it can recognize the futility of this approach and instead build durable bargains that align India’s interests with its own.
Energy pacts, technology partnerships, expanded trade ties, and diplomatic respect offer a smarter path. They promise not only to reduce Russia’s revenues but also to tie India’s prosperity and security more closely to America’s. They create an order in which India chooses to advance its partnership with the United States because it is clearly in its interest, not because it has no other option.
At a time when the global balance is shifting and new alignments are forming, Washington cannot afford to alienate one of its most pivotal partners. To choose punishment is to risk driving India toward Beijing and Moscow, thereby complicating efforts to end the war in Ukraine and destabilizing the Indo-Pacific region. To choose partnership is to strengthen US leadership, stabilize the global order, and secure a future where democracy and prosperity flourish side by side.
About the Author: Jianli Yang
Dr. Jianli Yang is a Research Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is the Founder and President of Citizen Power Initiatives for China and author of For Us, The Living: A Journey to Shine the Light on Truth and It’s Time for a Values-Based “Economic NATO.”
Image: Simon Roughneen / Shutterstock.com.
