India Hits Back at Navarro’s Claims, Lists How Russian Oil Imports Helped the West

Bengaluru: India has pushed back strongly against allegations that its purchase of discounted Russian oil is funding Moscow’s war effort, insisting that its energy trade complies with international rules and has helped stabilize global fuel prices. The response comes amid calls in Washington, including from former White House adviser Peter Navarro, for sweeping 50 per cent tariffs on Indian imports. Navarro and others argue that India has acted as a “financial lifeline” to Russia by buying large volumes of crude since the Ukraine war began. Indian officials and industry sources counter that charge, pointing out that Russian oil is not comprehensively sanctioned and that the G7 and EU designed their price-cap system precisely to keep Russian crude flowing below market rates to avoid a global price shock.Here is a point-to-point rebuttal:

1. Navarro claims that President Trump’s new 50% tariffs on Indian imports are meant not only to counter what he calls India’s unfair trade practices but also to stop India from funding Putin’s war through its oil purchases. India’s stand is that its Russian oil imports have stabilised global markets rather than funded Moscow’s war machine. New Delhi argues that this view, advanced by critics like Peter Navarro, ignores the G7/EU’s 18 rounds of price-cap sanctions designed to keep Russian crude flowing below market rates. With Russia producing nearly 10% of global demand, a sudden halt in Indian purchases could have pushed oil prices above $200 a barrel, hurting consumers worldwide. Instead, by continuing imports, India helped keep prices stable and markets balanced — a position even U.S. officials including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Ambassador Eric Garcetti, and Geoffrey Pyatt have acknowledged as beneficial to the West itself.
    
2. Navarro claims that while Americans buy Indian goods, India blocks U.S. exports with high tariffs and barriers, and then uses those dollars to purchase discounted Russian oil. India’s stand is that its crude purchases from Russia are legitimate, compliant with global norms, and not funded through U.S. dollars. Payments are routed via traders in third countries using currencies like the AED, and imports have stayed within the G7/EU price-cap framework. New Delhi points out that the West itself encouraged these buys after the Ukraine war to prevent oil from soaring to $200 a barrel, which is why Russian crude was never fully sanctioned. At no stage did Washington ask India to stop, and the sudden criticism now appears linked more to failed trade negotiations than to energy policy.
    
3. Navarro claims that Indian refiners, working with Russian partners, process and resell cut-rate Russian oil on the international market for big profits, while Moscow collects hard currency to fuel its war in Ukraine. India’s stand is that its Russian oil imports are legal, transparent, and distinct from sanctioned “black-market” crude such as that from Iran or Venezuela, which Indian PSUs do not touch. Russian oil has never been banned by the US/EU/G7; instead, it was placed under a price-cap system to maintain global supply and avoid price shocks. If Washington truly wanted to halt Russian crude, it could have sanctioned it outright — but concerns over spiralling prices prevented such a move. India has also avoided LNG and LPG from sanctioned Russian projects, while EU measures have, in fact, pushed refiners like Nayara Energy into complete dependence on Russian crude.
    
4. Navarro claims that before the Ukraine war, Russian oil was a negligible part of India’s imports, but now it accounts for over 30%, more than 1.5 million barrels a day. He argues this surge is not about India’s energy needs but about profiteering, with the proceeds coming at the cost of bloodshed and devastation in Ukraine. India’s stand is that its Russian oil purchases were aimed at shielding its 1.4 billion citizens and stabilising global markets, not profiteering. After Brent crude spiked to $137 a barrel in March 2022, the government acted to keep domestic fuel affordable: public sector oil firms absorbed heavy losses of up to ₹10 per litre on diesel (₹21,000 crore between April 2022–January 2023), export taxes were imposed to curb windfall profits, mandatory domestic supply rules ensured pumps never ran dry, and central and state governments cut taxes by ₹10 per litre. These steps reduced fuel prices in India even as costs surged worldwide, demonstrating a commitment to citizens rather than oligarchs. By continuing Russian imports at a time when OPEC+ cut output sharply, India helped prevent crude from breaching $200 per barrel, a move that ultimately curbed global inflation and benefited consumers everywhere.
    
5. Navarro claims that India’s powerful oil lobby has turned the country into a vast refining hub and “money laundromat” for the Kremlin. He argues that Indian refiners buy discounted Russian crude, process it, and then export fuels to Europe, Africa, and Asia — all while avoiding sanctions under the guise of neutrality. India’s stand is that it is a long-established refining and exporting hub, not a “laundromat” for Russian oil. With 23 refineries and decades of investment, India is the world’s fourth-largest refiner and exporter, supplying petroleum products to over 150 countries while primarily serving domestic demand. India has not resold cheap Russian crude; it has processed it — along with many other grades of global crude — into fuels, most of which are consumed at home. Exporting refined products is part of normal global supply chains, and after Europe banned Russian crude, it relied on Indian diesel and jet fuel to keep markets stable. Refining margins and discounts have since normalised, making allegations of “super profits” by Indian refiners vastly overstated.
    
6. Navarro claims that India exports over 1 million barrels a day of refined petroleum—more than half the Russian crude it buys—and that the profits go to politically connected energy barons in India while also feeding Putin’s war chest. India’s stand is that its refined petroleum exports are long-standing, legitimate, and primarily driven by domestic needs rather than profiteering from Russian crude. Of the total crude imported — including 30–35% from Russia — about 70% of refined products are consumed within India. Exports have remained broadly stable, with volumes actually declining as domestic demand rises. Reliance’s SEZ refinery, established in 2006, has always been designated for exports, independent of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Moreover, resale of refined products made from Russian crude was never sanctioned under the G7 price-cap regime, with limited restrictions only emerging under the EU’s 18th package. India’s overall petroleum exports have stayed consistent (around 99–107 MMT annually), while exports to the EU, mainly diesel and jet fuel, have grown marginally without altering the destination profile — led by the Netherlands, France, and Belgium. As crude and refined products are fungible commodities that flow according to market dynamics, India maintains that its role has been to meet domestic needs, honour global supply chains, and stabilise markets rather than channel funds into Russia’s war.
    
7. Navarro’s claim is that while the US spends to arm Ukraine, India is bankrolling Russia by buying its oil, all while maintaining some of the world’s highest tariffs on American goods. He argues this punishes US exporters, fuels a $50-billion trade deficit, and allows India to profit at the cost of Ukrainian lives. India’s stand is that Navarro’s trade deficit argument is hollow, as the US runs far larger deficits with China, the EU, and Mexico, making India’s $50-billion gap relatively small. Moreover, India is a significant buyer of American products,  from aircraft and LNG to defence equipment and advanced technology, reflecting a balanced and mutually beneficial trade relationship rather than one-sided exploitation.
    
8. Navarro claims that India is still buying Russian weapons while at the same time pressing U.S. companies to transfer sensitive military technology and set up production in India, behavior he labels as “strategic freeloading.” India’s stand is that it is not freeloading but investing deeply in US strategic partnerships. From co-producing GE jet engines and procuring MQ-9 drones to strengthening QUAD and Indo-Pacific defence cooperation, India has committed significant resources to bilateral and multilateral security ties. As the only major power actively countering China militarily in Asia, India’s role directly advances U.S. interests in the region, making the relationship one of mutual benefit rather than one-sided dependence.
    
9. Navarro claims that unlike the Biden administration, which ignored India’s actions, President Trump is directly confronting them with a 50% tariff — split between unfair trade and national security concerns. He argues that if India wants to be treated as a true U.S. strategic partner, it must act accordingly, insisting that “the road to peace in Ukraine runs through New Delhi.”  India’s stand is that it has consistently advocated peace and diplomacy at the UN and acted responsibly by keeping oil markets stable within global frameworks. Expecting India to sanction Russia while Europe continues to buy Russian gas and the U.S. imports Russian uranium is seen as hypocritical. By maintaining supplies, India prevented prices from spiralling and helped shield Western economies from deeper crises. Scapegoating India, therefore, is viewed as propaganda rather than sound policy.