In recent times, the United States has developed a pattern of singling out India whenever the Russia-Ukraine war is mentioned. What began as occasional remarks from American officials has gradually become a repetitive exercise, almost a ritual, where India is either lectured, vilified, or outright blamed for the continuation of the conflict. For many in India, these accusations have even turned into meme material, given how detached they are from ground realities.

The most recent and perhaps the most startling remark has now come from Donald Trump’s close aide and trade adviser, Peter Navarro. In an extraordinary outburst, Navarro declared that the war in Ukraine was nothing less than “Modi’s war,” just because India continues to buy oil from Russia to secure its domestic energy requirements.

Navarro’s remarks came during an interview with Bloomberg, where he went further than any American official before him by directly blaming India for the cost of Washington and Europe’s military and financial support to Ukraine. He launched into a lengthy tirade, stating, “Ukraine comes to us and Europe and says give us more money (for its war). Everybody in America loses because of what India is doing. Consumers and businesses lose; workers lose because India’s high tariffs cause jobs, income and higher wages. The taxpayer loses because we got to fund Modi’s war.” His words reflected not just frustration but also a deliberate attempt to pin the burden of a European conflict onto New Delhi.

Navarro was not finished. He claimed that the path to peace depended on India’s actions, making the bold assertion: “The road to peace runs at least partly through New Delhi.” While this sounded like a demand for cooperation, his tone quickly shifted to accusatory. He lashed out at India for being “arrogant,” arguing that New Delhi was hiding behind the excuse of sovereignty while continuing to prioritize its own energy security. His advice was direct and loaded with condescension: “The Indians are so arrogant about this. They say we don’t have higher tariffs. It’s our sovereignty. We can buy oil from anyone we want. India, you’re the biggest democracy in the world. Okay? Act like one. Side with the democracies.”

Navarro also widened his criticism beyond the war, targeting India’s growing engagement with China and Russia. He painted India as betraying its own history of conflict with Beijing by improving ties with an old adversary. In his characteristic bluntness, he said, “You’re getting in bed with the authoritarians. China, you’ve been at quiet war with them for decades. They invaded Aksai Chin and all your territory. These are not your friends, folks. Okay? And the Russians, I mean, come on.” By framing India’s relations with both Moscow and Beijing in such a negative light, Navarro implied that New Delhi was undermining its democratic credentials and aligning itself with forces hostile to the West.

The timing of his remarks was not accidental. Just a day earlier, the Trump administration’s steep tariffs on Indian goods had officially come into effect. These tariffs, amounting to 50 per cent, were particularly punitive, with 25 per cent directly tied to India’s continued purchases of Russian oil and defence equipment. India’s Ministry of External Affairs immediately condemned the move, describing it as “extremely unfortunate” and asserting once again that the country would always take decisions in line with its national interest.

What is most striking in Navarro’s rhetoric is the sheer convenience with which he sought to relabel the conflict. By calling it “Modi’s war,” he suggested that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had somehow engineered the war for India’s benefit, as though New Delhi had ordered Moscow to invade Ukraine. The reality is far different. If the war could be laid at the door of any nation apart from Russia and Ukraine, then it would be America’s. After all, no country has profited more from this conflict than the United States.

From repeatedly accusing India of “fuelling Russia’s war machine” to now going so far as to claim that the Russia-Ukraine war is “Modi’s war,” Washington has consistently avoided turning the mirror on itself. In fact, during his meeting with Donald Trump in Alaska on August 16, Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed that US-Russia bilateral trade had actually expanded by more than 20 per cent in the past few months. This revelation exposed the contradiction between America’s public stance of pressuring Russia and its private continuation of lucrative trade ties.

Meanwhile, American corporations have been making record-breaking profits since the war broke out in 2022. Energy companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil have enjoyed enormous financial gains, with their profits jumping by 125 per cent compared to 2021. The war gave Washington an excuse to supply liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe at inflated rates, often four times the domestic US price. Europe’s urgent search for alternatives made it an easy market, and American suppliers cashed in handsomely. Even more ironic, ExxonMobil has been exploring ways to return to Russia’s Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project, while during the Alaska summit, discussions were held about allowing Russia to buy US equipment for its LNG projects, such as Arctic LNG 2, despite sanctions. These facts show how hollow Navarro’s claim of punishing Moscow really is. Source: Bloomberg

The defence sector has been no less of a beneficiary. Washington has already supplied Ukraine with more than $19 billion worth of arms and military equipment, a move that has boosted the stock prices of US defence giants like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. Far from denying this, American leaders have openly admitted that their defence exports are “bolstering the US economy.” Earlier this year, the US Congress passed a $95 billion supplemental defence bill, with $60.7 billion earmarked for Ukraine. Of this, a striking 64 per cent was promised to “rejuvenate the US defence industry.”

Adding another layer of hypocrisy, Donald Trump has been selling weapons to Ukraine via European intermediaries at a 10 per cent markup, ensuring that American coffers keep swelling while Ukrainians and Russians continue to suffer casualties on the battlefield.

This duplicity is glaring when one compares the treatment of India’s oil trade. When America sells weapons at a premium, it is hailed as economic wisdom. When India buys Russian oil to meet its domestic needs and then sells refined products to Europe and America, it is accused of funding Russia’s war effort and painted as “Modi’s war.”

At the heart of it all, Washington has transformed the war into a business venture. The United States has not only profited from LNG exports and arms sales but is also angling to profit from any eventual peace deal. If negotiations to end the war are less about ceasefires, territorial guarantees, or sustainable peace, and more about securing lucrative contracts and trade advantages, then the true motive becomes clear: for America, the war is about profits, not principles.

To top it off, while Washington preaches sanctions, it continues to quietly trade with Moscow. Imports of non-ferrous metals, fertilizers, inorganic chemicals, nuclear machinery, animal feed, iron and steel, and oil seeds have remained steady, and in some cases, have even risen. This is happening at the very moment when the West insists that its sanctions are designed to cripple Russia’s economy.

US Hypocrisy on Display: Navarro Blasts India While Ignoring America’s Own Dealings

The United States and Europe appear deeply disturbed whenever India purchases crude oil from Russia. Yet, they show no discomfort in buying refined petroleum products that are produced from the very same Russian crude. The double standard is obvious. As the text makes clear, “It’s simple, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. They America does, Europe does. If the West does not loathe itself for buying Russian oil-made petroleum products, it should not villainise India for selling the same.”

India’s role has in fact prevented an even bigger global energy crisis. If India had not purchased Russian oil, the worldwide energy prices would have skyrocketed, causing chaos across economies. Still, the narrative spun by Washington is that “India is fuelling Russian war machine.” This argument conveniently ignores how the United States itself has been trading with Russia, while simultaneously selling weapons to Ukraine to stimulate its own economy, and exporting products to Europe after forcing Russia out of the European market. But somehow, in this selective blame game, only India is accused of profiteering from the war.

Peter Navarro also expressed dissatisfaction with India’s improving relations with China. He warned India about Beijing’s past hostility, but the reality is, as the text states, “Navarro, however, does not need to remind India of what China did in the past or what it has been doing against India. There’s reason why the West wanted India to be the counterweight to China. India’s tilt towards China is with cautious optimism. No one has countered China’s bullish behaviour and expansionist agenda like India.”

India carries long and painful memories of its conflicts with China. “India remembers all the wounds inflicted by China. India remembers China’s mindless border aggression and illegal claims over Indian territories, India remembers Aksai Chin, Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, India remembers China’s military and policy support to Islamic terrorist state of Pakistan, India also remembers China’s defence support and vow to protect Pakistan against India during Operation Sindoor.” These experiences shape India’s decisions.

At the same time, India has not forgotten the duplicity of the United States in its dealings with Pakistan. As the section emphasizes, “India has also not forgotten US’s constant backing of Pakistan even as the latter gave 9/11 to America and squeezed dollars out of America in the name of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan.”

Even Donald Trump himself had moments of sharp criticism towards Pakistan. “In his first term, Trump stopped financial aid to Pakistan. In July 2012, Trump had called out Pakistan for hiding Osama Bin Laden for six years and questioned when it would apologise. Trump said that Pakistan fooled the US by hiding Laden. In 2018, Trump accused Pakistan of lying and deceiving the US by accepting its financial aid worth billions of dollars and in turn nurturing terrorists that killed the US military personnel in Afghanistan.” Despite such strong statements, Washington refused to block an IMF bailout package worth $1 billion to Pakistan, even when India was carrying out Operation Sindoor to dismantle terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

The irony did not end there. “President Trump hosted Pakistan’s Madrasa-bred Field Marshal Asim Munir at White House. The US and Pakistan have signed trade deal, Trump is eyeing Balochistan’s natural resources, and even heaping praises on Pakistan.” Yet Navarro sermonises India, claiming that being the largest democracy in the world, New Delhi should align with democratic powers like America. But this raises an obvious question: “what sort of a democracy mollycoddles a terrorist state? Which democracy allows the Army Chief of another country to issue nuclear war threats against US’s ‘partner’ India on American soil?”

Navarro’s demand is simple but deeply problematic. He wants India to avoid closer ties with China and instead side fully with America — effectively asking India to surrender its strategic autonomy, its self-respect, and even its sovereignty. But the question remains: how is the US any different from China in this regard? As the text notes, “US is also backing Pakistan despite its numerous terror attacks including Mumbai 26/11, Pulwama, Pathankot, and Pahalgam. Calling Pakistan a ‘good counterterrorism partner’ just after Pakistani Islamic terrorists killed innocent Indians, talking trade with Pakistan right after designating Pakistani Jihadist group TRF, a foreign terrorist organisation, is clearly not an appropriate conduct of the world’s oldest democracy seeking ‘partnership’ of the world’s largest democracy.”

If the US truly considers India a partner, how can it simultaneously undermine Indian interests, embrace India’s enemies, and then expect New Delhi to blindly cooperate with Washington against China? The contradiction is glaring.

Meanwhile, China continues to be the biggest buyer of Russian oil. Yet, paradoxically, it is not China but India that faces hostility, tariffs, and blame. “China is the biggest buyer of Russian oil, but it’s Modi’s war. Despite China being the biggest buyer and seller of Russian oil, China does not invite US’s ire. China did not get heavily tariffed as India got. In fact, Marco Rubio even justified Washington’s soft stance on China. Now, Trump wants 6 lakh Chinese students in US. Why is it that India gets all the hostilities, tariffs and blames but China gets rewarded? Navarro is fine with Trump rewarding but cries hoarse when India and China mutually decide to resolve issues.”

This pattern makes it evident that Washington’s interest is not in ending the Russia-Ukraine war. “Clearly, the US has no great interest in ending the Ukraine-Russia war, its interest is in squeezing profits in war and in peace.” The hostility toward India stems from multiple grievances: New Delhi refused to endorse Trump’s claim of brokering an India-Pakistan ceasefire, declined to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize, and resisted signing a trade deal that would have benefitted the US while damaging India’s dairy and agricultural sector. As the section concludes, “Beyond the glaring hypocrisy, it seems that the Trump administration has decided to blame India to deflect attention from the fact that it the US which is profiteering from Russia-Ukraine war.”