From Brussels to New Delhi: Energy Morality vs. Oil Realpolitik
EAM S Jaishankar called on Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin today! (Image X.com)
As Europe plots a 2028 Russia-energy exit and Trump fires tariff salvos, India must resist imported timelines—leveraging discounted barrels while diversifying on its own terms, because in energy, sovereignty cannot be outsourced.
By P SESH KUMAR
NEW DELHI, September 13, 2025 — Brussels has nailed a flag to the mast: a legal end to Russian oil and gas by January 1, 2028—and not a day sooner just because Washington (and President Trump personally) wants it faster. That gives the EU time to rewire contracts, secure LNG, and avoid another price-shock winter. Meanwhile, India has doubled down on discounted Russian barrels to protect growth and inflation, even as Trump has actually slapped punitive tariffs (up to 50%) on Indian exports for not falling in line.
With China, Trump has loudly threatened similar tariffs and urged the EU to join in, but those remain proposals rather than enacted penalties.
The EU’s Case: Strategic Patience, Not Instant Purity
The EU is locking in statute: no Russian oil or gas after Jan 1, 2028. Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen has framed this as a legally enforceable glide path-ban short-term top-ups from next year, hard stop by 2028-rather than a dramatic, near-term cliff that risks fuel poverty and factory shutdowns. It is a politics-meets-physics argument: pipeline dependencies, contract unwind, and infrastructure build-out demand time.
The Commission also signals it could accelerate within a future sanctions package, but the baseline stays 2028. In other words, Europe wants to end the war’s energy entanglement without lighting a new energy crisis.
Trump’s response has been maximalist. He has pressed European leaders to stop buying Russian oil now and to hit the two biggest non-Western buyers-India and China-with crushing tariffs to choke off Moscow’s cashflow.
EU officials, while heeding US pressure, have not embraced a tariff war on India/China; they are focused on codifying their own exit and backfilling supplies (notably US LNG) without stoking price spikes. That is classic Brussels: legalism, coalition management, and energy-security hedging over shock therapy.
Verdict on the EU’s rationale: Coherent.
The 2028 line is not moral timidity; it is grid realism. The continent learned in 2022 that speed without safety nets is a political and economic boomerang. The plan couples a terminal date with practical steps to keep lights on and inflation tame while starving the Kremlin-just not on a Washington news cycle.
India’s Stand: Price, Poverty, and Policy Space
India’s energy lens is brutally simple: secure affordable barrels first, argue geopolitics later. Cheap Russian crude has saved India billions, softened pump prices, and cushioned inflation. New Delhi has signalled it will not abandon a lifeline unless there is an equivalent or better alternative-preferably with payment, shipping, insurance and sanctions-risk clarity.
That posture has hardened as Trump has already imposed tariffs (up to 50%) on Indian exports as punishment for Russian crude. These cover garments, gems, footwear, sporting goods, furniture and chemicals.
New Delhi would interpret this as coercion that ignores developing-country energy poverty and per-capita emissions realities. India’s imports from Russia have climbed again despite the pressure-because arithmetic beats admonitions.
Verdict on India’s rationale: defensible and consistent.
India is not bound by EU timelines or G7 price-cap politics, and it points (accurately) to Western double standards (EAM Jaishankar has repeatedly highlighted this) during the messy transition from Russian molecules. When faced with tariff threats, India’s counter is classic “strategic autonomy”: diversify, bargain, and keep options open-including more U.S. energy-without surrendering its Russia hedge.
Trump’s Overreach: From Moral Suasion to Economic Bludgeon
There is a difference between leading a coalition and arm-twisting a sovereign. Trump’s playbook-publicly browbeating Europe for “now” and pushing for tariffs on India and China-turns energy policy into a trade war cudgel. With India, the tariffs are already real. With China, they are still threats. That asymmetry is crucial: it also hardens the political case in New Delhi to resist, because capitulation today invites fresh coercion tomorrow. Brussels, for its part, is resisting being dragooned into tariffing India while it finalizes its own end-state law. That divergence-EU legality vs. US leverage-is the fissure India can exploit diplomatically.
Lessons for India-and the Way Forward
India should decouple timelines from tempers. Treat the EU’s 2028 as Europe’s problem set, not India’s. Keep Russian barrels flowing so long as they reduce CPI and CAD risk, and pivot volume only when netbacks match-or beat-Urals economics after freight, insurance and compliance costs.
Can India not exploit the Brussels-Washington gap? The EU is cool to tariffing India; use this to lock medium-term no-tariff understandings with European capitals while offering transparency on refined-product flows and price-cap compliance to soothe optics.
India could hedge with contracts, not press releases. Pre-book more term LNG and flexible crude with the U.S., Middle East and Africa to show optionality-without promising a Russia exit. The signal: India can diversify by choice, not by diktat.
India can seek to turn tariffs into leverage. If Washington insists on punishing duties, should India not table a grand bargain: incremental U.S. energy purchases, green-tech co-production and supply-chain friend-shoring in exchange for calibrated, market-based tapering-not a ban-of marginal Russian barrels. Price the ask in inflation points and jobs data.
India could bring in narrative discipline at home. Keep stating the core: discounted crude has saved India ~$17 billion; tariffs that erase export earnings of $30-40 billion, hurt workers more than the Kremlin. That contrast resonates with voters and trade partners alike.
Lastly, sanctions-risk hygiene. India could maintain rigorous documentation on price-cap compliance, ship-to-ship transfers, and payments. The goal should be to deny pretexts for secondary sanctions while preserving economic gains. (Here, the EU’s legalism helps: align to the letter where feasible, to blunt the stick.)
Bottom Line
Europe’s 2028 endgame is a managed exit; India’s Russian barrels would appear to be a managed necessity. Trump’s tariff fusillade tries to collapse both into instant virtue. New Delhi should keep its nerve: bank the discounts, expand alternatives on its own timetable, and negotiate from strength-because in energy, supply security is sovereignty, and sovereignty is not something one can outsource to another capital’s clock.
(This is an opinion piece, and views expressed are those of the author only)
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
