How should India balance energy security against strategic partnerships when major powers apply double standards?

In August 2025 the US added a 25% duty on Indian goods because India was buying Russian oil [3]. By October 2026, the US Treasury had itself licensed imports of Russian diesel [2]. India needs to keep its energy affordable while preventing these selective rules from damaging partnerships it relies on.

Double standards in practice

• Selective outrage: the MEA called the targeting of India "unjustified and unreasonable". It noted that the EU traded about €67.5 billion in goods with Russia in 2024 and bought record Russian LNG, while the US still imports Russian uranium and palladium [5].
• Unequal timelines: the EU gave itself until 2027 to phase out Russian gas [6]. India's penalty applied immediately [3].
• Discretionary law: the 2026 US Act allows tariffs of up to 100% on buyers of Russian energy. It also includes a presidential national-interest waiver, which leaves room for selective enforcement [1].

Why energy security cannot be traded away

• Import dependence: India imports nearly 90% of its crude oil [8].
• Thin buffer: strategic reserves of 5.33 MMT cover only about 9.5 days of crude needs [7].
• Consumer welfare: the MEA describes Russian oil as essential for predictable, affordable energy for Indian consumers [5].

Why partnerships still matter

• US leverage: the 25% penalty was lifted in February 2026 only after India committed to stop importing Russian oil. The US can still reimpose it [4].
• Russia ties: Russia remains a defence supplier and a source of discounted crude. Cutting it off abruptly would harm strategic autonomy.

Balancing strategy

• Use the US's own precedent: seek a formal waiver under the Act [1], citing the US diesel licence [2].
• Phased diversification: publish a crude-sourcing plan modelled on the EU's own timetable [6], drawing on the US, West Asia, Africa and Latin America.
• Bigger buffers: speed up ISPRL Phase II so India has room to negotiate in a crisis [7].
• Legal record: the WTO's DS512 ruling held that GATT Article XXI is not wholly self-judging [9]. India should register its objections while relying on diplomacy.
• Coalitions: use BRICS and G20 Global South platforms to push for consistent, rules-based norms.

Overall, these double standards strengthen India's case but do not remove its dependence on partners. India should treat energy as non-negotiable and handle partnerships through phased diversification, legal objections and coalitions. This multi-alignment approach protects affordable fuel for its citizens, keeps ties with both Washington and Moscow, and supports a fairer rules-based order.