As tensions continue to simmer between the United States and its global trading partners, a new flashpoint has emerged: the import of Russian oil and gas by European nations and India. This issue has quickly become a diplomatic tug-of-war, with Washington urging its allies to cut ties with Moscow’s energy sector, while critics accuse the U.S. of double standards and economic coercion.
On September 8, 2025, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright made headlines with a candid interview in the Financial Times, calling on European countries to halt imports of Russian oil and gas if they expect Washington to ramp up sanctions against Moscow. “If the Europeans drew a line and said: ‘We’re not going to buy more Russian gas, we’re not going to buy Russian oil.’ Would that have a positive influence on the U.S. leaning in more aggressively (on sanctions) as well? Absolutely,” Wright stated, according to the Kyiv Independent.
Wright’s remarks reflect a growing impatience in Washington. He argued that such a shift would not only tighten the economic screws on Russia, but also fulfill a U.S.-EU trade agreement requiring Europe to purchase $750 billion worth of American energy resources by the end of 2028. “Russia funds its war machine off oil exports and natural gas exports, and if you cut off European purchase of those, it shrinks their money,” Wright said, making the stakes clear.
European officials, however, insist they are already moving in that direction. Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, the European Commission spokesperson for climate, energy, transport, and taxation, reiterated the EU’s commitment to phasing out Russian energy supplies as quickly as possible—not just gas, LNG, and oil, but even nuclear energy. “The sooner we have that import ban in place, the better our energy security, independence, and price stability,” Itkonen told the Kyiv Independent. She emphasized that “Russia has for years been an unreliable energy supplier for the EU,” and that achieving energy independence is “a necessary step we have to take, all together, as a Union.”
Despite these pledges, the numbers tell a more complicated story. In 2024, the EU still imported 52 billion cubic meters of Russian gas and 13 million tons of crude oil, according to official figures. Brussels has proposed a legally binding ban on all Russian fossil fuel imports by the end of 2027, and lawmakers are considering an accelerated phaseout starting in January of that year. However, some countries—including Hungary and Slovakia—have warned of potential economic fallout from such a rapid transition.
Meanwhile, the U.S. administration’s own approach has drawn scrutiny. While President Donald Trump has spoken about a “second phase” of sanctions on Russia, his administration has so far imposed only limited penalties, and in some cases even eased earlier restrictions. In August, Washington slapped tariffs on India, one of Russia’s largest oil buyers, but stopped short of broader measures. Indian officials, for their part, said the tariffs would not deter their Russian crude imports.
European Council President Antonio Costa announced on September 5 that a European delegation would travel to Washington to coordinate a new joint sanctions package against Russia. The very next day, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters that Washington is prepared to expand secondary tariffs on countries purchasing Russian oil, but no additional steps have been announced since then.
Across the Atlantic, the rhetoric has been even more heated. President Trump’s senior trade adviser, Peter Navarro, has launched a blistering attack on India’s energy trade with Russia, repeatedly calling its crude imports “blood money” and accusing India of profiteering from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. On September 8, Navarro posted on X (formerly Twitter), “India didn’t buy Russian oil in large quantities before Russia invaded Ukraine. It’s blood money and people are dying.”
Navarro’s social media tirades have not gone unchallenged. The platform’s community notes—crowdsourced fact-checks—have pointed out that India’s purchases are legal, aimed at ensuring energy security, and do not violate international sanctions. The notes also highlighted what they described as Washington’s “double standards,” noting that the U.S. itself continues to import billions of dollars’ worth of Russian commodities, including uranium and minerals, even as it pressures India and Europe to cut ties.
Navarro, undeterred, lashed out at X’s billionaire owner Elon Musk for allowing these fact-checks, writing, “Wow. Elon Musk is letting propaganda into people’s posts. That crap note below is just that. Crap. India buys Russia oil solely to profiteer. It didn’t buy any before Russia invaded Ukraine. Indian govt spin machine moving high tilt. Stop killing Ukrainians. Stop taking American jobs.”
He further accused India of imposing high tariffs that harm U.S. jobs, claiming, “India highest tariffs costs U.S. jobs. India buys Russian oil purely to profit/Revenues feed Russia war machine. Ukrainians/Russians die. U.S. taxpayers shell out more. India can’t handle truth/spins Leftist American fake news.”
Navarro’s remarks come amid escalating trade tensions between New Delhi and Washington. Relations have soured since President Trump doubled tariffs on Indian goods to 50 percent, including an additional 25 percent duty explicitly tied to India’s Russian crude purchases. India has described the U.S. action as “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable,” questioning why it had been singled out when China—the largest importer of Russian oil—has not faced similar punitive measures.
In a recent interview on the ‘Real America’s Voice’ show, Navarro said the Indian government takes offense to his criticism, describing India as the “Maharajah” of tariffs. “But it’s absolutely true. They have the highest tariffs in any major country in the world against the United States. We got to deal with that,” Navarro insisted. He added that India never bought oil from Moscow before the Ukraine war “except for like little tiny drops of it.”
Navarro has also accused Indian refiners of “profiteering” from Russian crude, claiming that American taxpayers ultimately bear the costs of the conflict. He contrasted India’s stance with what he called “great” trade deals the U.S. has signed with the EU, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Indonesia—countries he says recognize the value of working closely with Washington.
For its part, New Delhi has consistently defended its position. Indian officials maintain that their purchase of discounted Russian crude is driven by national interest and energy security, especially after Western nations imposed sanctions on Moscow and turned away from its supplies following the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. According to the Times Now News, India has argued that its actions are legal and necessary, and that it should not be penalized for securing affordable energy for its population.
As the debate rages on, the U.S. is weighing whether to expand secondary tariffs on countries buying Russian oil, a move that could further strain already fraught alliances. Some in Europe and Asia see the U.S. approach as heavy-handed, while others argue that cutting off Russian energy is essential to curbing the Kremlin’s war machine.
With both sides digging in, the road ahead remains uncertain. What’s clear is that the battle over Russian oil and gas has become a litmus test for international solidarity—and for the delicate balance between economic interests, national security, and the search for peace.
