NATO’s threat to India: A diplomatic misstep amid geopolitical tensions

Chandan Kumar Nath 

(chandankumarnath7236@gmail.com)

In a striking escalation of diplomatic rhetoric, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte recently issued a stern warning to India, alongside China and Brazil, threatening “100 percent secondary sanctions” over their continued trade relations with Russia. This statement, delivered in Washington on July 15, 2025, has sparked a sharp rebuttal from New Delhi and ignited a broader debate about the West’s approach to global trade and India’s strategic autonomy. As the Russia-Ukraine conflict enters its fourth year, NATO’s latest move underscores the complex interplay of energy security, geopolitical alignments, and economic coercion, with India caught in the crosshairs of Western pressure.

Rutte’s remarks came on the heels of a meeting with U.S. senators and echoed U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat of imposing severe tariffs on nations maintaining economic ties with Russia unless Moscow agrees to a peace deal with Ukraine within 50 days. Speaking alongside Senators Thom Tillis and Jeanne Shaheen, Rutte urged India, China, and Brazil to reconsider their trade with Russia, particularly in oil and gas, warning that failure to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin into peace talks could “slam back” on these nations “in a massive way.” The NATO chief’s call for these countries to “make the phone call to Vladimir Putin” to push for peace negotiations was perceived in New Delhi as both patronising and overstepping NATO’s mandate as a military alliance focused on collective defence, not global trade governance.

India’s response was swift and resolute. On July 17, 2025, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), through spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, issued a sharply worded statement cautioning against “double standards” in international relations. Jaiswal emphasized that securing India’s energy needs remains an “overriding priority,” guided by market dynamics and global circumstances. This rebuke was not merely a defence of India’s trade with Russia but a pointed critique of the West’s selective indignation, especially given Europe’s own continued reliance on Russian energy. Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, speaking at the Urja Varta 2025 event in New Delhi, further reinforced India’s confidence, stating that the country has diversified its crude oil imports from 27 to 40 countries, ensuring resilience against potential disruptions. The backdrop to this diplomatic spat is India’s pragmatic approach to energy security. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, India has emerged as one of the top importers of Russian crude oil, capitalising on discounted prices to meet its growing energy demands. In 2024 alone, India imported over $56 billion worth of Russian oil, with private refineries like Reliance Industries and Nayara Energy accounting for nearly half of these purchases. This shift has not only stabilised domestic fuel prices but also positioned India as a key exporter of refined oil products to Europe, which ironically continues to import significant volumes of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG). A report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) noted that India’s refined Russian oil has become a critical supply for the European Union, highlighting the hypocrisy in Western criticism of India’s trade practices.

Critics of NATO’s stance, including former Indian envoy Kanwal Sibal, have labelled Rutte’s remarks as “out of his geopolitical depth.” Sibal pointed out that NATO members like Turkey, Hungary, and Slovakia continue to import substantial amounts of Russian energy, yet face no similar threats of sanctions. This selective targeting of non-NATO nations like India, China, and Brazil raises questions about the alliance’s motives. Is NATO genuinely concerned about Russia’s war funding, or is this a broader attempt to counter the rising influence of the BRICS bloc, which India is a key member of? The timing of Rutte’s warning, just days after the BRICS summit hosted by Brazil, suggests the latter. President Trump’s separate criticism of BRICS as an “anti-American” bloc, coupled with his threat of additional tariffs on its members, further fuels suspicions that NATO’s rhetoric is less about Ukraine and more about curbing the economic clout of emerging powers. India’s strategic autonomy, a cornerstone of its foreign policy, is at the heart of this controversy. New Delhi has consistently advocated for a diplomatic resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi famously declaring at global summits that “this is not an era for war.” Modi’s visits to both Russia and Ukraine in 2024 underscored India’s balanced approach, engaging with all parties while abstaining from UN resolutions condemning Moscow. This stance reflects India’s broader commitment to non-alignment, a principle that has guided its foreign policy since the Cold War. By threatening sanctions, NATO risks alienating a key Indo-Pacific partner whose cooperation is vital in countering China’s growing assertiveness in the region.

The economic implications of NATO’s threats are significant but uncertain. India’s oil imports from Russia, which account for roughly 35% of its total, are not directly sanctioned, though Western price caps on Russian crude at $60 per barrel limit the involvement of Western shippers and insurers. If the U.S. and NATO were to impose secondary tariffs, India’s cost-benefit calculus for purchasing Russian oil could shift, particularly if the penalties outweigh the advantages of discounted prices. However, Minister Puri’s assurance of diversified supply sources, including from countries like Guyana, Brazil, and Canada, suggests that India is prepared to navigate such challenges. Moreover, ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S., aimed at reducing tariffs and resolving issues in agriculture and dairy, could provide a buffer against punitive measures. The broader geopolitical context adds another layer of complexity. NATO’s growing interest in the Indo-Pacific, evident in its deepening ties with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, signals a shift in its strategic focus. While this aligns with India’s concerns about China’s regional ambitions, New Delhi remains wary of excessive alignment with Western alliances, fearing it could disrupt South Asia’s delicate balance of power. Pakistan, for instance, might perceive closer India-NATO ties as a threat, escalating regional tensions. Furthermore, NATO’s Strategic Concept 2022, which emphasises freedom of navigation and cybersecurity, aligns with India’s priorities, but New Delhi prefers bilateral or regional frameworks like the Quad over formal alliances.

As the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to reshape global alliances, NATO’s warning to India highlights the challenges of navigating a multipolar world. India’s firm response, rooted in its energy security and strategic autonomy, signals that it will not be cowed by external pressures. Yet, the episode also serves as a reminder of the delicate tightrope New Delhi must walk, balancing its economic needs, diplomatic principles, and geopolitical ambitions in an increasingly polarised global order. For now, India’s defiance of NATO’s threats reaffirms its resolve to chart its own course, even as the West grapples with its own contradictions.