In a strongly worded statement, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, addressed recent targeting by the United States and the European Union regarding India’s continued import of oil from Russia following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. The statement highlights that India’s decision to import Russian oil was a pragmatic response to shifting global supplies, particularly after Europe redirected traditional Russian energy imports to meet its own needs.
A Necessity Driven by Global Markets
The Indian government emphasizes that these imports are essential to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs for its citizens—a priority in a highly volatile global energy market. The statement points out that many of the nations criticizing India for its Russian imports are themselves maintaining robust trade relationships with Russia, thus revealing a degree of hypocrisy. Unlike those nations, for India this trade is not a matter of luxury but a national necessity.
European Union’s Continuing Trade with Russia
The statement cites hard data: in 2024, the European Union’s bilateral trade with Russia reached €67.5 billion in goods alone, alongside €17.2 billion in services in 2023—figures that far surpass India’s total trade with Russia in the same period. Notably, EU imports of Russian LNG in 2024 hit a record 16.5 million tonnes, exceeding the previous high of 15.21 million tonnes in 2022.
Trade Beyond Energy
The document further underscores that European trade with Russia is diverse, covering not only energy but also fertilizers, mining products, chemicals, iron and steel, machinery, and transport equipment.
Parallel Practices by the United States
The statement calls out the United States for its continued imports of Russian uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for electric vehicle production, as well as fertilizers and chemicals.
Watchdog Perspective: Assessing Double Standards
From a watchdog’s vantage point, the statement raises pertinent questions about consistency and fairness in international economic relations. The data mentioned aligns with independent trade databases and exposes the complex realities of global supply chains. Calls for sanctions or criticism, when not evenly applied, undermine the credibility of international institutions and perpetuate perceptions of selective enforcement.
Conclusion
The Indian government’s assertion: the “targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable.” Given India’s economic size and strategic interests, it asserts a right to make decisions in pursuit of its own security and stability.