• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

India-Russia-China Up & US Relations Down

Interviewer: The US Administration is accusing India of "profiteering" from oil sales
Jaishankar: Its funny to have a pro-business US administration accusing others of doing business. If you have a problem with refined products from India, don't buy it. But you keep buying more and more.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1959261051834241063

Overall official statements in the past two days:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1958494534897221662
https://twitter.com/x/status/1959147032859332659
https://twitter.com/x/status/1959260005082751460
 
7gtz said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1959244437411844432
Click to expand...
Of course India is profiteering. However; right now the US needs India more than India needs the US - so the smart course of action would be to let that slide.

If the US is serious about containing China, then India needs to be a big part of that; otherwise the whole jigsaw puzzle falls apart. Who else are you gonna rely on? Japan and South Korea? They hate each other almost as much as they hate Beijing. :p
 
7gtz said:
India’s continued imports of Russian oil are driven by economic pragmatism, not a dismissal of the Ukraine conflict or a lack of interest in global stability.
Click to expand...
Do you think India might be willing to patrol a DMZ between russia and Ukraine? Seems like India has pretty much tried to stay neutral in the conflict.
7gtz said:
Since the Russia-Ukraine war began in 2022, India’s oil imports from Russia surged from 0.2% to over 35% of its total crude intake, making Russia its top supplier. This shift wasn’t a strategic snub to the West but a response to global market disruptions. Traditional Middle Eastern suppliers redirected their oil to Europe after Western sanctions on Russia, leaving India to secure affordable energy for its 1.4 billion people.

The U.S. itself encouraged India to buy Russian oil early in the conflict to stabilize global energy markets, as confirmed by former U.S. Ambassador Eric Garcetti and then-Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. At the time, this was seen as a way to prevent oil prices from spiking to $130 per barrel, which would have harmed global economies, including the U.S. India’s actions aligned with this advice, ensuring affordable fuel for its consumers while keeping global prices in check. To now penalize India with a 50% tariff while sparing other major Russian oil importers like China feels like a selective application of pressure that undermines the spirit of strategic partnership.

Slapping India with a 50% tariff while sparing China’s $49.45 billion in Russian oil imports and the EU’s €67.5 billion trade reeks of hypocrisy and undermines the U.S.-India partnership. This selective punishment ignores India’s role as a counterweight to China and its need for affordable energy.

The U.S. isn’t clean here either. It still imports Russian uranium and palladium, due to policy failures like the 2010 Uranium One deal that gutted U.S. production that you mentioned. Criticizing India while ignoring its own reliance on Russia is inconsistent and erodes trust. India’s non-alignment on Ukraine reflects its defense ties with Russia, not support for the war’s devastation. Tariffs won’t end the conflict but could tank a vital alliance.

To fix this, the U.S. must apply tariffs uniformly, respect India’s economic constraints, and prioritize shared goals like countering China. Disengaging from India-Pakistan tensions risks regional instability, which serves no one. Drop the double standards, and strengthen the partnership. Don’t let shortsighted policies derail decades of progress.
Click to expand...
 
7gtz said:
I feel like my two posts above already address this ^
Click to expand...
The current ave tariff on Chinas imports to US os at 150%
The added Russian oil tariff brings India to just 50%. So I am not sure what it is India is trying to defend.
You admitted yourself I believe that Indias tariff policy has historically been protectionist against the US.

So is the whole question of tariffs more a question of instant media perception gratification or real $ balance sheet differences?
 
OReid said:
The current ave tariff on Chinas imports to US os at 150%
The added Russian oil tariff brings India to just 50%. So I am not sure what it is India is trying to defend.
You admitted yourself I believe that Indias tariff policy has historically been protectionist against the US.

So is the whole question of tariffs more a question of instant media perception gratification or real $ balance sheet differences?
Click to expand...
There are currently no tariffs in effect on China. They have been granted yet another extension while tariffs are already in place on us.

India's tariff policy has been protectionist against everyone, not just the U.S. Nobody is being singled out.
 
OReid said:
Ok let’s see how that works out for Indias economy
Click to expand...
It's this condescending attitude displayed casually (and probably unknowingly) that's the problem. The U.S. is currently making massive foreign policy blunders in Asia and digging its grave even deeper. All you're looking at are tariffs and Russian oil - it was your past administration that told us to buy Russian oil. And now you're mad at us for doing exactly what you said? Tariffs have been a part of the Indian economy for 80 years now, and they aren't just for Americans as I said. They're on every single country. I don't see the other 190 countries throwing tantrums about them. If you want them to come down, you approach us for a FTA like Europe and the U.K. did. Not have your head of government insult us on social media. Then cosy up to Pakistan and act surprised when we react. Actions have consequences!

This reads "How dare you react to what I did to you!"

You realise you need our permission to hit China from Diego Garcia, and how valuable our assistance would be in containing them? Sure we'll face temporary hardship. In the long term though, you will realise the U.S. needs us more than we need them. There is a reason 25 years of bipartisan efforts were spent on trying to build a relationship of trust - but that is now done and dusted by how we have been treated lately.

The Department of Posts has taken note of the Executive Order No. 14324 issued by the U.S. Administration on 30th July, 2025, under which the duty-free de minimis exemption for goods valued up to USD 800 will be withdrawn with effect from 29th August, 2025. Consequently, all international postal items destined for the USA, regardless of their value, shall be subject to customs duties as per the country-specific International Emergency Economic Power Act (IEEPA) tariff framework. However, gift items up to the value of USD 100 shall continue to remain exempt from duties.

As per the Executive Order, transport carriers delivering shipments through the international postal network, or other “qualified parties” approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), are required to collect and remit duties on postal shipments. While CBP issued certain guidelines on 15th August, 2025, several critical processes relating to the designation of “qualified parties” and mechanisms for duty collection and remittance remain undefined. Consequently, U.S. bound air carriers have expressed their inability to accept postal consignments after 25th August, 2025, citing lack of operational and technical readiness.

In view of the above, the Department of Posts has decided to temporarily suspend booking of all types of postal articles, destined for the USA with effect from 25th August, 2025 except letters/documents and gift items up to USD100 in value. These exempt categories will continue to be accepted and conveyed to the USA, subject to further clarifications from CBP and USPS.
Click to expand...
This is the press release. It is the lack of clarity and fully whimsical economic policies that are the reason for this cancellation.
 
7gtz said:
There are currently no tariffs in effect on China. They have been granted yet another extension while tariffs are already in place on us.

India's tariff policy has been protectionist against everyone, not just the U.S. Nobody is being singled out.
Click to expand...
So first the extensions you site are product specific. In general not so much.


This argument that tariffs are equally distributed against everyone is generally weak. An equal tariff rate will not have the same impact on one nation as it will another.
Equivalencies are not equivalent

India has also been granted an extension of 50 days as well to negocoate
www.bbc.com

Trump tariffs: India has 20 days to avoid 50% levies - what are its options?

Experts say the US's sweeping tariffs will slow down the Indian economy if Delhi fails to secure a deal.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

So again is this more about media outrage or actual details?
 
OReid said:
So first the extensions you site are product specific. In general not so much.


This argument that tariffs are equally distributed against everyone is generally weak. An equal tariff rate will not have the same impact on one nation as it will another.
Equivalencies are not equivalent

India has also been granted an extension of 50 days as well to negocoate
www.bbc.com

Trump tariffs: India has 20 days to avoid 50% levies - what are its options?

Experts say the US's sweeping tariffs will slow down the Indian economy if Delhi fails to secure a deal.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

So again is this more about media outrage or actual details?
Click to expand...
This is the same article you cite:
Most Indian exporters have said they can barely absorb a 10-15% rise, so a combined 50% tariff is far beyond their capacity.
If effective, the tariff would be similar to "a trade embargo, and will lead to a sudden stop in affected export products," Japanese brokerage firm Nomura said in a note.
This makes India the most heavily taxed US trading partner in Asia.
Click to expand...
 
Your assertion that China currently faces a 150% average tariff on its imports to the US is factually inaccurate and misleading. The average applied US tariff rate across all imports, including those from China, was estimated at 18.6% as of August 2025, following negotiations and reductions from a peak of 27% earlier in the year.

While US tariffs on Chinese goods did spike to 145% during a trade war escalation in April 2025, these were significantly reduced to 30% after negotiations in Geneva and London. The 150% figure is a gross exaggeration. India’s 50% tariff rate, effective from August 27, 2025, is among the highest imposed on any US trading partner, matching Brazil’s rate. The comparison to China’s supposed 150% tariff is invalid, as no such rate currently exists.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

US enjoys $35-40 bn surplus with India if services, arms, royalties included: GTRI

India, US trade: Despite a reported USD 44.4 billion trade deficit, the US actually enjoys a USD 35-40 billion surplus with India when factoring in revenue from education, digital services, and other sectors. This challenges the narrative of India unfairly benefiting from trade. GTRI suggests...
economictimes.indiatimes.com economictimes.indiatimes.com

You have often justified looking at trade deficits to justify tariffs - claiming that you're being taken advantage of. By that logic, India should increase tariffs ON the US! The US maintains a trade deficit with India, meaning we import more from the U.S. than we export. More money goes from India to the U.S. than the other way round. The US’s tariffs, particularly the additional 25% tied to India’s Russian oil purchases, are explicitly punitive, to pressure India on foreign policy (reducing Russian oil imports) rather than addressing trade imbalances. This conflates trade policy with geopolitical objectives, which is not a direct response to India’s protectionism but a coercive tactic.

You keep saying that the tariff issue is more about “instant media perception gratification” than “real $ balance sheet differences”, but that is a false dichotomy that dismisses the tangible economic impacts. The 50% tariff on Indian goods, effective August 27, 2025, affects $86.5 billion in annual exports to the US, India’s largest export market, accounting for 18% of its exports and 2.2% of GDP. Indian exporters, particularly in textiles, gems, jewelry, and aquaculture, have stated that even a 10–15% tariff increase is barely absorbable, and a 50% tariff could render these industries “commercially unviable.” These are not mere media-driven narratives but concrete economic threats. Moody’s projects that India’s GDP growth could slow by 0.3 percentage points from its 6.3% forecast for 2025–26 due to these tariffs. The impact is particularly severe because India’s competitors, like Bangladesh and Vietnam, face lower tariffs (19–20%), giving them a competitive edge. This could divert supply chains away from India, undermining its manufacturing ambitions.

OReid said:
India has also been granted an extension of 50 days as well to negocoate
Click to expand...
Article says 20 days, not 50. Regardless, we were among the first to approach you for a trade deal, Modi was one of the first heads of government to pay an official visit to Trump. Modi has even campaigned for Trump in 2020! When beginning trade negotiations, we offered goodwill concessions even before any serious talks began as a gesture. Our efforts were met with insults.

OReid said:
This argument that tariffs are equally distributed against everyone is generally weak. An equal tariff rate will not have the same impact on one nation as it will another.
Click to expand...
Exactly! You finally understand why we're so mad! A 50% tariff on India has a disproportionate effect because the US is India’s top export market, and sectors like textiles and jewelry are labor-intensive, employing millions. In contrast, China’s larger and more diversified economy, with greater domestic consumption, is better equipped to absorb tariff shocks.
 
Last edited:
7gtz said:
Your assertion that China currently faces a 150% average tariff on its imports to the US is factually inaccurate and misleading. The average applied US tariff rate across all imports, including those from China, was estimated at 18.6% as of August 2025, following negotiations and reductions from a peak of 27% earlier in the year.

While US tariffs on Chinese goods did spike to 145% during a trade war escalation in April 2025, these were significantly reduced to 30% after negotiations in Geneva and London. The 150% figure is a gross exaggeration. India’s 50% tariff rate, effective from August 27, 2025, is among the highest imposed on any US trading partner, matching Brazil’s rate. The comparison to China’s supposed 150% tariff is invalid, as no such rate currently exists.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

US enjoys $35-40 bn surplus with India if services, arms, royalties included: GTRI

India, US trade: Despite a reported USD 44.4 billion trade deficit, the US actually enjoys a USD 35-40 billion surplus with India when factoring in revenue from education, digital services, and other sectors. This challenges the narrative of India unfairly benefiting from trade. GTRI suggests...
economictimes.indiatimes.com economictimes.indiatimes.com

You have often justified looking at trade deficits to justify tariffs - claiming that you're being taken advantage of. By that logic, India should increase tariffs ON the US! The US maintains a trade deficit with India ($45 billion in 2024), meaning we import more from the U.S. than we export. More money goes from India to the U.S. than the other way round. The US’s tariffs, particularly the additional 25% tied to India’s Russian oil purchases, are explicitly punitive, to pressure India on foreign policy (reducing Russian oil imports) rather than addressing trade imbalances. This conflates trade policy with geopolitical objectives, which is not a direct response to India’s protectionism but a coercive tactic.

You keep saying that the tariff issue is more about “instant media perception gratification” than “real $ balance sheet differences”, but that is a false dichotomy that dismisses the tangible economic impacts. The 50% tariff on Indian goods, effective August 27, 2025, affects $86.5 billion in annual exports to the US, India’s largest export market, accounting for 18% of its exports and 2.2% of GDP. Indian exporters, particularly in textiles, gems, jewelry, and aquaculture, have stated that even a 10–15% tariff increase is barely absorbable, and a 50% tariff could render these industries “commercially unviable.” These are not mere media-driven narratives but concrete economic threats. Moody’s projects that India’s GDP growth could slow by 0.3 percentage points from its 6.3% forecast for 2025–26 due to these tariffs. The impact is particularly severe because India’s competitors, like Bangladesh and Vietnam, face lower tariffs (19–20%), giving them a competitive edge. This could divert supply chains away from India, undermining its manufacturing ambitions.


Article says 20 days, not 50. Regardless, we were among the first to approach you for a trade deal, Modi was one of the first heads of government to pay an official visit to Trump. Modi has even campaigned for Trump in 2020! When beginning trade negotiations, we offered goodwill concessions even before any serious talks began as a gesture. Our efforts were met with insults.


Exactly! You finally understand why we're so mad! A 50% tariff on India has a disproportionate effect because the US is India’s top export market, and sectors like textiles and jewelry are labor-intensive, employing millions. In contrast, China’s larger and more diversified economy, with greater domestic consumption, is better equipped to absorb tariff shocks.
Click to expand...
Love your work. Stand your ground. America as history shows is just doing what they do, or what they try to do.
Police, protect or, interfere and bully should your country not play their expectations. I laugh everytime America puts expectations and deadlines on other countries friendly and foes. Yet the first to scream sovereign right for those they pick as suitable at the time. If it wasn't for America Brics wouldn't exist. Now it does American support for brics is outstanding. Brics may have never worked , got this far in such a short time , or grown to have the majority of the world's global population onboard without American global influence. Choice is good. Choice gives opportunity and independence. And in some cases Choice can give opportunity to change should issues arise.
Eg. American big businesses chose to move to China. They had the choice to stay in America. I'm sure they have the choice to move back to America. Just like many European businesses.
Better to have choice than not to. At the end of the day .
 
I feel that India has good relations with pretty much all the world powers and would be a good mediator in the conflict in Ukraine, possibly even patrol a DMZ between the two. It is geography close, gets along with russia, china, europe and the US. I know India is upset over the tariff situation right now with the US but I'm sure that could be resolved pretty easily if they would actually agree to get involved politically and militarily to stop the war. India would be a great peacemaker for the world. IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom