A Strategic Downgrade in Motion
The United States no longer treats India as central to its strategic interests. For two decades, Washington viewed New Delhi as a counterweight to China, a potential industrial partner, and a key node in regional security. That calculus has changed. India now finds itself relegated in Washington’s priorities. Its presumed importance has been replaced with doubt.
India has begun to reassess its position. It has sought to improve its standing with China. The shift came too late. Indian policymakers operated under the belief that their geopolitical relevance would shield them from consequence. They assumed strategic partnerships would endure regardless of India’s decisions elsewhere. That assumption has collapsed.
Delusions of Strategic Immunity
Indian officials convinced themselves that the country’s size, economic growth, and geographic location would make it immune to U.S. pressure. They believed Washington would overlook New Delhi’s continued energy and defense relationship with Moscow. That belief proved unfounded.
Evan Feigenbaum, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, explained the breakdown. “The strategic understandings that enabled the relationship are beginning to fall by the wayside.” He added that shifts in Washington’s posture differ from what Indian leaders had grown used to. This includes changes under Trump’s earlier presidency.
Feigenbaum emphasized that past U.S. administrations tolerated India’s separate ties with countries like Russia and Iran. Trump made it clear that era had ended. “All bets on that front are off,” he said.
Public Tariffs, Private Disrespect
President Trump’s sudden announcement of new tariffs on Indian goods shocked Indian officials and business leaders. His declaration came not through diplomatic channels but through a media appearance. That move redefined India from a partner to a target.
“We settled on 25%,” Trump said during a CNBC interview. “But I think I’m going to raise that very substantially… because they’re buying Russian oil. They’re fueling the war machine.”
Feigenbaum noted that Trump’s use of tariffs had no connection to conventional trade disputes. “President Trump is using the tariff instrument for things that have nothing to do with trade policy—oil purchases, foreign policy, membership in the BRICS group…”
India, long treated with ceremony, now faced a transactional reality.
Hypocrisy from the West, Seen from Delhi
India responded by pointing out a double standard. Meera Shankar, India’s former ambassador to the United States, outlined the inconsistencies in plain terms. “China imports $10 billion worth of Russian oil more than India… there are different standards for different countries and that appears to us very unreasonable and unfair.”
Shankar drew further contrast with Europe and the United States. “Europe still trades more with Russia than India does… So, is the EU shoring up Russia’s war effort?” She also pointed to continued U.S. purchases of chemicals, palladium, and uranium from Russia.
Feigenbaum echoed India’s sense of being singled out. “This is viewed in India… as being at minimum hypocritical, but in any case as somewhat cynical.”
Energy Dependency and Strategic Exposure
India’s dependence on Russian oil reflects a deeper issue. It lacks domestic energy security. Indian officials say they made their decisions not to defy Washington but to manage energy costs during global shortages.
“India had a steady and cheap source of energy supply at a time when the world was facing a series of shortages,” said Shankar. “This helped to stabilize global oil prices at a very difficult time.”
India’s Ministry of External Affairs released a statement that added context. “India’s imports are to ensure predictable and affordable energy cost to the Indian consumer. They are a necessity compelled by the global market situation.”
That explanation has not moved U.S. policymakers. Their strategy no longer makes space for weak partners pleading necessity. India’s need now sounds like an excuse.
A Lesson in Leverage
Tariffs are not the only tool Washington is using to pressure India. They also serve a symbolic function. By punishing Delhi, the United States sends a message to others. India became the example.
“They’ve tariffed countries with which the U.S. has a trade deficit, but also countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus,” said Feigenbaum. “They’ve tariffed countries with which the United States has free trade agreements… and countries with which it doesn’t.”
India believed it was in a different category. That illusion has ended.
Nationalist Pride Meets Industrial Limits
In response, Prime Minister Narendra Modi revived nationalist economic language. He appealed to Indians to return to swadeshi principles. That call for local production and self-reliance reflected growing frustration within his administration.
Feigenbaum highlighted the contradiction in this posture. “There’s an inherent contradiction between President Trump’s emphasis on America First and Prime Minister Modi’s emphasis on Make in India. It’s very difficult to square that circle.”
Despite public statements, India cannot isolate itself. It lacks the manufacturing depth. It lacks the export surplus. It also lacks the bargaining power to go alone.
No Trust Left to Salvage
Officials in both countries may still negotiate. But the trust that once framed the relationship has collapsed. Any future agreement will rest on tactical necessity rather than shared vision.
“Even if they reach a tariff deal… the trust is gone,” Feigenbaum said.
India finds itself without leverage. It no longer holds the special status it assumed would last.
A Weak State in the Middle of Great Power Games
India clung to an outdated belief that its size, growth rate, and geographic location would make it indispensable. It failed to read the room. Washington now treats Delhi as replaceable. That shift leaves India exposed. Its leaders now attempt to court China too late. They posture with economic nationalism too late. They question Western hypocrisy too late.
