Trump’s trade chief blames India for Russia-Ukraine war.
Elon Musk mocked Peter Navarro, who overlooks Washington importing palladium from Moscow and VGO via India, likely refined Russian oil.
Donald Trump’s former trade czar, Peter Navarro, has launched a scathing attack on India, accusing New Delhi of fueling Russia’s war machine by purchasing Russian oil and armaments.
In an article for the Financial Times, Navarro painted India as a central culprit in prolonging the Russia-Ukraine conflict. He argued that as Russia continues its relentless assault on Ukraine, India’s financial dealings with Moscow indirectly force American and European taxpayers to shoulder the staggering costs of Ukraine’s defence.
The fiery piece did not stop there. Navarro escalated his claims, essentially accusing India of “funding the entire Russian war effort.” He alleged that New Delhi’s purchase of Russian crude — often refined into products like diesel and exported onward — amounted to “oil laundering.” According to him, this practice not only undermines sanctions on Moscow but also strengthens Russia’s ability to finance its invasion.
He went further, pointing to the grim toll of the war.
Critics, however, argue that Navarro’s broadside is an oversimplification of global trade realities. India, like many other nations, has defended its purchase of discounted Russian crude as a matter of national interest, particularly given its huge energy demands. Officials in New Delhi have repeatedly emphasized that their stance is rooted in securing affordable energy for their population, not in aiding Moscow’s military campaign.
Still, Navarro’s rhetoric reflects a growing frustration in some Western circles over India’s balancing act between Moscow and Washington. While India has deepened defence and economic ties with the U.S. in recent years, it has stopped short of cutting its longstanding relationship with Russia.
By portraying India as the villain of the war, Navarro has reignited debate on whether Washington should pressure New Delhi harder, or whether such attacks risk alienating a key partner in Asia at a time when U.S. strategy is also focused on countering China.