In the evolving diplomatic landscape following a high-profile India-United States trade agreement announced in early February 2026, Russia has formally countered U.S. claims that India agreed to cease buying Russian crude oil as part of the deal.

The Kremlin reiterated that India is sovereign in its energy policy and remains free to purchase oil from any supplier, dismissing assertions that New Delhi has committed to halt Russian oil imports.

This comes amid conflicting narratives from Washington and Moscow: the U.S. administration insists India committed to ending Russian oil purchases, while Russian officials say they have received no official word from India about any such change. Domestic critics, such as the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), have used the controversy to raise broader concerns about the trade deal’s impact on Indian farmers and economic sovereignty.

Russia Rejects Trump’s Claims

On Wednesday (4 February 2026), the Kremlin directly responded to assertions linked to U.S. President Donald Trump’s comments that India had agreed to stop buying Russian oil as part of a trade pact with Washington. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Russia has not received any official communication from India indicating a decision to halt Russian crude imports.

He emphasised that India’s energy choices are fully sovereign and that New Delhi has historically diversified its oil suppliers. “India is free to buy crude oil from any supplier,” Peskov said, adding that there is nothing new about India’s diversified energy procurement strategy.

Moscow also reaffirmed that its strategic partnership with India is “most important,” signalling that Russia intends to maintain robust energy and trade relations even amid geopolitical pressures. Russian officials highlighted that India’s crude imports from Russia are a matter of mutual economic benefit, and that any shift in suppliers would be driven by New Delhi’s own assessment of its energy security needs.

Leading energy analyst Igor Yushkov pointed out that replacing heavy Russian Urals crude with U.S. or other alternatives would pose technical and economic challenges for Indian refineries, which are configured to process specific oil grades. This adds nuance to the debate, indicating that even if India wished to diversify further, a complete and immediate substitution may be neither simple nor cost-effective.

Conflicting Narratives: U.S. Claims vs Global Reality

The controversy stems from a series of bold statements by U.S. officials, including President Trump and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who publicly linked the recently announced trade deal to India ending its purchases of Russian crude and dramatically increasing U.S. imports.

According to U.S. sources, the terms of the agreement include India committing to halt Russian oil imports, buy up to USD 500 billion worth of American goods, and potentially source oil from the United States and Venezuela. These claims also highlight tariff adjustments, with U.S. reciprocal duties on Indian goods reportedly reduced to 18 per cent and India eliminating tariffs on many American products.

However, New Delhi’s official public statements have not confirmed any agreement to end Russian oil imports. India’s leadership has focused on the tariff reductions and strengthening economic ties with the United States, while avoiding direct confirmation of the specific energy commitments cited by U.S. officials.

In fact, Kremlin sources and independent data reveal that imports of Russian crude have declined only gradually in recent months due to broader market trends, not as the result of any formal Indian policy shift.

Data from trade analytics firms show Russia’s share of Indian oil imports fell from roughly 38 per cent to 34 per cent between April and November 2025, while U.S. crude’s share rose modestly suggesting diversification but not discontinuation of Russian supplies.

The divergent narratives underscore a broader strategic complexity: the U.S. wants to leverage its trade relationship to pull India closer geopolitically, while Russia emphasises economic partnership and energy pragmatism without political pressure.

Domestic Reactions and Wider Implications

Within India, opposition voices have seized upon the controversy to criticise the terms and perceived opacity of the trade deal. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) condemned the pact as potentially harmful to Indian farmers and the agricultural economy, arguing that opening Indian markets to duty-free American agricultural goods could flood the domestic market with cheaper imports, undermining local producers.

AAP leaders also warned that forcing India away from cheaper Russian oil toward more expensive sources could fuel inflation and increase household energy costs.

Experts also stress that the oil market’s intricate supply chains make abrupt changes difficult. Indian refiners entered into long-term contracts with Russian suppliers, and logistical infrastructure such as blending facilities and shipping arrangements takes time and investment to adapt. Analysts emphasise that even as India broadens its import base to include Gulf nations and potentially U.S. shale or Venezuelan crude, Russian oil is likely to remain part of the energy mix for the foreseeable future.

On the geopolitical front, the trade deal has triggered broader strategic conversations, including talks between India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and U.S. officials on frameworks like the QUAD, potentially signalling deeper engagement on security and regional stability beyond trade.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

In the midst of competing geopolitical narratives and diplomatic positioning, India’s sovereign right to prioritise its own energy security, economic interests, and developmental needs must remain paramount.

While international cooperation and strategic partnerships can catalyse growth and prosperity, external pressure or public claims that push one narrative over another risk creating confusion and eroding trust. Constructive global engagement should be grounded in mutual respect, clarity, and transparency especially on critical sectors like energy and food security.