Everyone is buying Russian oil—so why does the U.S. sanction India but not China? U.S. Treasury Secretary: India is a 'profiteer,' but China is not.

India has effectively locked horns with the United States. Ever since Washington announced it would impose a 50% tariff on Indian goods, anti-American sentiment across India has surged dramatically. Iconic American brands—including Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Apple smartphones—have faced strong public backlash and boycotts in India. Moreover, the Modi-led Indian government has adopted an uncompromising stance, repeatedly canceling defense procurement agreements, joint naval exercises, and diplomatic visits with the U.S. In his Independence Day speech, Prime Minister Modi even emphasized ‘Make in India,’ underscoring India’s commitment to self-reliance. Notably, India’s fierce reaction to the U.S. tariffs stems not only from the staggering 50% rate—the highest globally—which severely impacts its economy, but also from what India perceives as discriminatory treatment by the U.S. As widely known, of the 50% tariff levied on India, 25 percentage points constitute a so-called ‘secondary tariff’—an additional penalty imposed specifically for India’s long-standing purchases of Russian oil. India strongly objects to this punitive measure. After all, among America’s trade partners, India is far from alone in importing Russian oil; others include the EU, Turkey, and—crucially—China, all of which continue similar purchases. In fact, in terms of import volume, India isn’t even Russia’s top oil buyer—China is. Moreover, China is Russia’s largest natural gas purchaser, making it unequivocally Russia’s most important energy patron. Yet under these circumstances, India remains the sole target of the U.S. ‘secondary tariff.’ This has led India to conclude that the U.S. is applying double standards—a grossly unfair, unjust, and unreasonable act. Former Indian Foreign Minister Shyam Saran directly challenged: Why does the U.S. single out India while remaining silent on China? But is the U.S. truly practicing hypocrisy? Let’s examine U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s explanation. On August 19, Yellen addressed this issue during an interview, stating that although both China and India are major buyers of Russian oil, there exists a fundamental distinction between them. China purchases Russian oil solely to meet its domestic energy needs—an entirely normal, legitimate act of international trade. India, however, functions as a middleman: buying Russian oil at low prices, refining it domestically, and then re-exporting it for profit. Most critically, this arbitrage model emerged only after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war. Data shows that prior to the conflict, Russian oil accounted for less than 1% of India’s total oil imports; today, that share exceeds 40%. From the U.S. perspective, India’s sudden wartime profiteering not only disrupts global energy markets but also objectively influences the course of the Russia-Ukraine war—making it wholly unacceptable. Especially noteworthy is the fact that India’s re-exported oil flows predominantly to European countries. These nations were once major Russian oil customers, but due to their political stance following the outbreak of hostilities, they have significantly curtailed—or even severed—energy trade with Russia. This created a massive vacuum in Europe’s energy market—precisely the opening India exploited.

With tariffs raised again by 25%, India feels deeply aggrieved: China also buys Russian oil—so why is India being punished while China isn’t?

From India’s perspective, the U.S. crackdown is utterly arbitrary and unjustified. After all, India hasn’t just started buying Russian oil—it has done so consistently for over three years. So why did the U.S. raise no objections before, yet suddenly intervene now? Indeed, according to Indian officials, the U.S. not only tolerated India’s Russian oil purchases previously but actually praised and encouraged them. Following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, European countries’ energy trade with Russia suffered severe disruption, sending shockwaves through the global energy landscape. India’s strategy—buying Russian oil and reselling refined products to Europe—helped alleviate Europe’s energy shortages and contributed to stabilizing global energy markets. If that’s the case, doesn’t the U.S. action amount to reversing course overnight—slapping its own face? And beyond mere inconsistency, what India finds even more intolerable is the U.S.’s blatant double standard. Even today, India is hardly the only country purchasing Russian oil: Turkey and China do so too—and China’s imports of Russian oil vastly exceed India’s. Further, as India’s Ministry of External Affairs pointed out on August 4: “Countries criticizing India continue trading with Russia themselves.” Take the EU, for instance—nominally Russia’s near-total adversary in the conflict. Despite its official ban on Russian energy imports, the EU has quietly continued buying Russian oil. Data shows that in March and April alone, nearly 90 million barrels of oil shipped directly from Russian ports to EU member states—averaging close to 1.5 million barrels per day. The Netherlands, the largest importer, brought in as much as 650,000 barrels daily. Clearly, if—as the U.S. alleges—India’s purchases indirectly fuel Russia’s war effort, then these other countries bear identical responsibility and should likewise face U.S. ‘punishment.’ Yet in reality, the U.S. turns a blind eye to them all, focusing its full force exclusively on India—a textbook case of double standards. So India is left genuinely baffled: Its relationship with the U.S. doesn’t seem particularly strained. Even if it falls short of the EU’s closeness, it surely ranks on par with Turkey—and far above China in U.S. strategic calculations. So why does the U.S. single India out so relentlessly? On July 31, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated in an interview: “India is not a major global player.” That remark likely provides the clearest answer to the question above. Put bluntly, it reflects the classic ‘pick on the weakest’ logic: Among these countries, the U.S. simply views India as the easiest target—and thus chose India as its sacrificial lamb. First, the EU is unquestionably more vital to the U.S. than India is. As fellow members of the Western bloc, they’re practically family. Normally, no matter how defiant the EU grows, the U.S. would never resort to harsh punitive measures—mere verbal warnings would suffice. Moreover, the U.S. fully understands that, on Russia policy, the EU is often even more hawkish than the U.S. itself. Its decision to buy Russian oil is likely driven less by ideological sympathy and more by pragmatic necessity—its own economic survival.

Dimon Says US Shouldn't Punish India Over Russian Oil

Sep 22, 2026

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon warned the US against punishing India over Russian oil purchases, citing refinery constraints and market disruptions. He noted new US legislation could impose tariffs, complicating India's ability to replace significant crude volumes.

bloomberg

2026-09-17

JPMorgan Analysts Unsure How to Model Oil as Iran War Drags On

2026-09-22

Dimon Says US Shouldn't Punish India Over Russian Oil

2026-10-01

No Lights, No Radio: Getting Oil Through Hormuz Is a Risky Job

2026-10-13

JPMorgan Unleashes $1.5T Push for US Critical Minerals

2026-10-14

JPMorgan Adjusts Sustainable-Finance Strategy to Meet Historic Energy Demand

Dimon Says US Shouldn't Punish India Over Russian Oil

FAQ