In the last century, US policy toward Russia served as a defining vector for the collective stance of Western nations against an ideologically distinct adversary. Decades later, the trend has come full circle. The US and its transatlantic partners find themselves embroiled in a renewed phase of antagonism with Russia over Ukraine, this time with broader global implications that extend across energy, trade and diplomacy. The Gaza crisis and now the Russia-Ukraine war have become arenas where Donald Trump’s conflict-resolution style is being tested. His latest sanctions package against Moscow signals the re-emergence of a hard-edged, transactional diplomacy.New sanctions, announced by the US and the EU, mark a significant escalation in the great power competition. They are designed to squeeze Russia further into economic isolation by targeting energy exports. Despite previous rounds of sanctions, Russia’s oil and gas revenues continue to sustain its economy. What sets this latest round apart is both its scale and precision, striking directly at Russia’s two largest oil giants – Rosneft Oil Company (Rosneft) and Lukoil OAO (Lukoil) – along with a web of subsidiaries to prevent any circumvention.
Sanctions were imposed shortly after Britain introduced identical measures against the same firms. Meanwhile, the EU has announced that it will ban imports of Russian LNG, starting January 2027. Together, Rosneft and Lukoil export about 3.1 mn bpd. The intent behind these actions is one final push at Moscow to compel it to the negotiating table to end the Ukraine war.
For Trump, the sanctions reflect a familiar rhythm in his approach to foreign policy, blending coercion and brinkmanship. The US’ efforts to coax Russia into a potential summit in Budapest have failed to yield results. By pre- emptively framing the venue and timing, Trump attempted to seize diplomatic initiative and shape the optics of negotiation before Russia could. Moscow, however, remained steadfast in its maximalist demands, including recognition of its control over parts of eastern Ukraine. In response, Trump opted to proverbially cross the Rubicon by ratcheting up sanctions pressure, seeking to create new leverage.Trump’s strategy has met resistance. During the recent Trump-Volodymyr Zelenskyy meeting, the latter refused to consider ceding additional territory, particularly in the Donbas region – a key Russian demand. This impasse has pushed Trump back to his default position, intensifying economic pressure as the safest route to force concessions. It aligns with his long-standing campaign promise to avoid new military entanglements while projecting US power through economic and diplomatic means.
New sanctions package, however, carries complex geopolitical repercussions. It affects three key Russian energy buyers – China, India and Turkiye – each of which maintains an intricate relationship with Washington.
Turkiye has sought to recalibrate its West Asian role amid crises in Syria and Gaza, leaving room for selective cooperation with the US.
India and China, by contrast, continue to pursue independent foreign policy paths, often balancing between Moscow and Washington. Yet, with these sanctions, their manoeuvring space could narrow.
India, in particular, faces a delicate balancing act. While New Delhi has not officially confirmed any reduction in Russian oil imports, its private refiners and policymakers are likely exploring diversification. Alternatives could include increased imports from West Asia or even the US.
Trump’s administration has made no secret of its ambition to turn America into one of the world’s largest energy suppliers, especially to major consumers like India. The emerging shifts in the energy market may, thus, offer Washington a chance to expand its footprint, even as it pursues stability in West Asia, which could be a key node in redrawn global energy supply chains.
Oil as a commodity tends to find its market, sanctions notwithstanding. The broader concern lies in the deepening rift between the US and Russia, and how the escalation of sanctions intensifies global divisions.
Putin has signalled that Moscow will not yield easily. His rhetoric suggests a long game – one that bets on fatigue in Western unity and resilience of alternative energy networks, involving China and parts of the ‘global south’.
Trump’s renewed emphasis on sanctions reflects both his instinct for negotiation through pressure and his reluctance toward military involvement. Yet, the policy also risks collateral consequences for allies and partners. For India, this phase presents a test of its diplomatic agility. While it continues to champion dialogue and peace, its heavy dependence on imported energy remains an Achilles’ heel.
Pant and Mishra are with a New Delhi-based think tank.
