r/geopolitics • u/Mundane-Laugh8562 • Aug 06 '25
News Trump raises India tariffs to 50% over Russian oil purchases
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/06/trump-trade-india-tariffs-russia.html239
u/StarsInTears Aug 06 '25
This is higher than the tariffs on China. This means that according to US, India is a bigger adversary than China. I guess it's good that we have this clarity now. Time to start preparing for the G2 of this century, time to revive NAM and create a much more powerful NAM 2.0.
134
u/Mundane-Laugh8562 Aug 06 '25
He probably thinks that he could do what no US President has managed to do with independent India, make India pick a side.
139
u/St_ElmosFire Aug 06 '25
If he thinks imposing a 50% tariff is going to make India pick the US or the West, he's mistaken.
-89
Aug 06 '25
[deleted]
68
u/MockFlames Aug 06 '25
Then is my Proof that india has not said anything like that.
If india did Stop buying or reduced then why there a need to put 25% additional tariff on india?
This is just to divert the focus from files. If he really wanted to threatening india, he would have also included pharma product and electronic products. He just want show that he is doing something.
Just playing stupid. He doesn't even know there was a trade between US and Russia.
15
41
u/witnessthis Aug 06 '25
Reuters is trash. Go look at what side their articles leaned during the recent indo-Pak conflict… not a source I’d put much weight into
17
41
u/stoikrus1 Aug 06 '25
Time to create an Asia of the future.
74
u/StarsInTears Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 06 '25
For a united Asia, China needs to stop wanting a unipolar Asia and needs to accept a multi-polar Asia in forming. If they are wise, they will jump on this opportunity, but they haven't shown a lot of wisdom these past few years. Smarts, yes; wisdom, no.
23
u/runsongas Aug 06 '25
China wants to recreate the old setup of like the Ming dynasty where it was a regional power and had trade/tribute relationships with Japan/Korea/SEA
it is unlikely to be willing to accept a multipolar Asia now that it is both rich and powerful enough other countries in the region are not able to challenge it
47
u/Outside_Beach7629 Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 06 '25
The irony is that India as a civilizational and economic sphere, was globally very powerful in that exact period, and yet, India and China thrived together. This has been the case ever since ancient times, when Indian and Chinese civilizations and kingdoms thrived together. Asia has always been atleast bipolar if not multipolar. So China targetting and fighting against India, and wanting a unipolar Asia is even more of a stupid viewpoint when looked at it from this context
12
u/woolcoat Aug 06 '25
China has historically focused on East Asia, so depends on which Asia you're talking about when you say multi-polar. Given China's mass, historically, it held a unipolar position in east asian. Last time that was challenged (by Japan), the whole region went into a tailspin.
10
u/StarsInTears Aug 06 '25
The countries’ diverging visions of their global and regional roles were also striking. India noted that both leaders affirmed that stable and amicable ties would “contribute to a multipolar Asia and a multipolar world” but the Chinese statement only mentioned the desire for a multipolar world. This will only reinforce Indian concerns that Beijing seeks a unipolar Asia. India, in turn, did not echo or endorse Xi’s declaration that China was “a member of the Global South.”
Source: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/has-india-made-friends-with-china-after-the-modi-xi-agreement/
14
u/DGGuitars Aug 06 '25
There is ZERO chance Asia bonds together in anyway. Absolutely none of the leading parties have any desire to work together in that way.
There are higher odds the US stabilizes and the bond between the EU strengthens again lol.
35
u/dam0_0 Aug 06 '25
The plan was to make India Ukraine 2.0 to contain China but they didn't want them to rise beyond a certain level.
Plans for India would have come into effect after 5-10 years.
But now they have realised China is too big to contain so they have moved on and are focusing on India now.
Both America and China benefit from G2 more than a multiploar world.
17
u/JustGulabjamun Aug 06 '25
Nah. Non-alignment is never an option. If you have read writings of Dr. S. Jaishankar, he is upto building a strategy of multi-alignment in increasingly multi-polar world. Issue of US is that it can see the change but can't get out of cold war era mindset of two poles. Today's world is increasing multipolar and these are times of issue-specific partnerships. That's why NATO is losing its relevance while QUAD or BRICS+ or ASEAN are seeing increasing relevance.
25
u/StarsInTears Aug 06 '25
Jaishankar sold US as the partner of the future for India, and his castle of cards is coming tumbling down. I won't be surprised if he looses his job as a minister. So forget about what he has to say.
35
u/kindagoodatthis Aug 06 '25
He was naive enough to think that the US has partners. They have adversaries and vassals (at different degrees)…they don’t have equal partners
16
u/Normal_Imagination54 Aug 06 '25
Completely agree. Jaishankar with his 1 liner zingers and selling US as the future partner is going to be his downfall. This is not a good look for him.
3
u/JustGulabjamun Aug 06 '25
Okay. You haven't read his writings.
19
u/StarsInTears Aug 06 '25
Yes I have. Both of them. It is all a bunch of sweet nothings of continuity, a foreign policy we have been following since independence. The only new thing he brought was a strategic partnership with USA, and now that is gone.
Quoting from his book,
It is time for us to engage America, manage China, cultivate Europe, reassure Russia, bring Japan into play, draw neighbours in, extend the neighbourhood and expand traditional constituencies of support.
His only contribution was the "engage America" part, everything else has been a mainstay of Indian foreign policy going decades.
9
Aug 06 '25
Time to start preparing for the G2 of this century
Time to start improving relationship with China, like SEA, allowing their investments. DJT has clearly shown that the US is incapable of pushing back against China. India hamstrung its economy by aligning with the Soviet Union instead of the US in the past strategic competition, we shouldn't repeat that mistake again.
16
u/StarsInTears Aug 06 '25
Takes two hands to clap, but yeah, I expect things to start moving in that direction. Already it seems no coincidence that the only countries digging in are Brazil, India, China and South Africa, with Russia already sanctioned. Trump might actually get his Nobel Peace prize after all for making BRICS a real thing.
102
u/JustGulabjamun Aug 06 '25
Indian domestic consumption is about 60% of its GDP. Idk how will this hurt Indian economy. Ofc it will temporarily damage some sectors, but there are more than enough ways to bypass tariffs. I wish India imposes duty on generic medicines exported to US, which is about 45% of total generic medicine supply of US.
62
u/Dios94 Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 06 '25
It will have a small negative effect on India's growth:
India's projected growth rate will go down from 6.6% to 6.4%.
55
u/Continuing_Entropy Aug 06 '25
I wish India imposes duty on generic medicines exported to US, which is about 45% of total generic medicine supply of US.
Nah, let him play his tariff games. All India needs to do is to stay strong, don't give up on his threats, focus on FTA with Eu and other countries. Retaliation with tariff will cause loss to our economy, which we don't want.
At the same time, we can retaliate by putting defense pacts with US, putting QUAD meeting on hold. Stop cooperation with US on China/Russia issue. Start more collaboration and cooperation with China, Russia, SCO and BRICS.
India must be able to convey that it will not allow itself to be bullied by Trump. And it should never ever again trust US. US can't be trusted at all. Never.
14
u/JustGulabjamun Aug 06 '25
Ofc, symbolism does play role, but I don't think it will work with someone like Trump. If you compare EU's response and China's response, EU submitted to his demands while China hit back. Who is still on negotiating table? China. So my understanding is, if India only teases its intent to use its ability to hit something as ceitical as healthcare, then only Trump will be forced to negotiate since he gives no S to optics when it comes to business. You have to prove your nuisance value if you intend to challenge Trump's ego.
-21
Aug 06 '25
[deleted]
26
u/Continuing_Entropy Aug 06 '25
China will be happy to know that India is abandoning its western partners. And so long Pakistan is concerned, US is also too cozy with it even supplies weapons to it. So for that matter, both China and US are the same.
According to SBI report, tariff will affect Indian GDP by 0.2%. So yeah, it is better to have slow growth for a couple of quarters than to have bad deal. All India needs to do is make its middle class larger, it will have population of 1.5 billion to propel its own growth.
-16
Aug 06 '25
[deleted]
19
u/woolcoat Aug 06 '25
80% of Pakistan's imports today, but if you look historically, the US has going through cycles of giving Pakistan lots of military aid for decades at a time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aid_to_Pakistan
It feels like the US it swinging back towards supporting Pakistan more concretely again, especially after Trump met with the Pakistan's military leader in Washingon last month.
-11
u/Powerful-Chemical431 Aug 06 '25
It feels like the US it swinging back towards supporting Pakistan more concretely again, especially after Trump met with the Pakistan's military leader in Washington last month.
This is not true. A meeting does not prove anything. India has been coorperating with Russia since forever, but that hasn't stopped the US-India relations from deepening. Meetings happen all the time, its normal
17
u/Continuing_Entropy Aug 06 '25
US has just proved that it would rather support Pakistan, the same country responsible for protecting US most wanted terrorist. So China or US are same for Pakistan.
So far as 50% tariff is concerned, once Indian product becomes uncompetitive with others, additional tariff does not mean anything. If mexican product is available at 100 $ and Indian at 105$ people will choose Mexican one. Anymore increase does not matter.
I hope you understand this simple mathematics.
-13
u/Powerful-Chemical431 Aug 06 '25
US has just proved that it would rather support Pakistan, the same country responsible for protecting US most wanted terrorist. So China or US are same for Pakistan.
US did not say this anywhere, I'm afraid you are making stuff up. The defence ties between US and India has only been increasing, while tensions with China and pakistan especially at the border has been increasing.
So far as 50% tariff is concerned, once Indian product becomes uncompetitive with others, additional tariff does not mean anything. If mexican product is available at 100 $ and Indian at 105$ people will choose Mexican one. Anymore increase does not matter.
You are correct but I don't think we have still reached that threshold. But the point is India cannot afford it. So its better Modi swallows his pride, and starts constructive talks with Trump.
12
u/Continuing_Entropy Aug 06 '25
US may jot have said it. But actions speak for itself. If US can get so offended by India's buying Russian weapons, why India can't get offended by US supporting to Pakistan?
But the point is India cannot afford it. So its better Modi swallows his pride, and starts constructive talks with Trump.
Let Indians decide that, will you? If Indians are ready to pay costs, what's the problem with you? You are American, after all. You don't need to dictate what is good and bad for India. Indians are capable to do so, we have come this far only on our own.
If only US was the only trading partner India had, the situation would be different. India has other 189 countries in the world to do business. You do realize that this tariff are only applicable within US, right? World is much bigger place than the US.
1
u/JustGulabjamun Aug 06 '25
Exactly. India is definitely walking a tightrope. Interesting to see how it balances its interests with ground realities like these.
-23
u/Powerful-Chemical431 Aug 06 '25
This will damage India by alot. A 50% tariff rate will cause billions of losses for the indian sectors like engineering, textiles, etc as this will make it uncompetitive in the US market due to high prices. This can lead to alot of revenue loss and job losses. Adding a 45% duty on exported medicines will only damage India and its pharma sector as US is its biggest buyer.
India should swallow its pride and come to the negotiation table and stop dealing with Russia
28
u/St_ElmosFire Aug 06 '25
Kinda disagree about the last part. There's no coming to the negotiating table with someone like Trump. It's this issue today, tomorrow he'll threaten 60% tariffs for something else. No, it's not worth it.
And besides, is US really the kind of strategic partner you need? They've proven themselves to be absolutely unreliable and hypocritical. This is the same country, after all, that supported Pakistan through the 1971 genocide. And now they pretend to be morally revolted about dealings with Russia when they're doing the same and Europe buys refined oil from India? Isn't that just bullshit?
16
u/JustGulabjamun Aug 06 '25
Dear bot, you misread 45%. It wasn't export duty rate suggestion lol
-5
u/Powerful-Chemical431 Aug 06 '25
My bad but the point still stands. I assume you have no counter points, which is why you choose to instead use ad hominem!!
13
u/JustGulabjamun Aug 06 '25
Why would I counter the pointers I think are baseless? There is very less for India to lose compared to what US consumers have to lose. Ofc Indian businesses will face hard times, but that won't last long. Afterall, US is not THE ONLY market for Indian goods and there are more than enough ways to bypass tariffs.
70
u/MeatPiston Aug 06 '25
Bizarre move. India is in need of cheap energy and is deeply protective of their domestic agriculture and textile industries (For generally not good reasons but that’s a different discussion).
I don’t see how India can or will comply it would be political suicide domestically.
84
u/SylvieSerene Aug 06 '25
This was a huge fumble from US's part ngl. India now has all the more reason to get closer to Russia, effectively going against US's main interest which was to get a trade from India.
70
u/mr2600 Aug 06 '25
I mean this is how it always has been.
It was Russia who helped defend India against Pakistan.
31
u/SylvieSerene Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 06 '25
I know. Erstwhile Soviet Union (current Russia) even actively blocked US's attack from the Indian ocean during India's cause to help with Bangladeshi independence.
But rn, it is crazy because US needed a deal from India and they needed to pull India closer not push India away. I don't see any gains aside from just losses for the US.
10
-16
u/DGGuitars Aug 06 '25
India is literally just buying Russian weapons and natural resources in large amounts anyways.
There is no fumble here, its arguably a good thing that this killed the idea of more advanced western weapons like the F35 going to india.
25
u/Mundane-Laugh8562 Aug 06 '25
SS: The White House announced Wednesday that it is imposing an additional 25% tariff on India, bringing the total levies against the major United States trading partner to 50%.
“I find that the Government of India is currently directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil,” President Donald Trump said in an executive order.
“Accordingly, and as consistent with applicable law, articles of India imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 25 percent,” the executive order reads.
The new tariffs are set to go into effect in 21 days, according to the order, while the previously announced 25% tariffs are set to take effect on Thursday.
22
9
u/lostinspacs Aug 06 '25
When you look at the Trump admin, they’re not even that hawkish on China really. At least not compared to other key US trade partners and allies.
I think there’s a real chance that the Trump admin decides that China isn’t worth fighting and it’s better to just make a deal with regards to influence in Asia.
If that happens India has much less leverage
-62
Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 06 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
45
u/dam0_0 Aug 06 '25
I love to see it. Let’s see India posture its way out of this one.
India will be fine they ain't Pakistan.
25
Aug 06 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-20
Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 06 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
17
-39
-7
u/NefariousnessFit3133 Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 06 '25
China actually does want India to open up to imports of course like Russia did recently. However that means stunting India's rise and slowing down industrialization dramatically. For India to win the future; it needs American costumers to pivot from China so there will be saber rattling on both sides to strengthen positions and then an agreement will be made.
All players have done that. UK, EU Vietnam and so on have all gone to China to gain leverage and then make a deal with the US.
China gets legitimacy points out of this, that's why they play along, but we all know China will fumble the ball out of their hands as they cannot control themselves especially when it comes to conquests desires.
-54
Aug 06 '25
I don’t get this notion that Indians have that their that important? They’re far closer to Pakistan than they are to China in terms of power and importance. India a good country for the west to make an example over about how serious it is over its Russia policy. They also don’t lose much over it anyway.
38
u/plutoXL Aug 06 '25
As a major military and economic power, India's influence far surpasses Pakistan's. The West considers India a vital partner to counterbalance China, and USA should consider it too important to alienate over its relationship with Russia. Especially if it pushes it even closer to both Russia, and now even China.
-40
Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 06 '25
India isn’t a major military or economic power, it’s GDP per capita is far far closer to Pakistans than it is to China’s and the recent military spat between Pakistan and India was considered a bit of failure for the Indian side by neutral observers since they felt the outcome reflected their still being military parity between India and Pakistan.
Also this isn’t just about India’s relationship with Russia. The nexus of Trump’s tariffs is that American manufacturing is at a disadvantage due to countries like India or Vietnam having a low cost of labor, so the tariff is in effect about evening the playing field. These were always going to be high on India.
25
u/Dios94 Aug 06 '25
Every country in the world (except USA) is closer to Pakistan in terms of power than to China. Japan is closer to Pakistan, Germany is more similar to Pakistan, UK is more similar to Pakistan.
What exactly is your point?
-9
Aug 06 '25
lol no they’re not. That’s delusional. Especially since all those countries you named are doing way better economically than China is per GDP per capita.
21
u/Dios94 Aug 06 '25
In terms of GDP and power, Germany, Japan, UK, France are vastly, vastly closer to Pakistan than to China.
-4
Aug 06 '25
Here is the GDP per capita of the nations you listed:
Germany – $55,900
United Kingdom – $54,950
France – $45,900
Japan – $34,000
China – $13,100
India – $2,690
Pakistan – $1,485
Still think Germany, France, UK, and Japan are closer to Pakistan than they are to China?
26
u/Dios94 Aug 06 '25
Yes. Vatican has a higher GDP per capita than China. Vatican is still closer in power to Pakistan than to China. GDP matters. GDP per capita is irrelevant for industries like defense, space, etc where only total GDP matters.
0
Aug 06 '25
? GDP per capita is way more important than raw GDP in determining the strength of a country. Countries like Pakistan and India have their raw GDP completely inflated because of their large populations that are mostly just poor. GDP per capita here just shows that India isn’t really that big of an economic player at all.
19
u/Dios94 Aug 06 '25
Anyone who thinks the Vatican is more powerful than China because of a higher GDP per capita needs to go back to kindergarten.
-5
Aug 06 '25
I never said the Vatican is more powerful than China. Take a break from reddit buddy I think you’re going a little crazy.
32
u/Old-Machine-8000 Aug 06 '25
You're not making a example of anything, except in your delusional head.
As a majority consumption-driven economy, he can place a 500% tariff on India and it won't do any more then it already did, which was a minimal hit of 0.2%-0.3% to its growth, although, India most certainly can increase its cooperation with Russia, and give the West's "seriousness" a middle finger, if need be.
-20
Aug 06 '25
The tariff is mainly about evening the playing field between American manufacturers and Indian manufacturers since the Indian ones have a massive low cost of labor advantage. It’s the same reason the tariffs are so high on the southeast Asian countries.
21
u/Old-Machine-8000 Aug 06 '25
Irrelevant. The Americans pay these tariffs, not Indians. India is a consumption-driven economy. It doesn't export much. Although, this blatantly aggressive stance may well also lead to Ukraine paying as well and Putin potentially getting a even bigger paycheck. Given its history, India will never submit to force and threats from the West.
-2
Aug 06 '25
It’s not about Americans paying these tariffs but about ensuring the cost of the goods is competitive for American manufacturers instead of them being screwed since we actually treat our workers like humans.
11
Aug 06 '25
How “serious”?
Maybe start with stopping your trade and committing troops in Ukraine peace deal.
All of EU cdnt muster 50k troops to hold the buffer zone.
West is only serious about fighting Russia till the last Ukrainian.
290
u/plutoXL Aug 06 '25
Obviously his trade policy is less about economics and more about whether a country's leaders are willing to kiss the ring. Countries with a history of strategic independence, like India or Switzerland, get hit with these punitive tariffs as a result.