logo
Tycoons who profit from India's increasing demand for Russian oil

Tycoons who profit from India's increasing demand for Russian oil

Business Standard14 hours ago
The last time many Americans paid any attention to Jamnagar, a sunbaked industrial stretch on the mud flats on India's Gulf of Kutch, it was thanks to Rihanna.
She performed there in March 2024 for an exclusive audience — Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Ivanka Trump and the like — at the pre-wedding party for Anant Ambani, the younger son of Asia's richest man, Mukesh Ambani.
They were in Jamnagar, which had no international airport or hotel rooms for most of the guests, because its port and oil refineries have become central to the Ambanis' empire and $115 billion fortune.
One week later, Mr. Trump signed an executive order that doubled the punishment. In effect, he pushed India's exporters into peril on the grounds that their government was aiding Russia's war aims in Ukraine by letting Indian companies profit from the international oil trade.
Mr. Trump did not name the companies. But all roads lead back to Mukesh Ambani and his company, Reliance Industries.
Its principal refinery in Jamnagar — part of Gujarat, the home state of India's prime minister, Narendra Modi — is the biggest in the world. Many of Reliance's investments there and across India have been planned in consultation with Mr. Modi and other politicians. This area, including another refining business nearby, brings in 1.5 million barrels of oil every day, about a third of it shipped from Russia.
The Reliance name is everywhere in India. The company, started by Mukesh Ambani's father in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1965 as a trading house for polyester, is the nation's biggest conglomerate, composed of dominant players in energy, data and mobile networks, retail, finance, and more. The companies stream HBO, they own one of the world's most valuable cricket teams, they run a legion of charitable foundations, and recently they bought up nearly every haute couture brand in the country.
The Reliance refinery at Jamnagar is internationally rated in the top percentile in terms of complexity. There are many kinds of crude oil, and the Jamnagar facility can easily switch from refining crude from the Persian Gulf, Latin America or wherever the best prices can be found. Jamnagar had processed 500 types over the past 25 years, a Reliance spokesman said.
While about 30 percent of the crude that Reliance buys comes from Russia, a company spokesman said, 'it is incorrect to attribute profitability only to Russian crude oil discounts.' He added that the company had been consistently profitable over decades, more so than any regional competitor, both before and after the wartime discounts. The money it makes selling refined products to Europe is a small fraction of its total output.
The other big refining business in Jamnagar is Nayara Energy, just a few miles away from Reliance's.
The Nayara refinery is massive and modern, too, though its output is only a third of Reliance's. Since 2017, Nayara has been 49 percent owned by Rosneft, Russia's state oil company. One of its other largest stakeholders is a Russian-owned investment firm. That means that a Rosneft-backed entity has been buying oil from Russia, processing it in India and in some cases selling the results back to Europe. Unlike Reliance, it has most of its eggs in one basket.
In the first year of the war in Ukraine, these private refiners became the world's biggest buyers of seaborne Russian crude. Shut out of the European market, Russia offered discounts to whoever would take its stranded crude. India, along with China and Turkey, stepped in.
For two or three years, Indians and Americans took it in stride. Eric Garcetti, President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s ambassador in New Delhi, said at a conference in Washington in May 2024 that 'we wanted somebody to be buying Russian oil,' to stabilize the price.
Mr. Trump's salvo seemed to come out of the blue. Pankaj Saran, a former Indian ambassador to Russia who runs the NatStrat think tank in New Delhi, said archly, 'The trigger for the penalty would seem to be an action which has been going on in plain view since 2022.' To him, Mr. Trump's recent talk about Russian oil looks like a red herring.
India, home to 1.4 billion people and the world's fastest-growing large economy, has only modest oil reserves and needs to import 85 percent of its supply. Traditionally that meant spending hard currency in the Persian Gulf. The pressure those purchases put on India's balance of trade forces the government to take a strong interest in how its thirst for oil can be met.
'We are completely defenseless against energy costs, because we don't have oil,' Mr. Saran said. For that reason, 'the government has actively encouraged the refining sector.'
Reliance's balance sheet is such that it does not need the Russian oil trade, and Nayara Energy might not, either. (It did not respond to requests for comment.) There are indications that all of India's importers of crude were already scaling back their purchases, as European countries prepared to toughen up their constraints.
Mr. Trump's threats though have put Mr. Modi's government in a bind, and businesses like Mr. Ambani's with it. Any shift away from Russia now will look like a capitulation. Even if that were a good deal, it is not something that any elected leader of India can afford.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Decoding US moves: Tariffs on India aren't about India
Decoding US moves: Tariffs on India aren't about India

Time of India

time25 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Decoding US moves: Tariffs on India aren't about India

Until early August, the tariff sparring between Washington and New Delhi looked like another familiar round over soybeans. With China halting purchases and harvests approaching, it seemed like the US was looking for a buyer in India, as soybean farmers are a key MAGA base for Trump. Then, over just three days, the story shifted — from agriculture to a high-stakes game of geopolitics. On Aug 6, President Trump's negotiator, Steve Witkoff, met Russian president Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg for over three hours. Though billed as 'constructive', the talks yielded no major breakthrough. That same day, the White House announced an extra 25% tariff on Indian goods — lifting effective duties toward 50% — and framed the decision partly around New Delhi's continued intake of discounted Russian crude. In India, this was perceived as arm-twisting of its sovereignty, but a larger strategy was at play. The urgency in Washington comes from geopolitics as much as economics. The Ukraine war remains a key focus. In recent months, Russia has made incremental gains in Ukraine, giving it little reason to compromise. Official data showed a year-on-year rise in oil and gas revenues earlier this year, giving the Kremlin fiscal space to sustain the war. On another front, BRICS members are pushing for local-currency energy trade pilots. July's Rio summit saw Brazil and others call for 'economic sovereignty' from the dollar. If those systems take root, US sanctions will have less bite. It appears the White House wants to hit Russian revenues while the leverage window remains open. The domestic political calendar makes this even trickier. The midterms are barely a year away and while inflation has eased, it remains sensitive to fuel prices. Even a small Brent crude spike can quickly translate into higher gasoline costs, eroding consumer sentiment and complicating the Federal Reserve's path to cutting interest rates — a move the administration sees as vital to sustaining growth into 2025. A direct embargo on Russian oil would risk that spike, so Washington needs other channels. Since 2022, India has vaulted from a marginal buyer to Russia's largest swing customer, taking roughly 1-1.8m barrels of crude a day. Unlike private refiners tied to long-term contracts, India's state-owned refiners can quickly adjust their spot purchases when prices or risks change. If India reduces its spot purchases by 200,000 to 300,000 barrels a day, Russia may have to offer bigger discounts to other buyers, cutting its revenue by billions over a year. This would pinch Moscow's earnings and avoid a price surge that hurts American consumers. China, a larger buyer of Russian oil, has so far been spared to avoid disrupting US supply chains and ongoing tariff talks. Early signs suggest the tactic is having a marginal effect in India. One major state refiner recently reported a lower share of Russian crude as discounts narrowed. This is the kind of fine-tuning Washington is aiming for. For New Delhi, the irritation is real. It has watched Washington oscillate between warm words and hard edges — like this tariff move that risks raising Indian fuel costs while shielding US consumers. Yet this is also a moment to read beyond the headlines. Pakistan, despite entering this cycle with less leverage, has found its way into Trump's good books by using a cryptocurrency gambit and backing his bid for a Nobel Peace Prize. This has helped it carve out a tariff deal. India's own leverage is far greater: market size, strategic geography, technology and defence partnerships, and a pivotal role in energy flows. The smart play is to deploy that leverage to meet Trump's immediate need in exchange for wins of India's choosing. When both sides know they hold valuable cards, the game would be to trade them well, rather than escalate. This standoff is about much more than tariffs or a few oil shipments. For Washington, it is a test of whether it can squeeze Russia's war chest without spiking global fuel prices, hold China in check, and prevent the BRICS bloc from hardening into a true economic counterweight — all while keeping US inflation low enough for interest rates to fall. For New Delhi, it is about using its position as the swing buyer in the world's most strategic commodity to protect its autonomy, avoid an unnecessary rupture with America, and still extract tangible gains. The outcome will influence far more than trade flows. It will help decide who has the upper hand in setting oil prices, which currencies dominate energy trade, and whether the next global economic order tilts toward US-led systems or a more multipolar, BRICS-shaped architecture. How India and the US play this hand could echo for years in energy markets, currency systems, and the balance of global power. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.

Zelenskiy Rejects Ceding Land as European Leaders Back Ukraine
Zelenskiy Rejects Ceding Land as European Leaders Back Ukraine

Mint

time25 minutes ago

  • Mint

Zelenskiy Rejects Ceding Land as European Leaders Back Ukraine

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Kyiv won't cede territory to end the war with Russia as European leaders pledged their continued support for Ukraine's sovereignty. 'We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force,' European leaders said Saturday in a joint statement. 'The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations.' The statement was backed by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Finland. President Donald Trump announced Friday that he'll meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Aug. 15, with the apparent exclusion of Zelenskiy from talks aimed at ending Russia's invasion of its neighbor, now halfway through a fourth year. Zelenskiy's comments were his first response to news of that meeting, as well as reports that talks between Washington and Moscow center around a deal that would lock in Russia's occupation of territory seized during its military invasion, according to people familiar with the matter. That includes a demand by Putin that Ukraine cede Crimea, which Kremlin forces illegally annexed in 2014, as well as its entire eastern Donbas area. Such an outcome would require Zelenskiy to withdraw troops from parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions still held by Kyiv. National security advisers from Europe, Ukraine and the US met in the UK and made significant progress toward the aim of ending the fighting during hours of talks on Saturday, according to a US official who asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations. The talks followed an earlier call between Zelenskiy and Starmer, and a flurry of diplomacy involving Zelenskiy and other European leaders. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy and US Vice President JD Vance co-hosted the meeting at Chevening House in Kent. The talks were attended by some US officials via video link, the Wall Street Journal reported, adding that European powers offered a counterproposal for talks with Russia that would in the first instance demand a ceasefire. Any decisions taken without Ukraine 'are at the same time decisions against peace. They will not achieve anything,' Zelenskiy said. 'The answer to the Ukrainian territorial question is already in the Constitution of Ukraine. No one will and will not be able to deviate from this.' Zelenskiy also warned against accepting Russia's spin on possible outcomes of a negotiation, saying that Putin was solely responsible for blocking an end to the war. 'His only card is the ability to kill, and he is trying to sell the cessation of killings at the highest possible price,' the Ukrainian leader said in a later post on X. 'It is important that this does not mislead anyone.' Zelenskiy also had calls with French President Emmanuel Macron and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, as well the prime ministers of Spain, Denmark and Estonia, according to his posts. Separately, Macron had phone discussions with Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the French president said on X. In turn, Putin spoke on Saturday with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the latest in the series of international calls by the Russian leader since he met with US special envoy Steve Witkoff this week. Amid preparations for talks, Russia and Ukraine continued to trade air attacks overnight. Russia shot down a total of 224 Ukrainian drones over its territory from late Friday through 6 p.m. Moscow time on Saturday, according to nation's defense ministry. Three UAVs targeting Moscow were downed before in the first half of the day, Russian capital's mayor said in Telegram posts. Ukrainian drones hit a UAV storage facility in Kzyl Yul in the Russian republic of Tatarstan, some 1,300 kilometers from Ukrainian territory, the Security Service of Ukraine said on Telegram. Separately, Russian Defense Minister Andrey Belousov inspected facilities of the nation's Baltic fleet in the Kaliningrad region, Russia's exclave neighboring Lithuania and Poland. Belousov said the means of repelling drone attacks is among the fleet's priorities, according to a ministry statement. Ukraine's air forces on Telegram reported 47 drones and two Iskander missiles fired by Russia overnight. According to preliminary data, as of 9:00 a.m. local time, air defenses had repelled one Iskander missile and 16 UAVs. With assistance from Kavita Mokha, Ott Tammik and Hadriana Lowenkron. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

Trump's ‘gorilla' approach has actually made it harder for India to do a deal
Trump's ‘gorilla' approach has actually made it harder for India to do a deal

Time of India

time39 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Trump's ‘gorilla' approach has actually made it harder for India to do a deal

When Dmitry Grozoubinski started writing 'Why Politicians Lie About Trade', Joe Biden was in the White House. 'I did not see the present developments coming,' he laughs. 'It's been great for my book sales, but not so great for the world.' The former Australian trade negotiator and diplomat who has trained officials from several countries, including India, speaks to Shruti Sonal about how trade policy became a frontline political weapon Trump has doubled tariffs on India to 50% and even halted trade negotiations. Did you think that it would play out this way? I have been following this negotiation and right from the start, one of the consistent things has been the lack of consistency. In a traditional negotiation — for example, between India and the UK — you had an Indian team who knew roughly what its govt wanted and would accept, and you had a UK team that knew what London would accept. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now They would negotiate and then bring the final big questions to the leaders. In this case, the US negotiating teams do not know for a fact what Donald Trump will accept. At the end of a phone call, there is a 50% chance of an announcement where everyone's happy, and a 50% chance of a tariff escalation. When all of this kicked off, I had some optimism that India could do a reasonably good deal, or at least one that sort of turns the Trumpian 'Eye of Sauron' away from India and onto other targets because of the close personal relationship between Modi and Trump, and also because the Indian system itself is quite protectionist. I also naively thought that the US had a real strategic interest in making sure that they have a close working relationship with India. From the US perspective, India would be a natural ally in China's neighbourhood that should be courted and should certainly not be pushed into deepening its engagement with the BRICS. What we saw this week is that none of that was enough. In a recent podcast, you described Trump as the world's 'apex predator' when it came to deals. What did you mean by that? I think that Trump fundamentally believes that any negotiation is effectively kind of a power dynamic, where one side maximises the concessions it can extract and the weaker side gives up what it has to in the face of that power. To butcher a nature metaphor, it's sort of him saying, 'I am going to use US power to go and get things from others because we are the gorilla and they're the monkeys'. The problem with that approach is that it puts other leaders in a position where they have to politically justify any concession they make because it is a national humiliation. Some countries will understand a degree of national humiliation. But when you come to someone like Modi, whose personal image is that of someone who is tough and who fights for India, you actually make it hard for him to do a particularly one-sided deal. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It would be much, much easier for him to sell a deal with Trump if the latter did not have a tendency to then go on TV and be like 'we own them'. That makes it harder for other countries to give up too much. And if you look at what Trump has actually managed to gain from most countries, it's either fairly made-up stuff or not that much. Given your Ukrainian roots, how do you see Trump's criticism of India buying Russian oil? I was born in Kharkiv, and was there just three months ago, sitting as drones crashed down around me in Kyiv. I don't love the fact that India is buying Russian oil, but I have so much sympathy for the Indian govt because three months ago, I don't think anyone knew what side of that war the US was even on. So, to turn around today and say, 'As we've said all along, India's purchases of Russian oil are unconscionable' feels like a U-turn. Europe was able to wean itself off a lot of Russian oil and gas by throwing an insane amount of money at the problem, and even then, they've still got a huge amount of import. The idea that India can suddenly just flip a switch now that the Trump administration has decided that Russia's not a friend is an insane prospect. Even if my politics are fairly loudly anti-Russian, it feels like Russia's just an excuse. Long before Trump, populist leaders have used tariffs and sanctions. How are his tactics different? The scale is just nowhere close. It is a little bit like comparing nuclear war to a fistfight. The Trump administration finds tariffs appealing for a couple of reasons. First, they are one of the few levers of power that it can wield unilaterally due to a series of weird quirks of past legislation. If they wanted to raise taxes on anything in America, they would have to pass an Act of Congress and get it through the Senate. It would take months and be messy. On the other hand, he is able to wield tariff announcements like a scalpel or a flame-thrower to punish his enemies and reward his friends. Second, he believes he has a story that the American people have bought — that tariffs are paid by foreigners. And the reason tariffs and protectionism will always be rhetorically attractive is that politicians can pretend that the choice that's being made is between locals and foreigners. You've negotiated complex agreements at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Is this the end of the rules-based order in world trade? The WTO, if you strip away all the pageantry, is a series of promises govts made to one another. It has always only been as strong as their commitment to those promises and to the premise those promises are built on. What we saw even before Trump's second term is govts increasingly reassessing some of that calculation. India is among those countries that have said these promises require us to give up too much sovereignty and too much policy space in exchange for the predictability that they give. A legitimate debate that's been raging at the WTO for 25 years. Obviously, it is bad for the system that the US is now just doing whatever it wants. I think the system, however, is holding on to the fact that he probably won't be president forever…but who knows? (laughs) The more important thing to keep in mind here is that other countries haven't started doing the same thing. You don't see India and Sri Lanka start using tariffs as weapons against each other in violation of WTO rules because Trump is doing it. That's giving people confidence that other countries still see value in the rules, especially now that they see what a lawless world might look like. India, for instance, was already making a bit of a trade policy push before Trump came in, but I think there's been a real acceleration in concluding more free-trade agreements than ever. It has also put the spotlight back on BRICS… Regional integration organisation models are really hard to crack, and there's a reason it's only ever really been done in Europe, and even that was considered a minor miracle. The five core BRICS members are not comfortable pooling sovereignty in that way. I keep having to remind people that China and India have literal border skirmishes, while Brazil's on the opposite side of the world. You're never going to get that same level of integration. With that being said, we've just seen the first visit by an Indian leader to China in decades. The US is in real danger of making BRICS work —despite itself.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store