India will continue to buy Russian oil, government sources say
Shivam Patel
and
Chandni Shah
US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrive to hold a joint press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on 13 February, 2025.
Photo:
AFP
India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite US President Donald
Trump's threats of penalties
, two Indian government sources said, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter.
"These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight."
Trump last month indicated in a Truth Social post that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters that he had heard that India would no longer be buying oil from Russia.
The
New York Times
on Saturday (local time) quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy, with one official saying the government had "not given any direction to oil companies" to cut back imports from Russia.
Reuters reported this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil in the past week after discounts narrowed in July.
"On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," India's foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told reporters during a regular briefing on Friday.
Jaiswal added that India has a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia, and that New Delhi's relations with various countries stand on their own merit and should not be seen from the prism of a third country.
The White House in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Indian refiners are pulling back from Russian crude as discounts shrink to their lowest since 2022, when Western sanctions were first imposed on Moscow, due to lower Russian exports and steady demand, sources said earlier this week.
The country's state refiners - Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp, Bharat Petroleum Corp and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd - have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources familiar with the refiners' purchase plans told Reuters.
On 14 July, Trump threatened 100 percent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the top supplier to India, responsible for about 35 percent of India's overall supplies.
Russia continued to be the top oil supplier to India during the first six months of 2025, accounting for about 35 percent of India's overall supplies, followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, received about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil in January-June this year, up 1 percent from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources.
Nayara Energy, a major buyer of Russian oil, was recently sanctioned by the European Union as the refinery is majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft.
Last month, Reuters reported that Nayara's chief executive had resigned after the imposition of EU sanctions and company veteran Sergey Denisov had been appointed as CEO.
Three vessels laden with oil products from Nayara Energy have yet to discharge their cargoes, hindered by the new EU sanctions on the Russia-backed refiner, Reuters reported late last month.
- Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Victim in Epstein case decries ‘political warfare' in effort to release grand jury transcripts
By Casey Gannon , CNN Two victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse have filed letters to the court condemning the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury testimony and cited the lack of respect they feel has been showed toward them by President Donald Trump and his administration. Both of the victims remained anonymous in their writings sent on Monday, with one calling the latest handling of the so-called Epstein Files "political warfare." "Dear United States, I wish you would have handled and would handle the whole 'Epstein Files' with more respect towards and for the victims. I am not some pawn in your political warfare. What you have done and continue to do is eating at me day after day as you help to perpetuate this story indefinitely," one of the victims wrote. Another victim argued that priority has only been on protecting "wealthy men." "(I) feel like the DOJ's and FBI's priority is protecting the "third-party", the wealthy men by focusing on scrubbing their names off the files of which the victims, "know who they are,'" one of the victims wrote. While neither letter outwardly requests federal Judge Richard Berman in New York to keep the transcripts under seal, both strongly urge him to take all necessary precautions in concealing victims' identities. One of the victims suggested that a third party review the release of the documents to ensure that no information related to the victims is revealed. The other victim told the judge that it is an "upmost priority" for any information regarding identify of the victims be redacted. Both emotional letters submitted to the judge showed clear frustration towards the administration's handling of the files. "I appreciate your time reading my short thoughts and feeling and my anxiety and frustration is NOT aimed at you, obviously. It is aimed at the very government here, the ones asking to release these transcripts, exhibits, etc., of which the victims are not privy to while they have concluded that there is nothing more to see on the files they hold. Yet no one has seen them, but them," one of the letters read. "I am beside myself." Victims in the case were asked to respond to the government's request to release grand jury transcripts by August 5. - CNN
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
New Trump tariffs: early modelling shows most economies lose - the US more than many
By Niven Winchester of President Trump announced tariffs on 2 April, pauses them a week later, and on 31 July reinstated and expanded the policy. Photo: CHIP SOMODEVILLA / Getty Images via AFP President Donald Trump's 2 April "Liberation Day" announcement placed reciprocal tariffs on all countries. A week later, amid financial market turmoil, these tariffs were paused and replaced by a 10 percent baseline tariff on most goods. On 31 July, however, the Trump Administration and expanded the reciprocal tariff policy. Most of these updated tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 7. To evaluate the impact of these latest tariffs , we also need to take into account recently negotiated free trade agreements (such as the US-European Union deal), the 50 percent tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports, and tariff exemptions for imports of smartphones, computers and other electronics. For selected countries, the reciprocal tariffs announced on 2 April and the revised values of these tariffs are shown in the table below. The revised additional tariffs are highest for Brazil (50 percent) and Switzerland (39 percent), and lowest for Australia and the United Kingdom (10 percent). For most countries, the revised tariffs are lower than the original ones. But Brazil, Switzerland and New Zealand are subject to higher tariffs than those announced in April. In addition to the tariffs displayed above, Canadian and Mexican goods not registered as compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement are subject to tariffs of 35 percent and 25 percent respectively. Economic impacts The economic impacts of the revised tariffs are examined using a global model of goods and services markets, covering production, trade and consumption. A similar model was used to assess the impacts of the original reciprocal tariffs and the outcome of a US-China trade war. GDP impacts of the tariffs are displayed in the table below. The impacts of the additional tariffs are evaluated relative to trade measures in place before Trump's second term. Retaliatory tariffs are not considered in the analysis. The tariffs reduce US annual GDP by 0.36 percent. This equates to US$108.2 billion or $861 per household per year (all amounts in this article are in US dollars). The change in US GDP is an aggregate of impacts involving several factors. The tariffs will compel foreign producers to lower their prices. But these price decreases only partially offset the cost of the tariffs, so US consumers pay higher prices. Businesses also pay more for parts and materials. Ultimately, these higher prices hurt the US economy. The tariffs decrease US merchandise imports by $486.7 billion. But as they drive up the cost of US supply chains and shift more workers and resources into industries that compete with imports, away from other parts of the economy, they also decrease US merchandise exports by $451.1 billion. For most other countries, the additional tariffs reduce GDP. Switzerland's GDP decreases by 0.47 percent, equivalent to $1,215 per household per year. Proportional GDP decreases are also relatively large for Thailand (0.44 percent) and Taiwan (0.38 percent). In dollar terms, GDP decreases are relatively large for China ($66.9 billion) and the European Union ($26.6 billion). Australia and the United Kingdom gain from the tariffs ($0.1 billion and $0.07 billion respectively), primarily due to the relatively low tariffs levied on these countries. Despite facing relatively low additional tariffs, New Zealand's GDP decreases by 0.15 percent ($204 per household) as many of its agricultural exports compete with Australian commodities, which are subject to an even lower tariff. Although the revised reciprocal tariffs are, on average, lower than those announced on 2 April, they are still a substantial shock to the global trading system. Financial markets have been buoyant since Trump paused reciprocal tariffs on 9 April, partly on the hope that the tariffs would never be imposed. US tariffs of at least 10 percent to 15 percent now appear to be the new norm. As US warehouses run down inventories and stockpiles, there could be a rocky road ahead. * Niven Winchester is Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology This story was first published by The Conversation
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
On tariffs Malaysia finds itself caught squarely between the US and China
United States President Donald Trump wants to stop that trade. Last week he unveiled a new layer of tariffs — set at a global rate of 40% — on all goods that move through a third country before they get to the United States. The tariffs are aimed at stopping transshipment, a practice the Administration says has allowed Chinese-made goods to skirt punitive tariffs. The policy landed with a thunderbolt in Southeast Asia, where Chinese investment has helped the economies of poorer neighbours grow more quickly. A crackdown on transshipment will be an economic blow. It also complicates the supply chain in Southeast Asia, which depends heavily on Chinese raw materials and components. From Vietnam to Cambodia to Indonesia, officials and executives are rushing to assess the consequences. The new tariffs raise hard questions for countries that have long used Chinese components to make the final products they ship to the US. Does the Trump Administration, which has yet to detail how it would enforce the new transshipment tariffs, want to tax it all? One country offers a case study others could follow for what to do next: Malaysia. Over the past decade, Malaysia rose to become one of the world's biggest makers of solar panels. Ten companies, most of them Chinese, shovelled US$15 billion ($25.3b) into factories around the country, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Then, under President Joe Biden, the US put tariffs on solar equipment coming from Malaysia of as much as 250%. Today, just two solar panel makers remain and one of them has ceased much of its production. The upheaval has been a wake-up call for Malaysia, a nation of more than 35 million people that is rethinking how to power its future economic growth. 'We're trying to think about ourselves not just as recipients of investment, but actually creators of technology,' said Liew Chin Tong, the deputy minister of investment, trade and industry. 'We want to think of ourselves not as a production site, but also as a consumer site with a sizeable middle class.' Officials in Malaysia, who had been trying to work out a trade deal, had said they were ready to work with the Trump Administration to stop companies from passing off Chinese-made goods as their own. But they learned they would be hit with a base tariff of 19%. An additional 40% would be added for any goods deemed to have originated in China. Those are set to take effect this week. The country finds itself caught squarely between the United States and China. Malaysia believes that Chinese solar companies can play an important role in its attempts to increase renewable power sources. Its goal over the next five years is for half of the country's energy consumption to use clean sources like solar power. Warehouses are stuffed with solar equipment that can no longer be exported to the US, and the Government wants companies to sell it to local solar farms. One challenge for Malaysia is that it still needs China's solar industry on its side. More than 75% of the solar panels that Malaysia uses locally are imported from China, where prices are much cheaper because of Beijing's industrial policies that encourage exports. Longer term, Malaysia wants the Chinese companies to restart their mothballed factories to make solar panels for the domestic market. More than any other region, Southeast Asia has felt the brunt of the trade war between the US and China that began in earnest during Trump's first presidency. Southeast Asian countries profited as Chinese and global multinationals relocated their factories out of China to avoid Trump's first-term tariffs. For Malaysia, the aim now is to blunt the collateral damage from the battle between the world's two largest economies. 'I don't like to see us just having to choose between US and China,' Liew said. 'I want to see us strengthening ourselves.' Both superpowers have loomed large in Malaysia. American tech companies Nvidia, Intel and Texas Instruments built huge facilities to make semiconductors, seeing the country as a good location to hedge against the risks of doing business in China. More than 600 American companies invested in Malaysia last year, said Siobhan Das, chief executive of the American Malaysian Chamber of Commerce. Chinese investment has shaped Malaysia's manufacturing sector, and China has ranked as a top investor in the country for the past decade. Malaysia's imports from China have nearly doubled over the past decade, according to Lee Heng Guie, executive director of the Socio-Economic Research Centre, a Malaysian think-tank. It was also about a decade ago when Chinese solar companies began to invest in factories in Malaysia. The factories made everything for export to the US and other major markets like Europe. 'We knew we could not compete with the Chinese companies in the long run,' said Lisa Ong, chief executive at Malaysian Solar Resources, a solar company that shut its panel production facilities in 2013. After seven years, the company found it was being outperformed on price and production capacity. Today it has switched its focus to building solar farms and importing panels from China. After the Biden Administration initiated an investigation into unfair practices by Chinese solar companies in Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand, Chinese companies began to slow some of their operations. The investigation led to steep tariffs on a handful of Chinese solar companies operating in these countries and prompted most of them to abandon their factories in Malaysia. The only Chinese company still making some solar panels in Malaysia is Longi, an industry giant. When it opened its third Malaysian factory on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur in 2023, it heralded the opening as a 'pivotal moment in Longi's global endeavours'. Its executives boasted of creating 900 jobs and promised to increase the openings to 2000. Instead of expanding, Longi has shut down several production lines at the facility. Today, much of the space at Longi's plant is unused. On one weekday last month, the parking lot was less than half full. Longi declined to comment for this article. Longi has met Malaysian officials to discuss how to support more of the local supply chain, according to Justin Sim, the president of the Malaysian Photovoltaic and Sustainable Energy Industry Association. He is pressing the Government to rebuild a domestic solar panel industry by harnessing the knowledge of Chinese companies like Longi. 'All the Chinese companies came here when there was not really any capacity or interest in building the local market,' Sim said. 'And then they all went bust or left because they were hit with tariffs from the US and Europe.' Ong of Malaysian Solar Resources said she would not rule out her company going back to solar panel manufacturing, especially after the Chinese Government announced plans to scale back subsidies to companies. Still, she is hesitant, citing the intense competitiveness of Chinese firms. 'I'm worried and a bit concerned about our future,' she said. 'Many Chinese nationals are migrating to Malaysia and they are a lot more industrious than many of us.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Alexandra Stevenson and Zunaira Saieed ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
