CONTRADICTORY CONDUCT CASTS DOUBT ON AMERICA’S CREDIBILITY:LALIT GARG

CONTRADICTORY CONDUCT CASTS DOUBT ON AMERICA’S CREDIBILITY:LALIT GARG

14-OCT-ENG 11

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA-----------------------------Being a global superpower does not mean a nation can become intoxicated by its own might and attempt to make the entire world dance to its tune. The true value of power is determined by responsibility, fairness, and credibility, not by how many countries one can bully. Unfortunately, the display of arbitrariness alongside power in US President Donald Trump's policies has raised a serious question for international politics: will the global order be governed by rules and principles, or by the whims, conveniences, and self-interests of powerful nations? Trump's recent decision to purchase diesel from Russia has made this question even more pertinent. On October 9, 2026, following talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump announced that Russia would immediately supply over 300,000 tonnes of diesel to US and global markets. Subsequently, announcements were made regarding the supply of another 500,000 tonnes in November and a further one million tonnes later. The US administration also granted a temporary waiver on sanctions regarding the import of Russian diesel. These developments have been confirmed by international news agencies.

It is ironic that, until recently, this very America was scrutinizing and criticizing nations for purchasing oil from Russia. A decision had been made to impose an additional 25 percent tariff on India for buying Russian oil, and measures were proposed to levy even harsher duties on countries engaged in Russia's energy trade. The 'Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026,' passed by the US Congress, provided a legal basis for imposing additional tariffs on nations purchasing energy from Russia. Now, under pressure from domestic energy needs and rising prices, that same America is paving the way for Russian diesel imports. The question is not whether America should or should not purchase fuel in the interest of its people; every sovereign nation has the right to meet its own energy requirements. The question arises: how did the very decision—once branded a moral transgression and an act of financially bolstering Russia’s war machine for nations like India—transform into a national necessity for the United States? Does the definition of morality shift merely by crossing national borders? Are international rules meant solely for weaker and less powerful nations?

The greatest paradox of this US policy lies in the fact that, while it consistently linked energy purchases from Russia to the funding of the Ukraine war, it opted to source supplies from that very country when domestic diesel prices surged, placing economic strain on farmers, truck drivers, and consumers. According to Reuters, diesel prices in the US had climbed to approximately $6.28 per gallon by October 8. Rising prices have emerged as a political challenge for the administration ahead of the midterm elections scheduled for November 3. This highlights the disparity in the US President's priorities. When India purchases Russian oil—mindful of its economy, millions of consumers, and energy security—it is lectured on international morality. Yet, when American voters are distressed by high fuel costs, that same morality is cast aside in favor of paramount national interest. What kind of policy dictates principles for others while carving out convenient exceptions for oneself? It is easy to preach to others, but difficult to hold one's own conduct to the same standards.

There is a Hindi proverb: "Many are adept at preaching to others." This adage aptly describes the current US policy. A nation that instructs the entire world on adhering to rules ought to demonstrate consistency and transparency in its own conduct first. In international politics, double standards not only strengthen adversaries but also erode the trust of allies. This question becomes even more significant in the context of India, a country that relies heavily on imported petroleum to meet a large portion of its energy needs. In this context, oil procurement is not merely a commercial transaction; it is an issue linked to the national economy, inflation, transportation, agriculture, industry, and the lives of ordinary citizens. When oil prices rise in the global market, the impact is felt across the board—from the cost of petrol and diesel to the prices of food items and freight charges. Therefore, for India, energy security implies the freedom to make decisions while balancing availability, cost, supply stability, and national interest.

Ignoring one's economic interests under pressure from a superpower would be neither practical nor farsighted. It is also crucial to understand that supporting oil purchases from Russia does not equate to endorsing the ongoing war in Ukraine. Similarly, criticizing sanctions on energy trade does not amount to defending a nation's military actions. In international relations, these two issues must be viewed separately. While efforts to end the war, protect sovereignty, and ensure the safety of citizens are essential, there must also be an impartial assessment of the effectiveness and criteria of economic sanctions. If a country's energy procurement is viewed as financing the war, then the same yardstick must apply equally to all nations. Imposing sanctions only on adversaries or weaker nations while sourcing supplies from those very same sources during one's own crisis undermines the moral grounds upon which such sanctions are justified.

Trump's decision has also drawn the ire of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. While acknowledging that this move is beneficial for Russia, Zelenskyy expressed concern that it could provide Putin with the economic resources needed to continue the war. US lawmakers have also criticized this decision. Trump’s subsequent advice to Zelenskyy regarding a change in Ukraine's leadership further complicates the matter. The decision of who should lead a sovereign nation rests with its citizens and its constitutional framework. If the US claims to champion democracy and freedom, it must also respect the political sovereignty of other nations. While peace initiatives should be welcomed, placing undue pressure on a war-torn country in the name of peace cannot be considered just.

In reality, this sequence of events offers a significant lesson to the world. Being a superpower and being a credible power are two distinct things. The former stems from economic, military, and political resources, whereas the latter is earned through impartiality, commitment, and responsible conduct. The US holds the distinction of possessing one of the world's most influential economies and powerful institutions; however, frequent and inconsistent shifts in its policies can undermine the credibility of its leadership. The adage "as you sow, so shall you reap" applies not only to individuals but also to the policies of nations. If the US can grant sanctions waivers to serve its own economic interests, it must acknowledge that other countries also have the right to make decisions based on their energy security and national interests. If purchasing Russian diesel is deemed acceptable for the US, it is only natural to expect that the needs of countries like India be viewed with the same impartiality. Drawing lessons from these developments, India, too, should further strengthen its energy security, economic self-reliance, and strategic autonomy. In international relations, neither blind opposition nor blind support is appropriate; what is essential is that every decision be evaluated based on national interest, global peace, and equitable standards. The truth is that the world can be made to bow through force for a time, but trust can only be won through just conduct. Today, the greatest challenge facing America is not to demonstrate its power, but to preserve its credibility; for in history, nations are defined not merely by their strength, but by the integrity and responsibility with which they have wielded that power.