The United States’ double standards on energy trade are once again under scrutiny. On one hand, President Donald Trump criticized India for importing oil from Russia and imposed a 50% tariff on Indian goods, effective from August 27. Trump had announced this punitive duty on August 6, citing India’s continued oil trade with Moscow.
Yet, at the same time, Washington itself is negotiating major energy deals with Russia. According to a Reuters report, senior US and Russian officials held detailed discussions this month in Moscow and Alaska on oil, gas, and investment proposals.
What Are America’s Conditions?
US envoy Steve Witkoff visited Moscow earlier this month and met President Vladimir Putin. These proposals were also taken up briefly during the Alaska summit on August 15. Sources say Washington is pushing for a breakthrough investment deal that could also influence ongoing Ukraine peace talks.
-
Exxon Mobil in Sakhalin-1:
The US discussed allowing Exxon Mobil to re-enter Russia’s Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project, which is tied to state-owned Rosneft. Previous negotiations failed due to sanctions, but the idea has resurfaced. -
Supplying LNG Equipment:
Washington also explored the possibility of supplying US equipment to Russia’s Arctic LNG-2 and other gas projects, despite these being under Western sanctions. This would effectively strengthen Russia’s energy infrastructure while linking it economically with the US. -
Icebreaker Ships Purchase:
Another proposal considered was for the US to buy nuclear-powered icebreaker ships from Russia, crucial for transporting oil and gas through the Arctic region.
Sanctions Pressure Continues
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Moscow has been isolated from most global energy investments. The US discussions reportedly carried a clear warning: Russia must move towards the peace process or face harsher sanctions.
This contradiction — penalizing India for Russian oil trade while negotiating its own energy deals with Moscow — has sparked criticism of Washington’s inconsistent policy.
