The state visit of Vladimir Putin to New Delhi on December 4–5, 2025 was far more than a bilateral engagement. It was a stress test for the evolving multipolar world order. To many, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s gesture of personally receiving the Russian President at Palam Airport may have appeared merely courteous. To seasoned observers of geopolitics, however, it was a deliberate signal of defiance and sovereign assertion.
In global diplomacy, gestures can weigh as heavily as treaties. By openly hosting a leader under intense Western sanctions, India was not endorsing the Ukraine invasion but reaffirming a central tenet of its foreign policy: strategic autonomy is non-negotiable. This visit challenged the Western belief that coercive economic pressure—especially the tariff regime introduced during Donald Trump’s second administration—could force India to redefine its national priorities.
The Protocol of Defiance
The symbolism at the tarmac was not accidental. Under standard Indian protocol, a visiting head of state is welcomed by a Minister of State—not the Prime Minister. Modi not only received Putin personally, but also rode with him to a private dinner at Lok Kalyan Marg.
This was a carefully choreographed message, shaped by two Western provocations in the days preceding the visit:
- The “Letter of the Three”
On December 1, the envoys of the UK (Lindy Cameron), France (Thierry Mathou) and Germany (Philipp Ackermann) jointly authored an op-ed in The Times of India, criticizing Russia and urging New Delhi to adopt a harder stance. India’s MEA condemned the editorial as “unusual” and “unacceptable diplomatic practice”, reinforcing the Global South’s belief that Europe continues to universalise its regional conflicts. - The Trump Tariffs
In August 2025, the U.S. imposed a punitive 50% tariff on Indian goods—25% reciprocal and 25% penal—linked directly to India’s continued import of Russian oil.
Through elevated protocol and public warmth toward Moscow, New Delhi signalled that its foreign policy will not be dictated by Washington, London, or Brussels.
The Failure of Coercion: Washington’s Miscalculation
U.S.–India trade relations deteriorated sharply in Trump’s second term, exposing the limits of transactional diplomacy. The appointment of Sergio Gor—politically connected but diplomatically inexperienced—to the Ambassadorship reflected a shift from institutional engagement to personal bargaining.
Washington’s strategy was clear:
❗ Hurt Indian exports → Force reduced Russian oil imports.
But this ignored India’s energy reality.
- The Energy Imperative:
India imports over 85% of its crude oil. Discounted Russian crude is not luxury—it is necessity. A shift to Middle-Eastern supply would force India to outbid Europe, potentially pushing oil to $200/barrel, risking global recession. - Sanctions Reality:
Despite U.S. Treasury sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil, Russian oil flows continue—less visibly, through alternate payment channels and shadow fleets.
As Elisabeth Braw notes, the trade survives not due to ideology, but because the economics are too compelling. U.S. pressure has instead pushed India closer—not away—from Moscow.
The European Dilemma: Moralism vs Markets
The United Kingdom faces a contradictory posture. While promoting a pro-Ukraine coalition in Europe, it is simultaneously seeking a Free Trade Agreement with India to revive the post-Brexit economy.
This duality is unsustainable.
The ambassadors’ op-ed revealed a misreading of Indian strategic psychology. Former British NSA Lord Ricketts himself admitted surprise that India refused to align with the West despite historical support. The assumption that aid buys alignment is a colonial echo India no longer responds to.
For New Delhi, Ukraine is not a 1939 replay—it is a matter of regional balance. Russia remains essential both economically and strategically, especially as a counterweight to China. A fully isolated Russia would tilt into Beijing’s orbit—India’s worst-case scenario.
Strategic Autonomy: The Realist Core
The summit produced a roadmap for economic and trade cooperation until 2030, reinforcing External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s principle of multi-alignment.
Key takeaways:
🔸 Not Neutral, But Interested
Modi’s declaration—“India is not neutral; we are on the side of peace”—was calibrated diplomacy, rejecting pressure to align against Russia while retaining moral credibility.
🔸 The China Factor
India’s partnership with Russia is partly a buffer against unchecked Sino-Russian proximity. As Ashley Tellis warns, forcing India to choose between West and Russia could undo decades of strategic progress and push Moscow into Beijing’s embrace.
Conclusion
The symbolic bear-hug in Delhi was not an endorsement of authoritarianism—it was a declaration of sovereignty. The Western expectation that India must prove loyalty through disavowal of Russia is misaligned with the realities of a multipolar world.
India is a civilizational state—not a junior partner.
It procures technology and markets from the West, but energy and defence assets from Russia. The gestures that weighed—the airport welcome, the dinner, the refusal to bow to tariff pressure—signal that balance, not obedience, defines the new world order.
If Washington and London continue coercive diplomacy and public moralizing, they may find the balance tilting away from them—not by India’s desire but by their own miscalculations.
Gustavo de Arístegui is a diplomat and former ambassador of Spain to India, Bhutan, the Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.
(Cover Image: Ceremonial welcome for President Putin at Rashtrapati Bhavan. President Putin has been unwavering in his commitment to strong India-Russia ties and has contributed immensely to taking this relationship to new heights. Though the world has seen many changes over the last 25 years of the India-Russia Strategic Partnership, our friendship has only grown stronger. Photo Credit: https://x.com/narendramodi)
ChinaDonald TrumpForeign PolicyIndiaIndo-RussiaMoscowNarendra ModiPoliticsPrime MinisterRussiaTariffTrade TariffsUkraineVladimir Putin