The traditional American media, most of which Donald Trump calls “ false news ”, as well as several policies observation groups, criticized the American president’s decision to punish India with 50% tariffs on the purchase of Russian oil. Only the media lined up by Trump seem to accept it as a wise decision. Here is a ventilation:
Criticism of Trump’s prices against media India, thoughts and experts
The Wall Street Journal editorial committee, often favorable to conservatism on the free market, has adopted a critical position, with commentators arguing that prices are disproportionate and unnecessarily antagonistic towards a key democratic ally. They noted that even if the links of India-Russia could be a problem for the United States, Trump’s approach would do more harm than good. The newspaper asked why a nation considered to be close to the United States, in particular given the bonhomie between Trump and the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is now faced with such a punitive treatment.
Analysts of the Endowment for International Peace Carnegia have described this decision as “the dismantling of the decades of Bipartisan progress” to strengthen American-Indian relations. They suggested that the pricing policy will be perceived in New Delhi as a “heavy interference” in Indian sovereignty, in particular given the strategic dependence of India towards Russian oil. Carnegie warned that this transition from commitment to economic punishment could disrupt confidence between two democracies formerly considered as natural partners to counterbalance the boom in China.
The opinions and experts cited in The Guardian have challenged the framing of prices as legitimate diplomatic tools. Dr. Stuart Rollo, for example, described the measures of “departure from traditional diplomacy”, calling them instruments of “geopolitical constraint”. Economist Devashish Mitra stressed that the regional importance of India as a counterweight to China seems to have been undervalued, suggesting that the administration sacrifices strategic stability for short-term pressure tactics.
Even the elements of opinion in the New York Post, generally sympathetic to Trump, reported concerns. While recognizing India’s increased economic alignment with Russia, some writers there wondered if prices were a vehicle appropriate for the application of foreign policies. They warned that this decision exposes cracks in the American-Indian relationship, which may not be easily recovered.
But the conservative media defend Trump prices as “realpolitik”
On the other hand, the media on the right aligned with Trump formulated the prices as a logical extension of its “America First” program and a necessary recalibration of foreign policy. Fox News presented several columns positioning the prices as a “tactical lever effect”, and not a random economic aggression. The political analyst Tanvi Ratna described action as a “daring and ambitious realignment”, arguing that it is intended to force India to reassess its economic ties with Russia.
The objective, in this point of view, is not to punish, but to negotiate from a position of force.
Some Fox News voices compared the strategy to the “defensive war”, depicting prices as tools for reciprocity. They argued that if India indirectly penalizes American exporters thanks to strategic partnerships with adversaries like Russia, the United States is justified to make the same.
Can prices be a foreign policy tool?
Much of the debate focuses on the question of whether prices can be foreign policy instruments.
On the one hand, those who believe in global cooperation, a mutual economic advantage and an influence of gentle power; On the other, there is a voice that promotes transactional relations and pressure -based negotiations.
