Kremlin and analysts question Trump’s claim that India agreed to stop buying Russian oil

President Trump on Thursday presented a bilateral commercial understanding with India that he said would include a commitment by New Delhi to curtail purchases of Russian crude in exchange for U.S. tariff relief. Kremlin spokespeople promptly pushed back, saying Moscow had seen no formal notification from Indian authorities and treating the president’s statement as political rhetoric until policy changes appear in official channels or trade flows. Indian officials have acknowledged a pact that reduces the U.S. reciprocal tariff and removes a punitive surcharge, and senior U.S. and Indian sources described headline procurement pledges that they framed as substantial — figures some officials characterized in broad terms as above $500 billion across energy, technology, agriculture and other sectors. Energy analysts and ratings agencies cautioned that practical constraints make an abrupt end to Russian imports unlikely: Indian refiners have been configured to run heavy, sour crudes similar to Russian Urals; Moscow has been selling at a significant discount; and logistical, payment and insurance workarounds remain in place. Proposals to substitute barrels from Venezuela or the United States face capacity and operational limits — Caracas’ current exportable output and diluent bottlenecks are well below the volumes India has taken from Russia — meaning any reorientation would be gradual and reliant on sizable investment and legal safeguards. Observers noted that Washington has signaled tools to underwrite alternative supplies, including managed transactions and proposed private capital mobilization, but scaling those options will take time and clear legal protections for investors. The announcement’s commercial elements — tariff cuts and procurement commitments — are actionable only through formal memoranda, customs changes and verification mechanisms; markets will look to cargo manifests, weekly shipment tallies and official procurement notices for confirmation. For New Delhi, the calculus balances near‑term energy affordability, domestic inflation risks and long‑standing defense and diplomatic ties with Moscow against the economic incentives and strategic optics of stronger ties with Washington. For Moscow, preserving buyers and managing discounts remain priorities; for Washington, tariff relief is a tool to reshape incentives rather than an immediate guarantee of changed sourcing. Absent verifiable shifts in imports, the episode is likely to function primarily as diplomatic signaling, with any substantive change in global crude flows emerging incrementally and visible in trade data rather than via a single public proclamation.