Context and Immediate Fallout

The high-profile meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15, 2025—dubbed the “Alaska Moment”—has been widely praised as a potential inflection point in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. However, from India’s standpoint, the summit yielded minimal practical outcomes. Despite the fact that both Washington and Moscow are among India’s closest partners, New Delhi found itself largely sidelined. The episode has underscored India’s lack of agency in the geopolitical maneuverings between two global powers and highlighted the vulnerabilities inherent in its current foreign policy posture. For India, the aftermath has not only exposed the limitations of its influence over U.S.–Russia dynamics but also raised fundamental questions about how it conducts its broader strategic engagement with the world—particularly under the unpredictable leadership of Mr. Trump.

India’s Expectations vs. Reality

·       The Modi government had placed considerable hope in the possibility that a U.S.–Russia thaw would ease American pressure on New Delhi’s own dealings with Moscow. In particular, India sought relief from Washington’s secondary sanctions on Russian oil, the resumption of suspended bilateral trade negotiations, and the reversal of harsh reciprocal tariffs. Yet, these expectations proved overly optimistic. Despite the visible camaraderie between Trump and Putin, there was no significant recalibration in U.S. policy toward India. On the contrary, the U.S. administration appears to have hardened its stance.

·       Senior Counsellor Peter Navarro articulated a punitive policy designed to penalize both Russian imports and India’s alleged trade protectionism. At the same time, Trump’s public claim of mediating the India-Pakistan ceasefire during Operation Sindoor has directly conflicted with New Delhi’s own narrative, exacerbating rather than easing bilateral tensions. This not only undercut India diplomatically but also heightened perceptions of external interference in regional matters traditionally managed by India.

Sanctions and Symbolism: The Real Motivations Behind U.S. Policy

·       Far from being rooted in a consistent strategy to isolate Russia, the Trump administration’s secondary sanctions appear more focused on asserting leverage over India. While the U.S. itself has increased trade with Russia since Trump’s return to office, and China continues to import far more Russian oil than India, Washington has chosen to single out New Delhi. This selective targeting reveals more about Trump’s personal motivations—particularly his desire to be acknowledged as a global statesman and peace-broker—than about a coherent geopolitical doctrine.

·       New Delhi’s refusal to publicly validate Trump’s mediation narrative, or to participate in U.S.-sponsored dialogue with Pakistan, has further strained relations. These developments indicate that the sanctions are less about policy enforcement and more about political theatre and personal ego.

Strategic Lessons for India

·       The Alaska summit offers India several important takeaways, the foremost being the danger of overreliance on summit diplomacy. Prime Minister Modi has long prioritized personal rapport with world leaders, as seen in his public displays of camaraderie with Trump and repeated engagements with China’s Xi Jinping. However, these relationships have not shielded India from serious diplomatic and military setbacks, including the Galwan Valley clashes with China and the current trade and sanctions tensions with the United States. Moving forward, India must prioritize substantive outcomes over high-profile interactions, focusing instead on institutional mechanisms and durable agreements.

·       Another key lesson is the necessity of bipartisan engagement in Washington. India’s closeness with Trump during his first term led to alienation from the Democratic establishment, and its later efforts to work with the Biden administration appear to have provoked Trump’s ire upon his return to power. For India to safeguard its long-term interests, it must maintain constructive relationships across the U.S. political spectrum, just as it strives to balance competing political forces in neighboring countries such as Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.

·       India must also reaffirm its commitment to strategic autonomy. The imposition of secondary sanctions exposes the risks of deviating from the principle of adhering only to UN-mandated sanctions. Past concessions to U.S. pressure—such as halting oil imports from Iran and Venezuela—may have emboldened Washington to expect similar compliance on Russian oil. Resisting such demands not only serves India’s economic self-interest but also strengthens its credibility as a leader among Global South nations advocating for multipolarity and non-alignment.

·       At the same time, India must be prepared to implement countermeasures in response to policies that undermine its interests. These could include reciprocal tariffs, constraints on American companies operating in India, or taxation policies affecting remittances from Indian workers in the U.S. To restore its agency, India must act proactively and assertively rather than merely responding to external developments.

Looking Ahead: Diversification and Strategic Balance

India now faces a critical juncture in its foreign policy. It must decide whether to continue seeking approval from Washington or to pursue a more diversified and autonomous diplomatic strategy. Modi’s upcoming visits to Japan, China, South Africa, and Russia offer opportunities to reinforce alternative strategic partnerships and mitigate dependence on the United States. Meanwhile, the forthcoming Quad summit will serve as a litmus test for the resilience of India–U.S. ties and may indicate whether Trump is willing to engage directly with India through a potential visit.

Conclusion: Anchoring Foreign Policy in Substance and Balance

The Alaska summit has illuminated the perils of allowing optics and spectacle to shape foreign policy. For India, the experience underscores the need to move beyond performative diplomacy and ground its international engagements in enduring principles, strategic balance, and concrete interests. Only by doing so can New Delhi safeguard its autonomy and navigate the volatility of global politics—especially in an era of heightened U.S. unpredictability.