US Economic Coercion Fails as India Resists Pressure Over Russian Oil
The United States has been accused of using economic coercion against rising powers in the international system. A recent example is the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, signed into law by President Donald Trump on September 18, 2026. This legislation grants the White House authority to impose punitive tariffs of up to 100 per cent on major buyers of Russian crude oil and natural gas, targeting India and China.
The U.S. strategy assumes that secondary sanctions, tariff threats, and legislative pressure can force a rising power to subordinate its energy security to American interests. However, history suggests that this approach often backfires, accelerating the very multipolarity it seeks to prevent.
A notable example is the 1982 Siberian Pipeline Crisis, where Western Europe's decision to construct a pipeline connecting Soviet gas fields to European industrial centers was seen as a strategic move by Washington. The U.S. imposed severe sanctions on European companies using American technology for the project, but this only alienated America's key geopolitical partners and fractured the Western alliance.
The crisis demonstrates that an established power cannot indefinitely veto the economic interests of a rising or allied power without damaging the broader geopolitical alignment. A similar dynamic played out in 2012-2019 when Washington pressured India to reduce its energy imports from Iran, forcing New Delhi to reconfigure its refineries and accept higher import bills.
This move inadvertently laid the groundwork for India's subsequent pivot towards relying on Russian energy resources. With the current standoff over Russian oil, Washington's approach is seen as a misreading of India's contemporary geopolitical leverage. Statecraft dictates that a rising power must secure internal economic stability before projecting power outward.