By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Reliance Industries, owned by Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani, has reportedly earned over €724 million from exporting fuel refined from Russian oil to the US in 2024. This activity has raised concerns, with US officials claiming India has become a financial resource for Russia’s war effort, despite Western sanctions imposed after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Reliance purchases discounted Russian crude, refines it at its Jamnagar complex, and then exports the finished products, a practice that has allowed the company to significantly increase revenue, with Russian crude now accounting for approximately 30% of its processing. The US and EU are considering measures to close the loophole that allows these exports, while Reliance continues to operate with significant profit.
Read the original article here
India’s Richest Man Reportedly Made €724M From Russian Oil – and Helped Fuel Putin’s War is the core of a complex situation. It brings to light the potential for conflict between business interests, geopolitical strategy, and the realities of war. When you dive into this, you see a web of connections and a lot of varying perspectives.
The heart of it is this: a major Indian businessman, whose companies are publicly listed with investments from Western funds, apparently profited handsomely from Russian oil sales, potentially contributing funds that could be used in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The sum of €724 million is the figure being thrown around. That’s a substantial amount of money, even for someone of his wealth. This raises questions about the ethical implications of doing business with Russia amidst its invasion of Ukraine.
However, the picture is far more nuanced. The article’s implications need to be considered in the context of the global oil market and international politics. The United States, Europe, and China are all deeply involved in trading with India, particularly in the areas of gas, critical minerals, and uranium. Moreover, there have been instances of the U.S. itself striking deals, even during the war, including a mineral agreement with Ukraine and, reportedly, a secret oil deal with Russia.
The argument that is put forth is that the oil lobby in the US wants control over the market, and India is simply getting in the way. This suggests the criticism might be more about competition than a pure moral stance against supporting Russia. There’s a definite sense of double standards – what’s seen as acceptable behavior for the U.S. might be condemned when carried out by India.
There is some evidence that the Indian government imposed windfall taxes on petroleum product exports. That potentially blunts any profits from the Russian crude. The stock hasn’t changed in the past three years, which makes one wonder how much profit there really was, or who exactly benefited from the transactions. The argument is that the Indian state refining companies did not necessarily benefit as much as some might think.
It is important to remember that the situation is highly interconnected. The US has expressed interest in buying Russian crude. Many countries were encouraged to buy discounted Russian oil to limit the global spike in energy prices. Ukraine itself has been selling weapons to Pakistan, which has then been used against Indian targets. This illustrates the intricate, often self-serving, nature of global politics and trade during times of war.
From a practical perspective, it’s also critical to consider the sheer scale of India. It has a huge population. To ignore its energy needs or expect it to instantly change its sourcing would be unrealistic. India, like all large economies, prioritizes its interests.
Another argument made is that the focus on India is disproportionate. Other major trading partners, like the European Union and China, continue significant trade with Russia. Furthermore, the United States has not stopped trading with Russia. The focus on India might be a deflection from the actions of other countries.
The narrative about profits often gets twisted. While businesses, including those connected to the Indian businessman, have made money, the profits aren’t directly going to Vladimir Putin. The claim is that there is no direct correlation between business profits and the funding of the war.
Ultimately, the article raises questions about hypocrisy and selective sanctioning. Why single out India for buying Russian oil when many other countries are doing the same or when Western nations themselves have made similar deals? It all suggests a complex situation where everyone is benefitting from the war in one way or another.
It is further pointed out that during the war, the US had told India to buy Russian oil. All in all, it’s a highly charged issue with a lot of moving parts. The central argument seems to be that the situation is more complex than the initial headline suggests.