The public sentiment predominantly reflects skepticism and frustration towards the US's approach to trade and defense relations with India. Commenters express a collective discontent regarding perceived US hypocrisy, particularly about tariffs and geopolitical maneuvers involving Pakistan and Russia. There is strong vocal support for India's sovereignty and a growing sentiment advocating for self-reliance and alternative partnerships with countries like Russia and China. Overall, the community showcases a protective attitude towards India’s national interests, marked by calls for strategic autonomy and independence from US influences.

United States

India

I would broadly agree with the OP except that Trump has caused a rift with almost everyone. He as antagonised the closest US allies. He has got BRICS to be more relevant and serious discuss reducing their reliance on the dollar and Europe to start thinking of being more independent of the US. This will get India to explore more areas of cooperation with both China and Russia.

Dean_46

There is way too much doomerism wrt India-US in this publication as well as on Foreign Policy, on Stimson Centre and a bunch of others. Mostly because the majority of Indian readers are likely to click on this type of content. Indians are paranoid that they will not become a developed country.

From my perspective it’s good to have such articles. Because as a great man once said - Only the Paranoid Survive.

noobflounder

This provides a brutally realist view of how bad the relationship is and how limited India's future options are. Not very pleasant reading for any Indian or any proponent of the US-India relationship, or even the India-Russia relationship.

&gt;Trump’s return to the White House has complicated each of the assumptions New Delhi held. **Instead of girding itself for great-power competition, the White House is scouring the world for short-term gains. Through that lens, Washington has much more to gain from China than it does from India; the war in Ukraine must end because supporting Ukraine is not worth American taxpayers’ money; and Europe’s problems with Russia are Europe’s problems, not those of the United States.** In such a worldview, India’s geopolitical profile invariably shrinks.

&gt;...

&gt;Washington’s revised approach to great-power competition has not only transformed its own policy toward New Delhi but has also influenced the choices and decisions of other major players—with significant implications for India. **Russia, for instance, has sensed that Trump is far less committed to supporting Ukraine than was Biden, is less interested in the systemic challenge posed by China to the U.S.-led world order, and is reluctant to provide security commitments to allies in Europe and Asia.** As Trump prepares for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week, he seeks to punish India for buying Russian oil—a policy that the United States previously encouraged. With Trump in the White House, Russia has more options and needs India less.

&gt;...

&gt;Indeed, Moscow feels a diminishing obligation to New Delhi and is unwilling to offer more support than it receives, which explains its lukewarm backing during India’s clash with Pakistan in May. Russia’s public statements at the time were vague: they neither mentioned Pakistan by name nor endorsed India’s military reprisals, but simply called for settling disagreements diplomatically. In a sense, Russia echoed India’s own messaging after the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Nevertheless, the statements alarmed New Delhi’s Russia watchers, who expected the Kremlin to stand by India, condemn Pakistan, and affirm India’s right to retaliate—much as Israel did in its full-throated support for India. Indian analysts suspect that Russia refrained from doing so because it didn’t want to irritate China, which has become a close strategic partner of Pakistan and provided it with a great deal of new weaponry.

&gt;**Going forward, Russia is likely to prioritize closer ties with China over its declining relationship with India. Sensing victory in Ukraine, Moscow has new priorities: it now seeks partners capable and willing to challenge the United States and Europe, not merely offering commercial relationships.** China can do that, but India is only interested in trade. Russia may therefore be reluctant to support India in any future Indian-Pakistani conflict, owing to China’s ties with Pakistan. If Russian support for India is doubtful during a conflict with Pakistan, it’s safe to assume that Russia will do little to help India in any future conflict with China.

It's also not pleasant reading for anyone who is worried about the long-term fate of the current US-dominated world order.

&gt;**Trump seeks deals with China and Russia, browbeats traditional allies and friends, and seems content to speed the emergence of some kind of G-2 condominium in which the United States and China carve up the world between them.** In such a world, India’s geopolitical importance declines dramatically.

&gt;This is not just India’s plight. The story in Europe and among American treaty allies in Asia is similar. In that shared doubt about the United States, however, lies a potential salve for India’s injured foreign policy. India could strengthen partnerships with European countries and major Asian powers, such as Japan and South Korea, who face their own balancing dilemmas because of the unreliability of the Trump administration.

1-randomonium

A pretty good objective summary.

A transactional US meets with the world. Everybody for themselves. Which isn't a bad thing in the long run: it will just get more volatile.

SubstantialSquash3

India, with the highest tariff rate in Asia, will still be the fastest growing major economy. These massive tariffs will have a paltry affect of hitting growth rates by about 0.2-0.3%. India is also a consumption-driven economy. This explains why such worthless agenda pieces keep sprouting up.

&gt; And yet, paradoxically, India’s response to its current predicament is likely to be, well, more of the same.

Because its the correct path.

Old-Machine-8000

[deleted]

Good article but we are reading too much into it. 

Trump operates like a king in a courtroom. He is tackling the 3 courtiers one by one, punishes India to signal to Russia that he means business when it comes to making peace deal and sends a warning to China that it’s next if peace deal is not reached. In turn both China and India now need to push Russia to make peace else they will suffer.

Empty-Pumpkin7618

**Submission Statement:**

The United States has paused trade negotiations with India, originally scheduled for late August in New Delhi, according to Indian media reports. The delay is a setback for Indian businesses already facing steep U.S. tariffs currently at 25% and set to rise to 50% on August 27, the highest imposed on any country. Talks, ongoing since February, remain deadlocked over U.S. demands to open India’s farm and dairy sectors and reduce imports of Russian oil. The pause comes as Prime Minister Narendra Modi calls for greater self-reliance, while Indian exporters brace for mounting economic pressure.

donutloop

It's hilarious that refusing to make a deal with Trump often gets you better tariff rates than capitulation.

Currently it's something like 15% if you don't respond, 10% if you make a deal,  but then he takes an interest in your country and starts adding all this additional stuff.

CatGoblinMode

Trump Administration's actions are undermining US' trade relations around the world and turning the US into a protectionist, anti-free trade country, which is unfortunate. 

However, world has grown multipolar in the last 2 decades, driven by China's economic miracle and strong economic growth in India, ASEAN, Brazil and Africa. Several trade agreements have taken shape around the world in the last 2 decades that don't include the US.

Trade/economic/geopolitical groupings that don't include the US and that have the potential to grow and become important drivers of global economic growth in the next few years are:

1. BRICS+, which is now 10-member strong, including 5 of the 10 most populous countries in the world

2. RCEP, which comprises China, Japan, South Korea, ASEAN, Australia, New Zealand. India may be persuaded to join too, which could make RCEP the defining trade pact of the Asian century, similar to post-war Trans Atlantic trade and military alliance (Marshall Plan, GATT, NATO) that defined 20th century's global economic system.

3. Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FoCAC) that defines economic and trade cooperation between China and African Union member states.

4. African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), covering 43 African Union members as parties and additional 11 AU members as signatories

5. India's trade deals with European countries - India has already signed trade deals with the UK (2025) and EFTA countries Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein (2024); India is in negotiations with EU to sign a trade deal as well.

6. ASEAN's FTAs with China, India, Australia, New Zealand (already in place).

7. Shanghai Cooperation (SCO), which is now 10-member strong, and includes China, India, Russia and Central Asian countries.

8. China's ongoing large trade with the Middle East and India's growing trade with the Middle East are quite important as well. Also India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) is proposed.

9. India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Brazil also maintain important trade relations and forums of their own with African Union member countries

10. China's large ongoing trade relations with Latin America and India's growing trade with this region will be a significant as well!

disc_jockey77

This pause may be related to the uncertainty regarding how Trump views the future of India relationship and it may not be a priority at the moment. They have opened up too many fronts and are struggling to keep up with engagement on so many issues.

Resident_Astronaut87

I mean what is the point. India has signaled that they don't willing to even compromise on importing oil from Russia (not that important to them politically). Good luck touching any actual industry.

petepro

This is a deliberate choice that India has made with basically all of its leaders since Independence. For better or for worse, India has chosen minimal economic and military engagement with the American lead order that has dominated the world since World War II, and done the same with the alternatives that have challenged that order; namely the Russian/Soviet and Chinese alternatives.

Instead, India has pursued a very transactional sort of diplomatic stance. The result is that everyone else more or less interacts with India in a transactional way too. 

Like I said, it's a deliberate choice. Both China and the US would happily form a military alliance in opposition to each other with India. It's India that is not interested. You can debate whether or not this is a good idea. Yes, if India joined an American military alliance, the Americans would happily arm the Indians to the teeth with very effective weapons, as Israel has demonstrated, but it would also mean that any conflict with China (namely one around Taiwan and the Philippines) would see India dragged in. Military alliances are not free. You pay one way or the other. Military alliance with China is even more sketchy, as China's the most serious regional threat to India, especially in the long term.

Rindan

Its actaully very simular to how Ireland was pre-EU.

Post independence from the UK both wanted to be self sufficient and show they did not need to work with colonial powers. This led to high tarriffs on trade even to the detriment of there own economy just to do it themselves. This had the side effect of limiting international relations and not engaging with other nations enough to build trust and a deep relationship.

Neutrality is also a policy that ties into the above as it shows you are not alligned to a former coloniser or giving the impression of giving up one master just to bow to another on trade, fighting their wars etc.

Decades of this policy ends up leaving you with friends, few enemies but no true allies.

Ireland did the exact same thing for decades from 1920 to the late 1970s before joining the ECC (Precursor to EU) and reversing all these policies to globalise its economy and gain allies.

India gained independence \~25 years after Ireland and appears to be slowly now doing as Ireland did and reversing these policies to become more globalised instead of isolationist.

So TLDR, isolationism is a very common policy for post colonial nations which India also adopted. India is just the largest nation by far to follow this path but its what a awful lot of former colonised nations do.

Bar50cal

Having parents from Nepal, currently based in the US.  I imagine we qualify as an "cultural ally", though from a geopolitical and geoeconomic standpoint, "utter vassal state, that occasionally tries to bring in China to balance out Indian influence" is a better description.

As for why India doesn't have allies.  From what I understand, I don't think people realize that India, in off itself, doesn't really have any sort of tactical foreign policy.  Even its strategic goals (Hegenomy over SA sans Pakistan, utter control of the Indian Ocean, safety of Energy imports) aren't fleshed out in detail.  My thought is that this leads to the establishment not really having any gumption around what policies to pursue.  Some Indian military experts were talking about getting rid of russian military imports, others wanted to keep it b/c they don't trust the states, others, particularily in the more economically developed south, want closer ties with China, many of the oligarchs, while the security establishment is essentially against it.

Leads to India, more than any other important nation, not actually committing to anything, and consequently branded as unreliable.  Other nations who could do this (I suppose, Iran in one way, Brazil the second biggest example), can be forced to give up their autonomy to a certain degree.  India is too large for that to be effective, while not being on China's level to sustain itself, alone.

Contrary to others who think this is some sort of 4d cosmic chess, I really think its because Indian leadership themselves don't know how to achieve the goals they've set out, or if those goals are appropriate to begin with.  The eternal inward looking nation.

DishAdventurous2288

1. Massively misplaced ego, that led to jingoism and dicking around with every single country around it (Bhutan for instance).

2. Lack of credible bargaining chip (ie. capabilities other countries cannot refuse) beyond being used as a bulwark against the Chinese, which proved incapable after the air war against Pakistan.

Compare this to China, who believes the idea of alliance is bullshit and it's ultimately merely interest alignment. The latter at least does throw around stuff like "work together for prosperity" and does have a presence that is way too large to be ignored in any capacity.

TenshouYoku

Because India doesn't know how to pick its allies and Indians start getting an attitude as soon as they make some money.

Bad_boy_18

Because they try to sit on the fence in every situation and shroud it with "looking out for ourselves first". Its a shrewd political play at playing multiple countries against each other to benefit themselves, problem is, at the same time, India has pissed off multiple influential countries so it ends up leading to them just doing business with Russia and France. Russia and France will sell arms to anyone with a check book. This is one of the reasons why India is still kind of on its own island. They can feign like they are doing it on purpose but the reality is, it backfired, and now with Modi around, they have essentially isolated themselves from everyone but Papa Putin.

Texas_Kimchi

A friend of all is a friend of none - Aristotle..

Jealous-Dare-4366

If you are just talking about being an ally from a more powerful nation, then India is too big and prideful to be no.2 to any country. 

The Cold War, The Soviet China split, the America/Japan dispute in the 80s and America/France relationship during the Cold War, and more recently the worsening of America/China relationship has clearly spelt out that there can only be one king at the top in the anarchy of international relationships. Even now, the Americans are already turning on the Indians because they pose a legitimate threat to America white collar jobs due to outsourcing and that's when India is barely 1/5th of the America economy.

YareSekiro

Russia is clearly an India ally and has been ages back during Soviet Union days. Most of Indian military imports are from Russia till this day. still Russia China relation is a lot better than Soviet days and Russia isn't gonna pick indian side if the war breaks out in south asia, though behind the door Russia is still more pro India than Pakistan. Pakistan, the no.1 indian enemy, used to be close U.S. ally during the cold war. now it pivots heavily toward china, no.2 inidan enemy. both countries has territory dispute with india and both are aligned in the disputed land claims.  

India US relation is closer than before but US central command maintains close relation to PAK. Recently Trump is mad at India for its oil money for Russia during the Russia Ukraine war. At this point India isn't going to get U.S. F-35. Best option they can get is Russian Su-57. Pakistan is going to get 5th gen fighter J-35 export version from China in a few years for sure. India prob can get a lot of 4.5 th gen fighters from Europe. Also this year Pakistan is trying hard to get close to U.S., nominate Trump for Noble Peace Price etc.  It clearly downgrades US India relation, as well as trade tariff and H1-B workers backlash in the U.S. etc

TLDR, India maintains decently good relation with Russia and U.S. EU etc, but those are far away allies with conflicting interests in Europe. All the neighbors sharing direct land borders, China Pakistan etc are clear adversary. This is not an ideal situation regardless of true allies, you just can't have all your close neighbors as enemies. If war breaks out again, how many far away friends will send troops and boots on the ground from thousand miles away?

tigeryi98

One sentence explains it all: India’s non-aligned stance best serves its national interests

fxth123

They play all sides. Which has its pros and cons.

Tamashiia

Because they're neutral, and they always have been. It has benefits but also drawbacks. You will never find India behaving like the Europeans and kissing Trump's ass for economic and military reasons, but India at the end of the day fights alone. It's not completely self-sufficient, but it's pretty close, compared to most other countries.

Littlepage3130

India when formed had an obsession of expansion..hence it occupied land from Pakistan, then it attcaked bengal, srilanka, engulf sikkam, went to war with china and also took over other colonies (for good or bad)
In reality india has went to war with every neighbor 
Internationally it has allies like Israel (who wants to be associated with Israel) and Russia 
French also do what indiana say. So do many European countries

zeey1

India, like China, is big enough to be allied with itself and itself alone.

Tian_Lei_Ind_Ltd

&gt; ..I do not mean..

IF your context is specific in the way you framed then the brief answer is, it's a bottom-up socio-cultural-political dynamic that developed as experience of the society/collective/leaders/elites to foreign occupations (British especially since that was felt viscerally by ALL Indians/South Asians, hence acted as a unifier in both memory &amp; practical actions/behaviour/reactions to future stimuli).

So super TLDR, India (&amp; its society/collective) has Trust Issues.

But part of it also historic and even foreign visitors wrote this in their travel memoirs. Indians on a gradient/spectrum are maybe more "Friendly/Extrovert" than East Asians but on a global spectrum they are closer to East Asian than they are to say the West. Indians are thus *relatively* insular/closed society and Politics comes from that.

iVarun

BlueAlpha29

Because Colonial India fought wars all over the globe, despite involvement in such wars being deeply unpopular (Indian nationalists did not want to fight in WW2, for example). So right after independence, they adopted a policy of non-alignment. The idea was that India wouldn't fight anyone else's wars.

The policy made sense in the late 40s, when the Indian leadership believed that the CCP was friendly, and that the Kashmir issue could be resolved peacefully. A Chinese invasion in 1962, followed by a Pakistani one in 1965, resulted in a re-think and saw India aligning with the Soviets (basically the only other country which disliked China and Pakistan). 

Winning the 1971 war against Pakistan and becoming a nuclear power in 1974 allowed India to gradually drift back towards non-alignment, where it currently stands today.

gobiSamosa

Because they refuse to be a vassal state like Pakistan - which offers some extra ordinary benefits to it's masters while nothing to it's own citizens

Hazy1302

First of all, your premise is wrong. The Indian military and government has intelligence sharing agreements with the US, Australia, Israel, France, Japan and a couple others. Coming back to your question.

Why would India need an ally?

The Chinese border is covered with mountains so high and so ruthless that any invading army will face attrition rates comparable to those caused by Indian bullets. Geography itself acts as a natural fortress.

Pakistan, while persistently hostile, poses no existential threat. It is relatively easy to defend against, and the Indian Army, Air Force, and Navy hold a clear and sustained superiority, an advantage India can decisively leverage in any conventional conflict.

To the south, the Indian Ocean is effectively a vast maritime domain dominated by the Indian Navy. Its the Indian Navy's swimming pool.

If push comes to shove, India possesses a credible and independently developed nuclear deterrent with a nuclear triad, along with robust delivery systems capable of penetrating the most advanced air defenses.

All of these factors contribute to India’s inherent security and strategic autonomy. The Indian Armed Forces remain loyal to the constitution and under firm civilian control, unlike in neighboring Pakistan, where the military is the government.

You make alliances when you're threatened and require support to survive. India, on the other hand, seeks partnerships not out of necessity, but out of strategic choice, alliances of convenience, not dependence. I think your question could be better framed as: "Why doesn’t India have dependencies?"

I see that you're Pakistani. To drive the point closer to home: Pakistan has allies because it *needs* them. India has options because it *chooses* them.

PB_05

India cultivated China and Russia assiduously during the Cold War. 

The background is, obviously, how India was treated before 1918, but especially from 1918 to 1949. India and Indians got the message (loud and clear) that the British (and by extension the USA) thought of them as possessions and territories, and not just as an artifact of ancient philosophies, but right here, right now, in the modern world of industry and science. So, working with the imperialists was never on the table, could never be. 

So Nerhu in particular turned to China as a natural ally, Mao had a different idea and attacked India forcing the cycle of rivalry and suspicion we see today. The Soviets were better friends, but a long long long way away, and the Soviets never had the power to reach into the Indo Pacific meaningfully. Then they stopped being Soviets, became broke, went nuts and are the mess that everyone can see today - some ally. 

A bigger story is that India is a big deal in of itself and is really basically threatened by anyone apart from Pakistan and China. Pakistan is... well Pakistan and therefore more likely to put its eye out than to manage to get over the fence and do real damage, China was a pain, but was weak and distracted with the business of starving, clubbing and shooting its own people. 

This has now changed and China has used technology to put internal dissent into a super surveilled box, and harnessed the world trade system to allow it to be an assertive aspirant hegemonic power. If I was in charge in Delhi I would sport yellow patches on the front of my lovely crisp white suit, and I would be scuttling round the region budding up with Indonesia, Japan, Korea and the USA. I would also be arming like fucking crazy, and I am not talking about the Navy. Do we think that the current Indian administration has clocked the situation that its in and is taking the necessary radical action?

We do not.

sgt102

Why does India need allies? India is a large country that pursues an independent foreign policy, it doesn't need to involve itself in external military conflicts. India is capable of defending its own interests and sovereignty without relying on military support from other countries.

Most countries don't have allies, outside of NATO and the US sphere of influence major countries like Brazil and South Africa don't have any military alliances, because they have no major security concerns. Countries with alliances tend to get involved in conflicts that they have no real business in.

Even China has very few real allies, sure Pakistan and China are close but China came nowhere close to intervening on Pakistan's behalf earlier this year. China's willing to sell them military equipment and cooperate on defense (as they do with other countries) because Pakistan's proven to be reliable and it serves their interests.

So really the question you should ask is, why would India want allies?

archone

"you get loner as you rise"

India doesn't need to offer loath of sovereignty for security. India is working with a strategic autonomy and a path of peace and prosperity.

India doesn't subscribe with any nation on war therefore India can't expect an ally during war.

Neither the USA, China and Russia have an ally. It's just the interest of a weak nation to collaborate with major power to protect themselves from other major power

There are two things going on here at the same time: 

**1).)** U.S. is looking for an excuse to renegotiate trade with India. Both sides have been trying to negotiate a trade deal for quite some time, but there are huge issues: India will not sell out its agricultural base and the U.S. can’t really put tariffs on digital services from India the way it can physical imports from other nations. This makes India extremely difficult to negotiate with but at the same time, extremely important for America to strike a deal with before India erodes America’s white collar base without giving reciprocal access to its consumer market. You simply can’t put tariffs on your IT guy in Bangalore the way you can car parts from Germany because no physical good is crossing a physical border.

What’s happening now is that the gloves are coming off: America is trying to play hardball and express displeasure with India. The problem is that India is just in the flat out superior negotiating position. America may have a technology edge but this is being eroded and India is trending towards further expansion economically and in terms of human capital. Withholding technological transfer to India will not work, because the technological gatekeeping the U.S. used in the past is already being eroded by China. If the U.S. continues then it opens up the U.S. to IP/technological theft not just from China but India as well, which will be fatal to U.S. domestic industry. 

The U.S. should have renegotiated trade deals with China and India after the 2008 financial crisis but both the Chinese and the Indians were too effective at stalling the negotiations to the point that now they have the upper hand. Now they are trying to make up for lost time and doing too much from too weak of a bargaining position. 

**2.)** The bigger issue is that the recent India - Pakistan conflict exposed America’s position. During the conflict Pakistan could reliably count on diplomatic support from Turkey, China, **and America**. India received no support at all from the Quad during this conflict. The IMF even financially bailed Pakistan out during the conflict and Trump/Vance attempted to mediate on behalf of Pakistan while equivocating the two sides internationally. For India, this was a massive red line. 

Subsequently, Trump invited General Asif Munir (ie not Pakistan’s PM) to the White House to negotiate using Pakistani airspace to bomb Iran. This demonstrated to India that the U.S. simply will never give up Pakistan. 

So now India in a position where it sees that the U.S. is not only unreliable diplomatically but that it will always prioritize relations with its mortal enemy *and* that will try to impede India’s technological development further. 

I’d argue that all of this was very predictable.

CoachKoranGodwin

He already tanked the relation with India. 
Even if he backtracks tomorrow, which we all doubt, there is no guarantee that he wouldn’t change his mood again the day after. 
And even if he is out of office we now all have seen, that Americans could vote another lunatic into office anytime. 
Trump is the beginning of the end of US dominance. We, the world, should thank him for this.

mastermindman99

Thing is, India never relied on US. So title is kinda...you know..

JustGulabjamun

An entire new generation of Indians, born from the late 90s to 2000s will now learn &amp; internalize why their previous generations took a cautious distrustful approach with the US. Sigh. This is penny wise pound foolish move by Trump.

PersonNPlusOne

I’ll agree about the bizzare nice treatment of Pakistan and China  but the stuff about secondary sanctions over Russian oil is pretty classic American stuff and viewed from a Rus/Ukr view instead of a south Asian foreign policy one makes a lot of sense.

spinosaurs70

What I don’t quite understand is why the U.S. deep state appears to be giving Trump so much leeway.

The strategic direction of a nation is shaped over years—often decades—not in reaction to short-term political shifts.

Trump now seems singularly focused on forcing Russia to end the war. But even if that happens in the next couple of months, the underlying damage to U.S. alliances and trust is already done. The relationship with key partners is strained, perhaps irreparably.

So what exactly is the endgame here?

curiousstrider

Henry Kissinger said \`It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend, is fatal. To understand what being America's friend meant to Afghans, an Afghan army officer shared his personal story for my blog. A story on fighting the Taliban, to the heart wrenching time he was abandoned, as Kabul fell. My article also features a first person account from a student in Kabul, on life under the old US ally, the Taliban.  
  
[https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/2025/07/fighting-taliban-and-betrayal-afghan.html](https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/2025/07/fighting-taliban-and-betrayal-afghan.html)

I’m not sure there’s much I can add here that hasn’t been said already. It’s a huge mistake for the US to antagonise both India and Brazil at the same time, especially since it’s for idiotic reasons in the first place. 

The best way to get both nations to limit their trade with Russia is to offer them long term stable commitments that help improve them. India has a population of well over 1.4 billion and one that is still growing. 

The other way to get those countries to limit their trade with Russia is to let them see that Russia is an unreliable partner and one that isn’t capable of offering much. That’s something they need to experience on their own terms and not be subject to threats of sanctions or tariffs. 

Biden had a much better grasp of geopolitics.

Ethereal-Zenith

If India genuinely does employ a pragmatic and transactional approach to relations with major powers beyond its region then surely a few ripples in US bilateral affairs can be managed easily 

The Indian logic of buying Russian oil is it is simply pursuing its interests. ‘We do balancing, it’s the cheapest option and our economy takes precedence, Ukraine is not our fight’. Fair enough.

The US logic is it is simply pursuing its own interests. ‘We have an opportunity to humble Russia and protect Ukraine, India’s support of Russia enables them and imposes costs on the US in terms of military aid and posture’. Fair enough. If Russia can be stopped the US can get troops out of Europe quicker.

Strong_Remove_2976

Just 25? Go to the back of queue. They ripped 80+ years of relationship with us.

Jazzlike_770

Why did you reelect Trump, my American friends? But on a more serious note I think that indian people and the American people are very much aligned - far more stable than earlier. I don't think that the president can spoil this much.

houstonrice

That's someone's plan, no doubt. Or the plan of a number of state actors. Or both, either way.

DanoPinyon

trump is risks thanking every countries relation

Legitimate-Proof5152

Consider it tanked. 

The Indian-US rapprochement of the last few years bucked a decades long trend of misalignment and disconnect. Trump’s erratic behavior now basically confirms some of the long held fears and prejudices in India regarding Western interests and influence.

Trump really is a bull in a China Shop

Open_Management7430

Trump always sees everything as a zero sum game- I.e. I win, you lose kind of situation. So to force nations into a disproportional trade deal that overwhelmingly favors the US that he can sell to his voter base. 

One of the big holdup in the trade deal is : agriculture and dairy.  Trump has no regard for India’s redlines on agriculture or dairy sectors, cannot care less for the developmental imperatives that form the fulcrum of India’s economic policies, and seeks New Delhi to commit to zero tariffs for American goods in exchange for high double-digit levy on Indian exports to the US. It is none of Trump’s concern, for instance, that India has zero appetite for genetically modified American agricultural crops, and zero tolerance for American dairy products fed on blood meal because a vast majority of Hindu Indians are vegetarians

hinterstoisser

Despite being one of the few pro US voices in Indian subreddits, deep down I always knew the US was not a truly reliable partner. Still, I hoped the relationship would improve and strengthen over the long term(because of common Chinese threat). But Trump has dragged it under the ocean for good. This damage feels irreversible.

Generations of Indian youths who will be future policymakers and politicians, will remember this betrayal. The trust deficit created now will shape how India approaches its foreign policy for decades to come.

This trade drama is just the surface. In my opinion, a lot has happened in the past 2–3 months, both publicly and behind the scenes, that has led to the current mess.

Guess India should improve ties with China for good instead of trying to mend ties with US. Democrats or Republicans there is no certainty who will backstab India in future.

AIM-120-AMRAAM

It appears the Indian negotiators were far too naive and optimistic, the American negotiators were far too greedy and in the end Trump nuked the negotiating table when he decided he wouldn't be getting the kind of announcement he wanted.

From various articles, the sequence of events that led to this seems to be:

1. In July, India offered to essentially meet the Americans halfway with immediate concessions on 40% of American industrial exports and gradually some consumer products. They also offered $25 billion of American oil purchases. With Trump announcing a 'big deal with India' they actually believed he was satisfied and would at least give them an interim trade deal.

2. On the American side, Trump and his advisors wanted nothing less than an announcement that India would open up most or all of its economy *and* pledge $350 billion or more(comparable to South Korea, Japan and the EU) of US purchases.

3. When it was clear that India wasn't going to offer that much Trump brought up the Russian oil import(which he previously didn't care about) to tighten the vice on India. The announcement on 25% tariffs is meant to go into effect immediately but the one on 50% is intentionally timed for 2 weeks in the future in order to pressure India to surrender.

This is reminding me of Trump's first attempt at a trade war, with China, when tariffs were going up to 100%, 200% and so on. He seems to have realised that India would be a much softer target for this kind of offensive.

Meanwhile, the indications are that the current 'truce' where tariffs on China are only at 30% will be extended, even though the US has far more reason to resent China on all fronts than India. Probably because of their leverage on rare earth minerals, their willingless to bribe Trump's cronies, and Trump's preference for dictators.

I would agree with the article if this was between two professional negotiating teams.  
The problem is I doubt even the White house knows what tariff Trump will impose next.

India had recently signed trade deals with Australia and the UK and we are close to signing   
one with the EU. There were similar problems of India allowing access to agricultural products and dairy. There was no way we could agree to US demands when we said no to others (and our interlocutors understood our sensitivities). The deals with the UK and Australia were signed with give and take on both sides. 

The premise behind trade deals is that both sides seek to strengthen trade by removing bottlenecks, acting within WTO commitments and with compromise on both sides. A trade deal is not a mafia style shakedown. The Indian public was riled not just by Trump making repeated references to stopping the war, but hosting the Pak army chief (not the elected head of state) after the latter appeared at a state funeral of US &amp; UN designated terrorists and reiterating Pakistan's support for terror groups. He also referred to India being a dead economy, which is inaccurate when we are the 3rd largest in the world (in PPP) and the fastest growing in the G-20. 

I don't see any statement from Japan, South Korea or Vietnam where they have agreed to the terms Trump says the have. There is a similar lack of clarity over the terms of the EU-US deal.

Basically, Trump wanted India to kiss the ring and confirm to the world that they kissed the ring.

SS

After five rounds of trade negotiations, Indian officials were so confident of securing a favourable deal with the United States that they even signalled to the media that tariffs could be capped at 15%.
Indian officials expected U.S. President Donald Trump to announce the deal himself weeks before the August 1 deadline. The announcement never came.

New Delhi is now left with the surprise imposition of a 25% tariff on Indian goods from Friday, along with unspecified penalties over oil imports from Russia, while Trump has closed larger deals with Japan and the EU, and even offered better terms to arch-rival Pakistan.
Interviews with four Indian government officials and two U.S. government officials revealed previously undisclosed details of the proposed deal and an exclusive account of how negotiations collapsed despite technical agreements on most issues.

The officials on both sides said a mix of political misjudgment, missed signals and bitterness broke down the deal between the world's biggest and fifth-largest economies, whose bilateral trade is worth over $190 billion.
The White House, the U.S. Trade Representative office, and India's Prime Minister's Office, along with the External Affairs and Commerce ministries, did not respond to emailed requests for comment.
India believed that after visits by Indian Trade Minister Piyush Goyal to Washington and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance to Delhi, it had made a series of deal-clinching concessions.
New Delhi was offering zero tariffs on industrial goods that formed about 40% of U.S. exports to India, two Indian government officials told Reuters.

Despite domestic pressure, India would also gradually lower tariffs on U.S. cars and alcohol with quotas and accede to Washington's main demand of higher energy and defence imports from the U.S., the officials said.
"Most differences were resolved after the fifth round in Washington, raising hopes of a breakthrough," one of the officials said, adding negotiators believed the U.S. would accommodate India's reluctance on duty-free farm imports and dairy products from the U.S.
It was a miscalculation. Trump saw the issue differently and wanted more concessions.
"A lot of progress was made on many fronts in India talks, but there was never a deal that we felt good about," said one White House official.

"We never got to what amounted to a full deal - a deal that we were looking for."


OVER-CONFIDENCE AND MISCALCULATION


Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who visited Washington in February, agreed to target a deal by fall 2025, and more than double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030.
To bridge the $47 billion goods trade gap, India pledged to buy up to $25 billion in U.S. energy and boost defence imports.

But officials now admit India grew overconfident after Trump talked up a "big" imminent deal, taking it as a signal that a favourable agreement was in hand. New Delhi then hardened its stance, especially on agriculture and dairy, two highly sensitive areas for the Indian government.

"We are one of the fastest growing economies, and the U.S. can't ignore a market of 1.4 billion," one Indian official involved in the negotiations said in mid-July.

Negotiators even pushed for relief from the 10% average U.S. tariff announced in April, plus a rollback of steel, aluminium and auto duties.



Later, India scaled back expectations after the U.S. signed trade deals with key partners including Japan, and the European Union, hoping it could secure a similar 15% tariff rate with fewer concessions.

That was unacceptable to the White House. "Trump wanted a headline-grabbing announcement with broader market access, investments and large purchases," said a Washington-based source familiar with the talks.
An Indian official acknowledged New Delhi wasn't ready to match what others offered.

South Korea, for example, struck a deal just before Trump's August 1 deadline, securing a 15% rate instead of 25% by offering $350 billion in investments, higher energy imports, and concessions on rice and beef.

This range plot displays U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff rates or the most recent previously announced or threatened tariff rates for the U.S.'s top trading partners on Aug. 1, 2025.

This range plot displays U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff rates or the most recent previously announced or threatened tariff rates for the U.S.'s top trading partners on Aug. 1, 2025.


COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN

"At one point, both sides were very close to signing the deal," said Mark Linscott, a former U.S. Trade Representative who now works for a lobby group that is close to the discussions between the two nations.
"The missing component was a direct line of communication between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi."
A White House official strongly disputed this, noting other deals had been resolved without such intervention.
An Indian government official involved in the talks said Modi could not have called, fearing a one-sided conversation with Trump that could put him on the spot.

However, the other three Indian officials said Trump's repeated remarks about mediating the India-Pakistan conflict further strained negotiations and contributed to Modi not making a final call.

"Trump's remarks on Pakistan didn't go down well," one of them said. "Ideally, India should have acknowledged the U.S. role while making it clear the final call was ours."

A senior Indian government official blamed the collapse on poor judgment, saying top Indian advisers mishandled the process.

"We lacked the diplomatic support needed after the U.S. struck better deals with Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan and the EU," the official said.
"We're now in a crisis that could have been avoided."
Trump said on Tuesday he would increase the tariff on imports from India from the current rate of 25% "very substantially" over the next 24 hours and alleged that New Delhi's purchases of Russian oil were "fuelling the war" in Ukraine.
WAY FORWARD
Talks are ongoing, with a U.S. delegation expected in Delhi later this month and Indian government officials still believe the deal can be salvaged from here.
"It's still possible," one White House official said.
The Indian government is re-examining areas within the farm and dairy sectors where concessions can be made, the fourth official said. On Russian oil, India could reduce some purchases in favour of U.S. supplies if pricing is matched.
"It likely will require direct communication between the prime minister and the president," said Linscott.
"Pick up the phone. Right now, we are in a lose-lose. But there is real potential for a win-win trade deal."

I think it is a direct impact from the border skirmish earlier in May. The series of fights basically proves that India has no proper means to keep that subcontinent in order. Pakistan, indeed, is much inferior in military power, but it can pose significant threat and damage to India.

TBH, the capability of planning and execution shown by India in that air fight is very much impressive. I dare to say, except US, no NATO country can properly plan and execute an aerial raid with over 70 jet fighters in four to five fronts. But the loss is still unbelievable, and someone or something must be held accountable.

For India, they really don't think that is their fault since they have demonstrated their execution beautifully. PAF has some weapon systems from China, what could India do without F-35A and EA-18G? Nothing.

However, for US, they really cannot admit that China is getting edge on military equipment over NATO, otherwise the confidence within NATO will collapse. 

That is a deadlock for Modi and Trump. They both want the other side to admit something that is one stone away from political, even biological suicide, and of course, they cannot agree on any deals.

Glory4cod

India and the US held discussions on enhancing their defence partnership and trade relations amidst rising tariffs and geopolitical tensions.

India-US Defence and Trade Relations

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want