Ancient Civilisations, Modern Tariffs: Why Lavrov’s Rebuke Matters for India

By Sanjeev Oak

As Washington threatens tariffs to curb India’s Russian oil buys, Moscow has struck back. Sergei Lavrov warned that “ancient civilisations” like India won’t bow to coercion — a sharp reminder as New Delhi juggles energy security with U.S. and EU trade talks.

As Washington dangles tariff threats over Indian exports to coerce a cut in Russian oil imports, Moscow has hit back. Russia’s Sergei Lavrov warned that threatening “ancient civilisations” like India and China will backfire. His remark, laced with history and strategy, lands at a delicate moment — when India is juggling energy security, trade talks with the U.S. and EU, and its hard-won strategic autonomy.

What’s at Stake

• Context: Former U.S. President Donald Trump and several Republican allies have pushed for punitive tariffs on Indian and Chinese goods, linking them to continued Russian oil purchases.
• Lavrov’s remark: He said such pressure “won’t work” on “ancient civilisations” like India and China — signalling Moscow’s political support for New Delhi’s stance.
• India’s position: India has bought discounted Russian crude since 2022 to control fuel inflation and maintain fiscal space.
• Trade backdrop: India is negotiating trade deals with both the U.S. and the European Union even as tariff threats loom.

“Both China and India are ancient civilisations — they will not be dictated to by ultimatums.”
— Sergei Lavrov

“If the price of oil comes down, Putin will have no choice but to drop out of that war.”
— Donald Trump

Weaponised Tariffs — and Their Costs

Tariffs are the most visible and politically useful coercive tool Washington wields. They hit entire sectors, create headlines, and can rally domestic constituencies. But they are also blunt. Raising duties on Indian exports to force policy change on oil imports risks triggering second-order effects: market realignment, retaliation, and resentment.

Lavrov’s warning is essentially this — coercion might produce short-term pain, but it permanently reshapes supply chains, pushes nations to diversify away from U.S.-centric systems, and corrodes goodwill. The tool can work, but it leaves scars.

Cheap Energy vs. Political Risk

India’s decision to keep importing discounted Russian oil has been driven by necessity. Those barrels help keep inflation low, protect foreign reserves, and sustain growth. But they now invite the risk of tariffs on textiles, engineering goods, and pharma — sectors tied deeply to jobs and MSMEs.

Backing off Russian oil could ease American pressure, but it would raise import costs and undercut fiscal buffers. Staying the course could invite a tariff war. It is the classic strategic squeeze — no option is painless.

A Leverage Paradox

India and the U.S. are negotiating a limited trade deal; India and the EU are also pushing to close an ambitious free trade agreement. Tariff threats distort these talks.

If India concedes under pressure, it risks looking weak domestically. If it resists, it risks losing tariff relief that could aid exporters. For Washington, using coercion while asking for market-opening concessions erodes the moral legitimacy of its ask.

In short: tariff blackmail weakens the very trust trade deals require.

Beyond Bilateral Friction

Lavrov’s “ancient civilisations” framing is not mere flattery — it hints at the larger realignment at play. Tariff coercion accelerates the fragmentation of global trade. If India and China build parallel supply chains, it could blunt the power of future U.S. sanctions or tariffs.

It also drives Moscow and Beijing to embrace India diplomatically as a counterweight to Western leverage, reshaping great-power alignments. This matters: if India drifts from Western supply networks, the long-term costs to U.S. influence could exceed any short-term tariff gain.

Economic and Political

Tariffs do not just hurt exporters; they ripple through employment, investment, and consumer prices. States with export-dependent industries will bear the brunt. Political backlash could mount quickly, especially with elections looming and opposition parties eager to brand tariffs as proof of government mismanagement.

This raises the cost of compromise. Any concession under pressure could carry as much political risk as economic pain.

What India Can Do

• Hedge energy risks: Diversify oil sources, expand LNG contracts, and build strategic reserves to dilute future pressure.
• Insulate exporters: Temporary rebates or credit support to cushion sectors hit by punitive duties.
• Trade off concessions: Use India–U.S. and India–EU talks to extract reciprocal market access in exchange for tariff relief.
• Build alliances: Deepen supply-chain links with Japan, Australia, and ASEAN to reduce dependence on any single bloc.
• Control the narrative: Frame energy policy as about national interest, not geopolitical alignment, to undercut moralistic attacks.

Autonomy With Competence

Lavrov’s rebuke should not be mistaken for altruism; Russia wants to keep its oil buyers. But his warning contains a truth Washington often overlooks: coercion can work — and it can also push rising powers to chart their own path faster.

India’s challenge now is to convert pressure into leverage: defend its energy security while driving hard bargains in trade talks, not by defiance for its own sake, but to safeguard strategic autonomy.

In that sense, the real message from Moscow is not about defiance — it is about dignity backed by competence. India must prove it has both.