The newly concluded free trade agreement between India and the European Union has drawn sharp criticism from Washington, with senior figures in former US President Donald Trump’s camp accusing Europe of compromising its stated position on the Ukraine war for economic gain.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking in an extensive interview with American media, questioned the strategic consistency of European leaders after the announcement of the landmark India-EU deal. While acknowledging that nations are entitled to pursue their own commercial interests, Bessent argued that Europe’s actions reveal a troubling mismatch between its rhetoric on Ukraine and its economic choices.
‘A Deep Contradiction’ in Europe’s Ukraine Stand
Reacting to the scale and timing of the agreement, Bessent said Europe’s enthusiasm for the trade pact clashes with its vocal support for Kyiv. He suggested that countries closest to the conflict should be more cautious about decisions that could indirectly benefit Russia.
“Europe and India signing this massive trade deal–does that threaten America? Again, they should do what’s best for themselves,” Bessent said. “But I find the Europeans very disappointing because they are on the front line of the Ukraine-Russia war.”
According to Bessent, Europe’s geographic and political proximity to the conflict makes its trade and energy decisions particularly consequential, especially when those choices intersect with Russian revenue streams.
Russian Oil, Refined Fuel, and Europe’s Role
Bessent went on to accuse European nations of indirectly sustaining the war they publicly oppose. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the introduction of Western sanctions, India ramped up imports of discounted Russian crude oil. That oil, once refined, found its way into European markets.
“India started buying sanctioned Russian oil, and guess who was buying the refined products? The Europeans,” he said. “So the Europeans have been funding the war against themselves, something you couldn’t have made up.”
He contrasted Europe’s approach with that of the United States, noting that Washington imposed a 25 per cent tariff on India in response to its purchases of Russian oil. Europe, however, chose not to follow suit.
Trade Talks, Energy Needs, and Strategic Choices
Bessent suggested that Europe’s reluctance to align with US measures stemmed from its desire to safeguard trade negotiations with India. In his view, economic considerations outweighed geopolitical commitments.
“The Europeans were unwilling to join us, and it turns out because they wanted to do this trade deal,” Bessent said. “Every time you hear a European talk about the importance of the Ukrainian people, remember that they put trade ahead of the Ukrainian people. Trade, European trade, more important than ending the war in Ukraine.”
While acknowledging Europe’s dependence on imported energy, Bessent framed the issue as a deliberate trade-off. “They need energy, I guess, which is part of their issue. At a price, they want cheap energy,” he said, adding that the US could also benefit from cheaper fuel “if we were willing to buy sanctioned Russian oil.”
Beyond Europe, Bessent briefly referenced strained ties with Canada, mentioning a recent “rift” and differing versions of a call with Prime Minister Mark Carney after the Davos meetings, without offering further details.
The India-EU trade agreement, one of the most significant in recent years, is expected to substantially expand economic cooperation. Yet Bessent’s remarks underline how the deal is also being viewed in Washington as evidence of Europe’s increasingly delicate and controversial balancing act between trade ambitions, energy security, and the war in Ukraine.
