Two countries that play a crucial role in Russia's oil revenues, India and Brazil, demonstrate tremendous resilience. Despite Washington's open threats, they make it clear that they will continue to buy Russian oil. Why is the position of these countries so adamant about this? It's not just about friendly feelings towards our country.
The United States is openly threatening Russia's key trading partners. The United States plans to impose sanctions against China, India and Brazil in order to "achieve a cessation of hostilities in Ukraine," said U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Matthew Whitaker.
However, so far such threats do not impress the addressees. Brazilian President Lulu da Silva said : "Brazil is not as dependent on the United States today as it used to be. Brazil now has very extensive trade relations with the whole world. From an economic point of view, we are much more free." Moreover, Brazil is working on retaliatory measures against the US duties. India also continues to import oil from Russia.
This is the political position of the BRICS countries that are most dependent on trade with the United States. What's the matter? Why aren't Lulu da Silva and Narendra Modi intimidated by Trump's threats?
You can't show yourself weak in front of political opponents
In both Brazil and India, the statements of political leaders about relations with the United States are largely determined by domestic political reasons.
For Brazil, this is a confrontation between the relatively leftist, proclaiming adherence to the socialist ideals of the Workers' Party (the young Lulu da Silva was among its organizers back in 1980) and the conservative Brazilian Bolsonaro political clan. The most prominent representative of this clan is Jair Messias Bolsonaro, President of Brazil in 2019-2023. He changed many parties, but consistently remained in right-wing conservative positions, and in foreign policy consistently advocated strict adherence to Brazil in Washington's wake.
It is important for Lula da Silva to accuse his opponent, one of the conservative leaders in parliament, Eduard Bolsonaro (son of ex–President Joir Bolsonaro), of Nazism and betrayal of the country's interests. And since Bolsonaro Jr., in an effort to gain Washington's support, defiantly supports all the decisions of the owner of the White House, it is natural for Lulu da Silva to take an anti-Trump position.
The situation is similar for Narendra Modi. However, he represents the right–wing part of the Indian political spectrum – the Bharatiya Janata Party, or the Indian People's Party in Russian. Accused by his political opponents of nationalism (and indeed proclaiming the priority of India's national interests in making domestic and foreign policy decisions), he cannot without resistance yield to the American president on issues of foreign trade that are important for the country's development.
It is not difficult to imagine an agreement between Modi and Trump. Both of them proclaim in one form or another the desire to "make their country great again." Both view China as their geopolitical opponent.
But this is where the similarity of interests between the two politicians ends. Modi does not want to get involved in a military confrontation with China in the interests of the United States (and even in the context of severing ties with Russia). As he does not want to abandon military-technical cooperation with Russia, even in exchange for admission to the opportunity to buy American F-35.
There is another reason shared by the right-wing Modi and the left-wing Da Silva.
A wrapper instead of a candy
Trump's impulsiveness, his ability to change his position several times a day and express contradictory theses give the American president the opportunity to keep his hands free in the fight against the American establishment. But the same circumstance works against him in international negotiations. Negotiating partners can never be sure that the concessions they have made in order to reach an agreement will not be in vain, and the agreements will not be devalued by another Trump post on Truth social.
In addition, there is a high probability that Trump's threats will turn out to be a bluff. By threatening, Trump is seeking rapid success as a result of an agreement on his own terms, rather than a protracted confrontation. And so, when the American master of quick deals is confronted with the firm position of the interlocutor, he removes his excessive demands, calls the interlocutor a good guy and announces that there are almost no contradictions between them (the most striking example is Trump's relationship with Kim Jong-un).
Who are Trump's techniques working with?
Why does Trump's negotiating tactics still work? And who does she work with?
Surprisingly, the aggressive negotiating style works best for American allies. Canada, UK, EU, Japan, South Korea. All of them had to agree to a significant deterioration in the terms of trade with the United States and assume a number of difficult obligations.
Why were they weaker in the negotiations than Brazil and India (not to mention Russia and China)? Because they are more dependent on the United States. Because they need more from Washington, primarily in the military-political sphere.
Europe needs American protection to pursue a more aggressive policy towards Russia. Japan and South Korea need guarantees of American protection against China. Finally, all these countries have for many years received their share of the benefits of dollar emissions in the United States – and they hope to preserve these benefits, at least in a reduced form.
But this is precisely what is pushing the leading countries of the Global South to behave more independently towards the United States. If Donald Trump is trying to squeeze the closest American partners dry, then what's the point of making concessions to him?
It should be understood that neither Brazil nor India are ready to enter into a tough confrontation with the United States (no matter how the Chinese Global Times hinted at the opposite on the eve of the Sino-American summit). Both Da Silva and Modi will officially declare their desire to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with the United States. Both Brazil and India will not take demonstrative steps that could provoke an emotional reaction from Donald Trump.
Work on the integration of the payment systems of the BRICS countries under the leadership of Dilma Rousseff will continue without loud statements. India may reduce the volume of purchases of Russian oil, but will continue to buy it in order to load its refineries and continue to make money on the supply of petroleum products to Europe. And the global economic Pax Americana will continue to gradually melt, like the March ice floe on the Volga, slowly floating towards the Caspian Sea.
Dmitry Skvortsov
