The Great Game of 2025: Why the U.S. and NATO Are Threatening India, China, and Brazil Over Russia Trade

2 days ago

5 min read

The Great Game of 2025: Why the U.S. and NATO Are Threatening India, China, and Brazil Over Russia Trade

The year is 2025, and the global stage feels like a high-stakes poker game. At one end of the table sits the United States, flanked by NATO, dealing a hand of ultimatums. Across from them, India, China, and Brazil, key players in the Global South, hold their cards close, their economies intertwined with Russia’s oil and gas. The pot? Global influence, energy markets, and the future of the world’s financial system. NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte, echoing U.S. President Donald Trump, warned these nations: halt trade with Russia or face “100% secondary sanctions” within 50 days. The threat is bold, but the real question lingers like smoke in the air: Why now? What’s driving this aggressive move, and what does the U.S. truly fear?

This article, crafted for The Brink’s discerning readers, peels back the layers of this geopolitical showdown.

A Tale of Power and Pipelines

Picture the port of Mumbai, where tankers unload Russian crude oil, fueling India’s refineries and keeping energy costs low for a billion-plus people. In Shanghai, factories hum with power from Russian gas, while Brazil’s ports receive diesel shipments to stabilize its economy. These three nations, pillars of the Global South, have leaned on Russia’s discounted energy since Western sanctions tightened after the 2022 Ukraine invasion. Russia, in turn, has pivoted its exports to these allies, sidestepping Western efforts to choke its economy.

Enter July 2025. NATO, standing beside U.S. senators, issues a stark warning: stop buying Russian oil and gas, or face “100% secondary sanctions” that could cripple your economies. The threat echoes Trump’s pledge of “biting #tariffs” and a bipartisan U.S. Senate bill, backed by 85 senators, proposing tariffs up to 500% on nations aiding Russia. The ultimatum gives 50 days for Russia to negotiate peace with Ukraine, or else. But the real game isn’t just about Ukraine. It’s about who controls the global board, and the U.S. is playing to win.

The True Reasons.

The narrative that this is solely about pressuring Russia for peace is a distraction. Here’s what’s really at stake.

Fear of a Multipolar World

The U.S. is rattled by the rise of BRICS, which now includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and new members like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In 2024, BRICS accounted for 32% of global GDP (PPP) and 46% of the world’s population. At a recent summit hosted by Brazil, BRICS discussed a dollar-alternative payment system, threatening the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. The dollar’s share in global foreign exchange reserves fell from 71% in 2000 to 58% in 2024, partly due to trade in non-dollar currencies, like India’s rupee-ruble deals with Russia.

The timing of the sanctions threat, days after the BRICS summit, suggests a deeper fear: losing financial hegemony. India, China, and Brazil’s trade with Russia in local currencies, undermines the dollar-based SWIFT system. The U.S. sees BRICS as a counterweight to its influence, and sanctions are a tool to fracture this bloc’s unity.

Controlling Global Energy Markets

Russia remains a top oil and gas supplier, exporting 7.5 million barrels per day of crude in 2024, with China, India, and Turkey as the largest buyers. India imported 2.08 million barrels daily in June 2025, an 11-month high, driven by discounted prices amid Middle East tensions. Russia supplies 40% of India’s crude oil, saving $20 billion annually compared to Middle Eastern imports. Brazil relies on Russian diesel, while China absorbs 2.2 million barrels daily, nearly half of Russia’s exports.

By targeting these buyers, the U.S. aims to starve Russia’s economy, which depends on energy for 40% of its budget. But there’s a catch: disrupting this trade could spike global oil prices from $85 to $100 per barrel, hitting developing nations hardest. The U.S., with its 13 million barrels daily shale production, stands to gain market share, boosting companies like ExxonMobil. This isn’t just about Russia, it’s about reshaping global energy flows to favor U.S. interests.

Forcing Alignment Over Autonomy

India, China, and Brazil have maintained strategic autonomy, balancing ties with Russia, the West, and each other. India, for instance, abstained from UN resolutions condemning Russia while engaging in dialogue with both Putin and Zelenskyy. In August 2024, Prime Minister Modi spoke with Biden and Putin, advocating peace. China and Brazil similarly prioritize pragmatic trade over ideological alignment.

The U.S. and NATO’s threats aim to force these nations to pick sides, undermining their sovereignty. But this overlooks their economic realities. India’s energy security hinges on Russian oil, and sanctions could trigger domestic inflation and unrest. China’s manufacturing base and Brazil’s agricultural exports also depend on affordable energy. The West’s pressure also risks pushing these nations closer to Russia, not further apart.

Domestic Political Theater

In the U.S., the sanctions push aligns with 2026 midterm elections. Trump’s aggressive stance, backed by the “Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025” (supported by 85 senators), projects strength to voters. Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal frame India, China, and Brazil as “propping up Putin’s war machine,” a narrative that simplifies complex energy needs into a moral crusade. This distracts from domestic issues like inflation, which hit 3.5% in June 2025.

The claim that sanctions will force Russia to negotiate peace is shaky. Historical data shows sanctions rarely yield quick results, Iran has faced U.S. sanctions since 1979 with no capitulation. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov called the 50-day ultimatum “unacceptable,” signaling defiance. Peace talks have stalled since 2022, and Russia’s economy grew 3.6% in 2024 despite sanctions, thanks to trade with BRICS.

Moreover, NATO’s authority to impose sanctions is questionable. As a military alliance, it lacks economic jurisdiction, and Rutte’s remarks sparked backlash in India for overstepping. The hypocrisy is glaring: some NATO members, like Turkey, import Russian oil, and the EU still sourced 18% of its gas from Russia in 2024 via third countries. This double standard fuels distrust in Western intentions.

The narrative also ignores the BRICS summit’s role. Rutte’s warning, timed post-summit, seems less about Ukraine and more about countering BRICS’ push for financial independence.

Global Perspective: Who Wins, Who Loses?

Winners: U.S. energy firms gain if Russian oil is sidelined. Allies like Canada and Australia could see trade boosts with compliant nations.

Losers: India, China, and Brazil face energy price hikes, potentially disrupting their economies. Global supply chains could see a 15% rise in shipping costs. Developing nations bear the brunt of inflation.

Neutral Players: Middle Eastern oil producers like Saudi Arabia could profit from higher prices, while non-aligned nations may deepen BRICS ties.

What is the primary motive behind the U.S. and NATO’s sanctions threat?

A) Forcing Russia to end the Ukraine conflict

B) Protecting the U.S. dollar’s global dominance

C) Boosting U.S. energy exports

D) Weakening NATO’s internal cohesion

Answer correctly in comments, and enter a draw for a free one-year premium subscription to our geopolitical analysis newsletter, TheBrink!