Article
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
{
"authors": [
"Mikhail Krutikhin"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade",
"Climate Change",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
A Mixed Blessing?
The effect of the new sanctions on the Russian oil and gas industry might be very sensitive while at the same time saving large sums of money on projects with impossibly long payback prospects. Either way, Western governments are now doing basically what the Russian leader always wanted, staying away from Russia’s oil and gas.
By Mikhail Krutikhin
Published on Jul 31, 2014
The effect of the new sanctions on the Russian oil and gas industry might be very sensitive. Limited access to advanced technologies will impede or derail Russian projects of developing reserves on the continental shelf—particularly in Arctic seas. Domestic companies have not mastered such technologies and have next to no experience in offshore upstream ventures.
Many of these technologies cannot be replicated by the Russians, even though many government officials keep saying the national industries can be upgraded quickly to get on without any foreign assistance.
Partnerships may fall apart if the sanctions are imposed fully. Rosneft, for example, will be unable to build its LNG plant on Sakhalin Island and explore reserves in the Kara and Black Seas without the assistance of ExxonMobil. There will be awkward moments for such partners of Russian government-controlled companies as Shell, Statoil and Total as they begin closing down their offices in Russia.
The most powerful blow will be dealt to Russia’s expensive projects by the impossibility to borrow foreign cash on a long-term basis.
For Gazprom, it could be a mixed blessing. If the company cannot raise funds to finance its politicized and commercially non-viable projects, it might be told by the Kremlin to drop the ideas of building the Power of Siberia pipeline or the LNG plant in Vladivostok. Huge amounts of money would be saved for the national economy rather than wasted on projects with impossibly long payback prospects.
Unfortunately, this is probably but a dream. The Russian leadership has never stopped at such trifles and launched uneconomical projects regardless of their negative value just to make ‘friendly’ contractors happy. In this case, the missing funds would be taken from social programs—or taxes would be raised, or…
Paradoxically, the decision of the Western governments to restrict their companies’ participation in the Russian oil and gas industry, and prevent banks from lending money to Gazprom or Rosneft, is essentially a continuation of a process launched by Vladimir Putin in 2008. It was the Russian president who initiated a series of xenophobic bills that restricted international companies’ access to mineral licenses, large-scale projects and any form of equality with domestic players in this business. It was a very heavy blow on the industry. Today, Western governments are doing basically what the Russian leader wanted them to do, staying away from Russia’s oil and gas.
Mikhail Krutikhin is a partner at the independent RusEnergy consulting agency.
About the Author
Mikhail Krutikhin
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie India
- Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026
- India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible PathwaysArticle
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
- Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTACommentary
The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead
Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki
- India’s Press Note 3 Gamble: Opening the FDI Door to ChinaArticle
On March 10, 2026, India’s Union Cabinet approved amendments to Press Note 3, a regulation that mandated government approval on all foreign direct investment (FDI) from countries sharing a land border with India. This amendment raises questions primarily about whether its stated benefits will materialize and if the risks have been adequately weighed. This piece will address the same.
Konark Bhandari
- India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 EraResearch
Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.
- +6
Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …
