India Hits Back at NATO Chief: No Such Call with Putin, Claim Is Baseless

New Delhi, September 26, 2025 — India has strongly dismissed a claim made by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte that Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin after the United States imposed fresh tariffs on Indian goods. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) called the remarks “factually incorrect and entirely baseless,” adding that no such phone call ever took place.

The comments by Rutte, made during an interview with CNN on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, caused a diplomatic stir. He had suggested that the U.S. tariffs had pushed India to immediately contact Moscow. According to him, “Delhi is now on the phone with Vladimir Putin in Moscow, and Narendra Modi is asking him to explain his strategy on Ukraine.”

This statement was quickly picked up by international media, framing it as an example of how Washington’s trade policies might affect India’s global alignment. But within hours, India’s response was firm, sharp, and dismissive.

India’s swift reaction

The MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal made India’s position clear.

“The claim is factually incorrect and entirely baseless. At no point has Prime Minister Modi spoken with President Putin in the manner suggested. No such conversation has taken place,” Jaiswal said.

He also criticized the lack of caution in Rutte’s statement.

“We expect the leadership of an important institution like NATO to exercise greater responsibility and accuracy in public statements. Speculative or careless remarks that misrepresent the Prime Minister’s engagements or suggest conversations that never occurred are unacceptable.”

This was not just a rebuttal. It was also a reminder to NATO that words from top officials carry diplomatic weight and can shape international narratives.

Why did Rutte make the claim?

The NATO Secretary-General was commenting on recent moves by the U.S. government. Earlier this month, the Trump administration introduced reciprocal tariffs on Indian products. On top of that, a penalty tariff was announced, connected directly to India’s continued purchases of discounted Russian oil.

By linking the tariffs to India’s oil imports, Washington signaled that it sees New Delhi’s energy deals with Moscow as a form of support to Russia, even if indirectly. Rutte’s remarks implied that these U.S. measures forced India to rethink and rush into a conversation with Putin.

For NATO, such a narrative fits into the larger picture of Western efforts to isolate Russia internationally over the war in Ukraine. But India has consistently avoided taking sides, stressing dialogue and peace instead of sanctions or military pressure.

What India says about Modi-Putin contacts

India has not denied contact with Russia altogether. In fact, relations between New Delhi and Moscow remain active. But the government insists that all interactions are transparent and routine, not secretive or reactive to U.S. actions.

Publicly known details show that:

• September 17, 2025 — Prime Minister Modi spoke to President Putin over the phone on the occasion of his 75th birthday. The call was described as warm and friendly. They discussed bilateral cooperation and regional developments, but not in the dramatic tone suggested by NATO.
• September 1, 2025 — Modi and Putin had an informal hour-long conversation while sharing a vehicle during the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China. This was part of normal summit diplomacy.

These interactions were public knowledge and officially recorded. The MEA stressed that no urgent or hidden phone call about Ukraine strategy ever happened after the U.S. tariff move.

India’s energy stance

At the heart of this dispute is India’s approach to energy imports. Since the Ukraine war began, New Delhi has increased purchases of discounted Russian oil. Western nations, especially the U.S. and EU, have often criticized this as helping Moscow’s economy.

India, however, defends its policy as purely practical:

• Energy security — India needs reliable and affordable energy to meet the needs of its 1.4 billion citizens.
• Market logic — Buying cheaper oil reduces the burden on India’s economy and keeps fuel prices under control domestically.
• Sovereignty — India insists that it decides its policies based on national interest, not external pressure.

MEA spokesperson Jaiswal reiterated this position, saying, “Our energy imports are driven by national interest and affordability for our consumers. That will remain the guiding principle.”

Larger diplomatic stakes

The war of words between NATO and India reveals deeper diplomatic currents.

1. India-NATO equation
   India is not a NATO member. Its foreign policy emphasizes strategic autonomy. However, NATO comments can still influence how India is viewed in the West. By rejecting Rutte’s words so strongly, India is signaling that it won’t allow misinformation to shape its image.
2. India-U.S. tensions
   U.S. tariffs have already strained trade ties. Now, with NATO’s top official making claims linked to those tariffs, the perception of India’s “neutrality” in the Ukraine war is under question again. India may have to work harder to balance between Washington and Moscow.
3. India’s balancing act
   Since the start of the Ukraine conflict, India has walked a tightrope. On one side are its old ties with Russia in defense and energy. On the other are its growing partnerships with the U.S. and Europe. The rejection of NATO’s claim shows New Delhi’s determination to keep control of its narrative.
4. Global media narratives
   A high-profile remark like “Delhi is on the phone with Putin” can quickly become a headline worldwide. India’s sharp denial is aimed not just at NATO but also at the global press, to prevent distorted versions of its foreign policy from spreading.

Why India’s pushback matters

India’s quick and clear denial serves several purposes:

• Protecting credibility: It shows the world that India will not tolerate false stories about its leadership.
• Defending autonomy: It reminds allies and rivals alike that India makes its own choices, especially in energy and diplomacy.
• Setting boundaries: It tells NATO and other institutions that they must be careful with public remarks that involve India.

What happens next?

The episode may not lead to a direct confrontation between India and NATO, but it will likely have consequences:

• NATO might avoid making off-the-cuff remarks about India in the near future.
• The U.S.-India trade tensions could deepen as tariffs take effect.
• Media scrutiny of India’s Russia policy will probably intensify, especially around oil purchases and defense ties.
• India could use upcoming multilateral meetings, like the G20 and SCO, to reinforce its message of “peaceful resolution” rather than pressure or alignment.