Editorial

The decision by the Trump administration to withdraw the final 1,000 US troops from Syria, reported on February 19, 2026, marks the end of a decade-long military intervention . While critics warn of a vacuum that could empower terrorists and betray allies, this move is not a sign of retreat, but a long-overdue strategic recalibration that finally aligns America’s military footprint with its national interests.

For years, the US mission in Syria suffered from “mission creep.” What began in 2014 as a focused campaign to destroy the ISIS caliphate gradually expanded into a vague mandate to contain Iran, guard oil fields, and protect Kurdish-held territory . With the territorial caliphate defeated years ago, keeping 1,000 troops indefinitely exposed to drone attacks and escalation risk became a poor return on investment . The original job is done.

The primary objection to withdrawal is the fear of an ISIS resurgence. However, this argument ignores the transformed landscape on the ground. The Syrian government, now led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, has a vested interest in preventing ISIS from rebuilding and has even joined the international counter-ISIS coalition . Furthermore, the US has already transferred nearly 5,000 of the most dangerous ISIS detainees from vulnerable Syrian prisons to secure facilities in Iraq, mitigating the immediate risk of a mass jailbreak.

Critics also decry the abandonment of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), America’s most effective partners against ISIS . This criticism, while morally weighty, ignores the political reality. Washington was never going to fight Turkey—a NATO ally—to protect the SDF indefinitely. The best path to long-term security for the Kurds lies not in a forever-American outpost, but in their ongoing integration into the Syrian state structure, a process the US is wisely supporting.

Ultimately, this withdrawal allows the United States to shed an peripheral commitment and focus its finite resources on the Pentagon’s primary challenge: great-power competition with China . Staying in Syria was a choice to remain mired in yesterday’s conflicts. Leaving is a strategic decision to prepare for the challenges of tomorrow. It is a gamble, but one that is necessary to preserve American strength for where it matters most.

The Ministry of External Affairs’ reaffirmation on February 19, 2026, that India will continue to make independent decisions regarding energy purchases is not an act of defiance against the United States; it is an act of duty toward the Indian citizen. Amid fluctuating global prices and persistent Western pressure, New Delhi’s stance on Russian crude is a masterclass in strategic autonomy.

To criticize India for buying Russian oil is to ignore the fundamental laws of economics and geography. India is the world’s third-largest oil importer, reliant on foreign sources to fuel 85% of its economy. When Russian crude became available at a significant discount following Western sanctions, it presented a simple arithmetic problem for policymakers. Choosing cheaper energy is not a political statement; it is an anti-inflationary measure. Every dollar saved on oil imports helps stabilize the rupee and keeps the prices of cooking gas and transportation fuel manageable for the common man.

The argument that India is undermining the Western sanctions regime is a simplification of a complex geopolitical landscape. The G7’s price cap on Russian oil was designed to allow flows to continue while starving Moscow of war revenue. India operates strictly within this mechanism, purchasing oil below the capped price. Furthermore, unlike European nations that spent decades building dependence on Russian pipelines, India is practicing diversification. We buy from Russia, but also from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. This is not allegiance; it is a portfolio strategy designed to prevent any single nation from holding a monopoly over our energy security.

Critics in Washington often frame this as India drifting away from the Quad. This is a false dichotomy. India’s relationship with the United States is broader than any single barrel of oil. Our convergence on defense, technology, and the Indo-Pacific is robust enough to withstand disagreements on energy trade. If the US expects India to pivot entirely away from Moscow, it must be prepared to offer alternative supplies at comparable prices. To date, no nation has been able to fill the gap that Russian oil currently occupies in the global market.

Ultimately, the decision to continue Russian oil imports is a testament to India’s emergence as a mature power that prioritizes national interest over alliance politics. In a world fragmenting into blocs, India refuses to be pushed into a corner. By keeping its energy options open, New Delhi is not just saving money; it is safeguarding its sovereignty. The message is clear: India will listen to its friends, but it will only answer to its people.

• SAS Kirmani