An Analysis of the Reuters/Ipsos Poll on Trump’s Popularity

The Interplay of Economic Concerns and Presidential Approval: An Analysis of the Reuters/Ipsos Poll on Trump’s Popularity

Abstract: This paper examines the findings of a hypothetical Reuters/Ipsos poll, as presented in a provided news excerpt, concerning the declining popularity of U.S. President Donald Trump in late October 2025. The analysis focuses on the correlation between Americans’ concerns regarding the cost of living and a dip in presidential approval ratings. The paper explores the potential causal mechanisms linking economic anxieties to political sentiment, discusses the muted public reaction to a protracted government shutdown as presented by the poll, and contextualizes these findings within broader trends of public opinion and economic policy. Despite the anomalous date, the excerpt provides a valuable lens through which to analyze fundamental relationships between economic conditions and presidential job performance, offering insights into the political ramifications of inflation and fiscal policy on public perception.

Keywords: Donald Trump, Presidential Approval, Cost of Living, Inflation, Reuters/Ipsos Poll, Government Shutdown, Economic Policy, Public Opinion, Political Science.

1. Introduction

Presidential approval ratings are a critical barometer of public sentiment, reflecting the electorate’s satisfaction with the performance of the nation’s chief executive. These ratings are influenced by a myriad of factors, including but not limited to, policy successes and failures, national security events, social issues, and, crucially, the state of the economy. This paper analyzes a hypothetical Reuters/Ipsos poll, dated October 29, 2025, which suggests a decline in U.S. President Donald Trump’s approval rating, with a significant portion of the public expressing dissatisfaction with his handling of the cost of living.

The provided excerpt posits a scenario where, in late 2025, President Trump’s approval rating stands at 40%, having fallen from 42% in a previous poll and reaching a level tied for the lowest of his hypothetical term. Concurrently, the disapproval rating has risen to 57%. A key finding highlighted is the public’s negative assessment of Trump’s management of the cost of living, with twice as many Americans disapproving as approve. This economic concern is presented as a significant factor contributing to the dip in his popularity, despite Trump having won the previous election on promises to tackle inflation that had impacted his predecessor.

The excerpt also details public reaction to a government shutdown, characterizing it as the second-longest in U.S. history. Interestingly, the poll indicates that public concern over the shutdown remains muted, with a substantial segment expressing indifference or even approval, while most report minimal personal impact.

This paper aims to dissect these findings by:

Examining the direct correlation between economic concerns (specifically the cost of living) and presidential approval as indicated by the poll.
Analyzing the policy context presented, including the alleged failure to curb inflation and the weakening job market, and their potential impact on public perception.
Discussing the implications of the muted public reaction to the government shutdown on the overall assessment of presidential performance and the political landscape.
Considering the methodological aspects and potential limitations of such a poll, while treating the provided data as a hypothetical case study for academic analysis.

2. Economic Anxiety and Presidential Approval

The Reuters/Ipsos poll strongly suggests a causal link between Americans’ concerns about the cost of living and President Trump’s declining approval. The statement that Trump’s popularity dips “as Americans sweat cost of living” is a direct assertion of this relationship. Presidential performance is often judged by tangible outcomes that affect citizens’ daily lives, and economic well-being is paramount among these. When individuals perceive that their purchasing power is diminishing or that the cost of essential goods and services is rising beyond their means, their dissatisfaction with the incumbent administration is likely to increase.

The poll indicates that the pace of inflation has “edged higher since Trump took office,” a critical point given his electoral promises to combat inflation that had plagued his predecessor. This suggests a potential perception gap between campaign promises and actual outcomes. If voters believed that Trump’s economic policies would alleviate their financial burdens, but instead, they experience continued or exacerbated inflation, this can lead to a significant erosion of trust and support. The report also notes that the job market has “weakened,” further compounding economic anxieties. A strong job market is often seen as a sign of a healthy economy, and its decline, alongside rising inflation, creates a “stagflationary” sentiment, which is notoriously difficult for any administration to manage politically.

The poll’s finding that “twice as many Americans disapprove of his handling of the cost of living as approve of it” is a particularly stark indicator. This disparity suggests that the issue of the cost of living is not merely a minor concern but a dominant factor shaping negative public opinion towards the Trump administration. In political science, this phenomenon aligns with economic voting theories, which posit that voters make decisions based on their economic self-interest and evaluate incumbent performance through an economic lens (Key, 1966; Hibbs, 1977). When economic conditions are unfavorable, voters are more likely to hold the current leadership responsible and seek alternatives.

Furthermore, the observation that Trump’s popularity has been “within a percentage point or two of its current level in every Reuters/Ipsos poll since mid-May” implies a period of sustained pressure on his approval ratings. This suggests that the economic headwinds have been a persistent challenge rather than a fleeting concern, anchoring his approval at a relatively low ebb and making it susceptible to further decline when exacerbated by specific events or ongoing trends.

3. The Muted Impact of Government Shutdown

The excerpt presents an intriguing counterpoint to the economic concerns: the public’s relatively muted reaction to a protracted government shutdown. The poll indicates that nearly a third of respondents (29%) either “didn’t care or were glad about the shutdown,” and a majority (50%) reported that it had “little or no impact on their lives.” Only 20% expressed anger.

This finding is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it suggests that the immediate political ramifications of government shutdowns, while often dramatic, may not always translate into widespread public outrage or a significant shift in presidential approval, especially when compared to more pervasive issues like the cost of living. The prolonged nature of this shutdown (the “second-longest in U.S. history”) might have led to a degree of public desensitization or a perception that such events are recurring and less consequential than perceived by political elites.

Secondly, the poll’s findings could imply a degree of partisan polarization in the response to the shutdown. While not explicitly stated in the excerpt, it is common for government shutdowns to elicit differing reactions based on party affiliation. Supporters of the president’s party might be more inclined to downplay the shutdown’s impact or support the president’s stance, while opponents might express greater concern. The neutral or positive responses from 29% of the population could be indicative of this partisan alignment, suggesting that for a segment of the electorate, the shutdown did not negatively impact their perception of the president.

The fact that the cost of living appears to be a more potent driver of disapproval than the government shutdown underscores the primacy of direct economic impacts over political gridlock, at least in this specific hypothetical scenario. This highlights a crucial distinction: while policy failures (like inflation) directly affect household budgets, government shutdowns, while disruptive, may be perceived as more abstract political disputes, particularly if individuals do not directly know or work with furloughed federal employees.

4. Contextualizing the Findings and Methodological Considerations

The scenario presented, with a presidential poll in late 2025 referencing a functioning Donald Trump presidency, is factually anachronistic given real-world electoral outcomes. However, for the purpose of academic analysis, the provided text serves as a valuable case study to explore established theories of political behavior.

Economic Policy and Public Perception: The excerpt implicitly touches upon the challenge of managing monetary policy. The Federal Reserve’s role in setting interest rates is crucial in controlling inflation. The poll’s mention that “the country’s central bank [is] lowering interest rates” in response to inflation and a weakening job market is noteworthy. This action by the central bank, while intended to stimulate the economy, can sometimes exacerbate inflationary pressures in the short term if not carefully managed. The public’s perception of these complex economic maneuvers, often filtered through their direct experience of rising prices, is what ultimately impacts presidential approval.

Reuters/Ipsos Polling: Reuters/Ipsos polls are generally considered reliable, employing robust methodologies for large-scale public opinion surveys. The “three-day poll” suggests a timely snapshot of public sentiment. The key here is that such polls aim to capture a representative sample of the adult population. The findings, therefore, are presented as reflecting the collective mood of the surveyed population.

Limitations of the Excerpt:

Causality vs. Correlation: While the excerpt strongly suggests a causal link between cost of living concerns and approval decline, polls typically reveal correlations. Disentangling precise causality often requires more in-depth analysis.
Demographic Data: The excerpt lacks detailed demographic breakdowns (e.g., by age, income, race, political affiliation) which would provide a richer understanding of which segments of the population are most concerned about the cost of living and how this impacts their approval ratings.

Other Contributing Factors: Presidential approval is multifactorial. The excerpt focuses primarily on economic issues, but other significant events or policy developments might also be influencing Trump’s hypothetical approval ratings.
Framing: The language used in news reporting can sometimes frame poll results in a particular light. While Reuters/Ipsos strives for neutrality, the interpretation presented in the excerpt is a journalistic one.

5. Conclusion

The hypothetical Reuters/Ipsos poll presented in the excerpt offers a compelling, albeit anachronistic, illustration of the profound influence of economic anxieties on presidential approval. The findings suggest that President Trump’s popularity in late October 2025 is significantly undermined by Americans’ negative perceptions of his handling of the cost of living. This aligns with established theories of economic voting, where tangible economic hardships, such as rising inflation and job market weakness, directly translate into public dissatisfaction with incumbent leadership.

The contrast with the muted public reaction to a prolonged government shutdown is particularly instructive, highlighting that issues with direct and pervasive economic implications often overshadow political disputes in shaping public opinion. This suggests that for a significant portion of the electorate, the ability to manage their household finances is a more immediate and pressing concern than the intricacies of governmental operations or partisan gridlock.

While the specific scenario presented is not aligned with real-world timelines, the underlying dynamic between economic well-being and presidential approval remains a fundamental and enduring aspect of democratic politics. The excerpt serves as a useful reminder that economic performance is not merely a policy objective but a critical determinant of political legitimacy and electoral success. Future research on presidential approval must continue to prioritize the analysis of economic indicators and their perception by the public, especially in times of inflationary pressure and economic uncertainty.

References:

Hibbs, D. A. (1977). Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy. The American Political Science Review, 71(4), 1467-1487.
Key, V. O. (1966). The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1936-1960. Harvard University Press.

(Note: The reference to “myST+” and “Get ST’s newsletters” are elements of a digital platform interface and are not incorporated into the academic content of the paper. The dates provided in the excerpt are treated as part of a hypothetical scenario for analytical purposes.)

Targeted Escalation: Analyzing the Geopolitical and Market Repercussions of US Sanctions on Russian Oil Majors in October 2025

---

Abstract

This paper analyzes the strategic, economic, and geopolitical ramifications of the sanctions levied by the U.S. government, led by President Donald Trump, against Russia’s two largest oil entities, Rosneft and Lukoil, in October 2025. This policy action marked a significant and sudden reversal from previous diplomatic efforts, including a planned summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Using event-based analysis derived from immediate market and policy reactions, this study finds that while the sanctions successfully achieved immediate market disruption (a 3% spike in global oil prices) and enforced international compliance (evidenced by India’s consideration of import reductions), their overall effectiveness in immediately crippling Russia’s war funding is complicated by the structure of Russia’s revenue taxation. The paper concludes that this targeted escalation represents a high-risk form of economic warfare, prioritizing symbolic and coercive signaling over immediate fiscal paralysis, and shifting the burden of compliance onto major non-aligned energy consumers.

---

1. Introduction

The imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions has become a mainstay of modern geopolitical conflict management. Following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the Western coalition initiated a series of broad financial and sectoral sanctions against the Russian Federation. However, the sanctions announced by the U.S. Treasury in October 2025 against the state-controlled Rosneft and private major Lukoil represent a critical phase shift: a targeted strike against the primary entities funding the Kremlin’s war machine, now entering its fourth year.

This action was particularly notable for its abrupt political context. U.S. President Donald Trump canceled a proposed summit with President Putin just prior to the announcement, signaling a decisive lurch from diplomatic overture to overt economic confrontation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explicitly stated the policy’s objective: targeting Russia’s ability to fund the protracted conflict.\

This paper addresses three central questions: (1) What were the proximate geopolitical drivers of this sudden policy reversal? (2) How did the sanctions immediately impact global energy markets and Russia’s fiscal standing? (3) What were the critical externalities, particularly concerning key trading partners like India, and what do these responses suggest about the extraterritorial reach of U.S. financial coercion?

The core thesis of this study is that the October 2025 sanctions signify a deliberate shift toward high-impact energy warfare intended to signal uncompromising resolve, but their immediate economic success is mitigated by Russia’s fiscal structure and high global demand, resulting in greater instability for allied and non-aligned states alike.

2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

2.1 Sanctions as an Instrument of Coercive Diplomacy

Traditional sanctions analysis posits two main goals: compliance (change in target behavior) or coercion (inflicting economic pain to reduce state power). The decision to target Rosneft and Lukoil moves beyond generic sectoral restrictions and into the realm of entity designation (SDN listings), effectively cutting off these firms from the global financial system and demanding immediate divestment from third parties. Literature on “smart sanctions” suggests that targeting specific elites or revenue streams maximizes impact while minimizing humanitarian costs, though the sheer scale of these firms ensures significant market disruption (Drezner, 2011).

2.2 Energy Geopolitics and the Fungibility of Oil

Oil and gas represent approximately one-quarter of Russia’s budget and are the “most important source of cash” for the military campaign. By sanctioning the largest entities, the U.S. is attempting to weaponize the non-fungibility of banking and logistics against the fungibility of crude oil. While crude oil can theoretically be rerouted to alternative buyers (as seen with discounted oil sales to China and India), the imposition of sanctions on the corporate entities themselves restricts access to insurance, shipping, and dollar-denominated transactions, significantly increasing the transaction cost (O’Sullivan, 2017).

2.3 The Dilemma of Secondary Sanctions and Extraterritoriality

The geopolitical challenge for the U.S. lies in ensuring compliance from non-Western partners. The threat of secondary sanctions—penalties imposed on third-party entities that continue to transact with the sanctioned entities—forces difficult choices for major importers. India’s immediate consideration of “sharply curtail[ing] imports” underscores the potency of U.S. financial leverage, even over sovereign nations seeking discounted energy supplies (Pape, 1997).

3. Analysis I: Geopolitical Dynamics and Policy Volatility

3.1 The Policy U-Turn

The timing of the sanctions following the abrupt cancellation of the Trump-Putin summit is critical. The move, described as a “dramatic U-turn,” suggests that the sanctions served not only an economic purpose but also a crucial political signaling function. Trump’s stated loss of faith in the diplomatic process—”it just didn’t feel right,” and his previous “good conversations” with Putin had not “go anywhere”—indicates a shift from tentative engagement to maximalist pressure (Source Text, Oct 23, 2025).

This event highlights the inherent volatility in foreign policy that relies heavily on executive discretion. The canceling of the high-stakes summit, coupled with the immediate targeting of Russia’s central revenue generators, strategically positions the U.S. as a robust antagonist, willing to execute high-impact punitive measures when diplomacy fails. Russia’s response—calling the sanctions “counterproductive” to peace deals—confirms the breakdown of the fragile diplomatic channel.

4. Analysis II: Economic Impact and Market Volatility

4.1 Global Market Response

The immediate market repercussion was profound. Global oil prices jumped by over 3% within 24 hours of the announcement. This spike reflects the market’s calculation of systemic risk. Rosneft and Lukoil collectively account for a substantial percentage of global crude and refined product supply. Sanctioning these majors generates dual anxieties: (1) fear of immediate supply disruption, and (2) increased insurance and compliance costs across the entire supply chain, which are invariably priced into the commodity.

The volatility confirms the theory that targeted energy sanctions, while potent, carry significant externalities that burden global consumers. The U.S. policy simultaneously achieves strategic disruption while contributing directly to inflationary pressures globally (Khurana & Singh, 2024).

4.2 Impact on Russia’s Fiscal Standing

The explicit goal of the Treasury was targeting the funding of the war machine. While oil and gas revenue is paramount, the source text introduces a key nuance: “Moscow’s main revenue source comes from taxing output, not exports, which is likely to soften the immediate impact of the sanctions on state finances.”

This suggests a complex path to fiscal crippling:

1. Short-Term Buffering: If Russia can continue domestic production and store it, or sell it quickly at high discounts through non-Western brokers (shadow fleet), the tax revenue stream on output remains partially insulated initially.
2. Long-Term Deterioration: The sanctions restrict access to Western technology, capital markets, and necessary logistical support (shipping, refining parts). Over time, the inability to export efficiently and maintain infrastructure will inevitably reduce output, thereby eroding the tax base and achieving the intended long-term fiscal coercion.

The 21% year-on-year drop in oil and gas revenue cited in the source text, prior to these sanctions, indicates that the foundation of Russian finance was already weakening, making the October 2025 sanctions an accelerant rather than a primary trigger of financial distress.

5. Analysis III: The Geopolitical Externalities and India’s Dilemma

The most significant immediate geopolitical consequence of the sanctions, external to the U.S.-Russia dynamic, is the acute dilemma faced by major non-aligned importing nations, specifically India.

Indian refiners were reported to be “poised to sharply curtail imports of Russian oil to ensure they were in compliance with U.S. sanctions.” India had become a critical buyer of discounted Russian crude (Urals), balancing its national energy security needs and strategic autonomy against the price volatility of the global market.

The Indian response demonstrates the effective exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by the U.S. Treasury. By threatening to cut access to the U.S. financial system, the sanctions compel compliance even from friendly nations who benefit economically from the adversary relationship. This places India in a precarious position: choosing between economic expediency (cheap Russian oil) and geopolitical integration (maintaining relations and access to U.S. finance and technology).

The “India jitters” illustrate a critical tension in modern sanctions policy: while sanctions unify the Western coalition, they fracture relationships with the non-aligned Global South, forcing these nations to bear the costs of Western geopolitical maneuvers through higher energy prices and disrupted supply chains.

6. Conclusion

The October 2025 sanctions targeting Rosneft and Lukoil represent a critical escalation in the economic warfare surrounding the Ukraine conflict. Driven by a sudden failure of diplomatic efforts and a need to demonstrate firm resolve, U.S. policy shifted toward high-impact, targeted entity designation aimed at crippling Russia’s ability to finance the war.

The immediate consequences were swift: a clear market reaction (3% price hike) and decisive compliance from major consuming nations (India). However, the long-term success of ending the conflict via fiscal strangulation remains conditional on overcoming Russia’s ability to tax domestic output and exploit shadow market mechanisms.

Ultimately, these sanctions confirm the U.S. capacity for global economic coercion but highlight the inherent trade-off: successful deterrence is achieved at the cost of global market stability and increased friction with strategically valuable non-aligned partners. Future research should focus on quantifying the specific reduction in Rosneft/Lukoil output and assessing the long-term structural changes in India’s energy procurement strategy post-sanction curtailment.

---

References (Fictional/Illustrative)

Drezner, D. W. (2011). Sanctions and Strategic Context: Why Economic Statecraft Succeeds or Fails. International Security, 36(2), 154-184.

Khurana, A., & Singh, P. (2024). The Price of Coercion: Externalities of Energy Sanctions in the Global South. Oxford University Press.

O’Sullivan, M. (2017). The Geopolitics of Energy. Columbia University Press.

Pape, R. A. (1997). Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work. International Security, 22(2), 90–121.

Source Text: The Straits Times, “Trump sanctions Russian oil majors, prompting oil price rise and India jitters.” Published Oct 23, 2025. (Used as primary data source)

Abstract

This paper analyzes Russia’s strategic deployment of anti-colonial narratives in India, particularly through the state-funded media outlet RT and its new program “Imperial Receipts” featuring prominent Indian politician and scholar Dr. Shashi Tharoor. Amidst Russia’s geopolitical isolation following its invasion of Ukraine, Moscow has intensified its public diplomacy efforts to strengthen partnerships, with India emerging as a key priority. This paper argues that RT’s anti-colonial programming serves as a sophisticated strategic communication tool designed to resonate with India’s historical grievances, reinforce its commitment to strategic autonomy, and subtly promote an anti-Western geopolitical stance, thereby countering Western efforts to distance New Delhi from Moscow. By examining the content, promotion, and broader context of Russia’s media push in India, this paper sheds light on the evolving dynamics of great power competition and the weaponization of historical narratives in contemporary international relations.

1. Introduction

The early 21st century is characterized by a reshaping of the global geopolitical landscape, marked by a contest for influence among major powers and the emergence of a more multipolar world order. In the wake of its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia has faced significant diplomatic and economic isolation from Western nations (United States, Canada, Europe), prompting a strategic pivot towards strengthening alliances and partnerships in the Global South. India, a rising economic and military power with a history of non-alignment and strategic autonomy, has emerged as a crucial focus for Moscow’s foreign policy and public diplomacy efforts.

This paper critically examines a prominent instance of this renewed Russian engagement: the launch of “Imperial Receipts,” a weekly anti-colonial series produced by the Russian state media entity RT (formerly Russia Today), featuring the distinguished Indian opposition politician and author, Dr. Shashi Tharoor. Advertisements for the program, showcasing Dr. Tharoor, widely appeared in Indian cities and newspapers in August 2025, ahead of its September 1 debut. The series, broadcast on RT’s free-to-air channel and widely shared on Dr. Tharoor’s YouTube channel and WhatsApp, delves into the systemic exploitation and cultural destruction perpetrated by British colonialism in India.

While ostensibly a historical critique, this paper posits that “Imperial Receipts” transcends mere academic discourse. It represents a calculated strategic communication initiative by the Russian state to leverage deeply embedded anti-colonial sentiments within India, thereby weaving a narrative that subtly aligns with Moscow’s current anti-Western geopolitical agenda. By promoting a discourse that emphasizes India’s right to independent choices and a critique of Western historical dominance, RT aims to reinforce India’s existing foreign policy doctrine of strategic autonomy and resist Western pressures for New Delhi to distance itself from Moscow. This paper will analyze the content and promotion of “Imperial Receipts,” Russia’s broader media strategy in India, and the geopolitical implications of this nuanced engagement.

2. Theoretical Framework: Public Diplomacy, Strategic Narratives, and Post-Colonial Resonance

This analysis draws upon several theoretical constructs to understand Russia’s media strategy in India.

Firstly, public diplomacy serves as a foundational concept. It refers to the efforts of states to influence foreign public opinion and build support for their policies. Unlike traditional diplomacy, which targets governments, public diplomacy aims at shaping the perceptions of foreign publics through various channels, including media, cultural exchange, and educational programs (Leonard, 2002). In this context, RT’s “Imperial Receipts” functions as a public diplomacy tool, seeking to cultivate a favorable image of Russia and its geopolitical perspectives by aligning with Indian national sentiments.

Secondly, the concept of strategic narratives is crucial. Strategic narratives are overarching stories that states construct and disseminate to shape perceptions of international reality, legitimize their actions, and delegitimize those of adversaries (Miskimmon et al., 2013). By framing Britain’s colonial history in stark terms of exploitation and linking it to a contemporary “anti-West” message, Russia constructs a strategic narrative that positions itself as an ally in decolonization narratives while subtly criticizing Western hypocrisy and dominance. The narrative of “making its own choices” directly supports India’s existing foreign policy framework.

Thirdly, the enduring legacy of post-colonialism provides the resonant backdrop for this initiative. Post-colonial theory examines the lasting impacts of colonialism on societies and cultures, including the psychological, economic, and political ramifications that extend beyond political independence (Said, 1978; Spivak, 1988). In India, the memory of British colonial rule, particularly its economic plunder and cultural suppression, remains a powerful and emotionally charged aspect of national identity. Tapping into these deep-seated sentiments allows Russia to establish a connection rooted in shared historical grievances against Western imperial powers.

Finally, the paper touches upon the dynamics of information warfare and media influence. In an increasingly polarized global media landscape, state-sponsored media like RT play a significant role in shaping public discourse and influencing perceptions (Monbiot, 2016). By strategically deploying content that resonates with specific target audiences and amplifying it through local platforms, these outlets aim to advance their national interests and counter competing narratives.

3. “Imperial Receipts”: Leveraging Anti-Colonialism for Geopolitical Gain

RT’s “Imperial Receipts” is not merely an academic exploration of history but a carefully constructed narrative designed with contemporary geopolitical objectives in mind. The program’s content, featuring veteran politician and respected scholar Dr. Shashi Tharoor, meticulously documents the extensive exploitation and destruction unleashed by British rule in India. Dr. Tharoor’s articulation, as quoted in the article, powerfully contrasts Britain’s rise to a “great outpost of human civilisation, prosperity, gold and commerce” with India’s descent into a “poster child for third-world destitution, poverty, disease, malnutrition and suffering.” This framing effectively uses historical facts to evoke strong emotional responses and reinforce a narrative of systemic injustice.

The choice of Dr. Shashi Tharoor as the face of the program is highly strategic. As a well-known Indian opposition politician, author, and diplomat with a formidable reputation for his scholarship on British colonialism (e.g., “An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India”), Dr. Tharoor brings significant intellectual credibility and public recognition. His presence lends an air of academic rigor and authenticity to the program, making its anti-colonial message resonate more powerfully with Indian audiences. His involvement likely amplifies the program’s reach, especially through his official YouTube channel which has accumulated substantial views, and through widespread sharing on WhatsApp, demonstrating a successful multi-platform dissemination strategy.

The promotional strategy further underscores the program’s strategic intent. Advertisements featuring Dr. Tharoor were prominently displayed on hoardings and in newspapers across Indian cities. The fact that these were funded by RT, a foreign state media entity, rather than Dr. Tharoor’s own political party, highlights the external agency behind this narrative push. Furthermore, the anachronistic setting of the interviews—a “pearl-white colonial-era hotel in Delhi that vaunts its ‘old-world European charm with its colonial impressions’”—can be interpreted as a subtle yet potent visual statement. It serves to emphasize the lingering presence of the colonial past and subtly critiques the continued appeal of such aesthetics even in post-colonial contexts, reinforcing the program’s core message.

Crucially, the article explicitly states that the program “is not just a critique of Britain’s dark colonial history; it is also a gamble to set a contemporary geopolitical narrative.” By tapping into “widespread anti-colonial sentiments among Indians,” RT’s “Imperial Receipts” “slips in a not-so-subtle anti-West message that aligns neatly with Moscow’s current strategic goals.” Dr. Tharoor’s quote in RT’s press release – “The last thing you (India) want to do is to surrender as an independent nation your right to have your own view to anybody else” – directly serves this purpose. It interprets historical grievances as a contemporary call for independent decision-making, implicitly cautioning against aligning too closely with Western powers and framing such alignment as a new form of subservience. This message is a direct exhortation to India to maintain its strategic autonomy.

4. Russia’s Broader Media Offensive and India’s Strategic Autonomy

The “Imperial Receipts” program is not an isolated initiative but part of a broader, concerted Russian state media offensive in India. This offensive aims to consolidate Russia’s position as a reliable partner and counter Western influence in a strategically vital nation.

Since its invasion of Ukraine, Russia has faced an unprecedented level of isolation from Western countries. This has prompted a redoubling of efforts to cultivate non-Western alliances. India, with its relatively neutral stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, its historical ties extending back to the Cold War, and its continued strong defense and economic partnerships with Moscow, has become a “key priority.” Despite increasing criticism and pressure from Western powers, including steep US-imposed tariffs, New Delhi has steadfastly defended its choices as being rooted in “national interests and strategic autonomy.” India continues to procure cheap Russian oil and participate in joint military exercises, such as the Zapad exercises in Belarus, which simulated conflict with NATO countries.

This context provides fertile ground for Russia’s media strategy. As articulated by Nandan Unnikrishnan, a former journalist and head of the Eurasia Programme of Studies at the Observer Research Foundation, “It’s a battle for which side of the fence India will fall on.” Russia aims to ensure India remains on its side, or at least committed to its independent path, thereby resisting a “tighter Western embrace.”

RT’s plans to launch a dedicated channel, “RT India,” by the end of 2025, with a studio already set up in the Delhi National Capital Region and claiming a “potential reach” of 626 million viewers, signals a significant, long-term commitment. This expansion demonstrates Russia’s intent to tailor content specifically for the Indian audience, ensuring maximum resonance and impact. Similarly, Sputnik, another Russian state-owned news agency, has ramped up its operations in India, launching a Hindi handle on X (formerly Twitter) in July, in addition to its English presence. Sputnik’s self-proclaimed mission of offering “news free of Western bias” directly challenges the narratives propagated by Western media and implicitly positions Russian media as an alternative, more trustworthy source for countries disillusioned with perceived Western hegemony.

Therefore, “Imperial Receipts” functions as a psychological operation within a broader information war. It uses a popular, historically grounded narrative to create a sense of solidarity between Russia and India, while simultaneously bolstering India’s existing foreign policy stance of strategic autonomy against Western pressures.

5. Implications and Future Directions

The Russian state media’s strategic use of anti-colonial narratives in India carries several significant implications for international relations, media studies, and India’s foreign policy.

Firstly, it highlights the increasing sophistication of great power competition in the information domain. Russia is effectively deploying soft power and strategic communication to counteract hard power pressures and diplomatic isolation. By tapping into existing historical grievances and national pride, Moscow seeks to cultivate a favorable environment for its geopolitical objectives, making it more challenging for Western powers to sway Indian public opinion or government policy.

Secondly, the involvement of a respected public intellectual and opposition politician like Dr. Shashi Tharoor raises questions about the ethics and implications of public figures lending their credibility to state-sponsored media of foreign powers, particularly those with controversial human rights records or aggressive foreign policies. While Dr. Tharoor’s motivations may stem from genuine academic interest in anti-colonial discourse, his association inadvertently legitimizes RT’s broader agenda and amplifies its reach. This underscores the blurred lines between objective journalism, historical commentary, and strategic propaganda in the contemporary media landscape.

Thirdly, this strategy reinforces India’s commitment to strategic autonomy. The narrative of “making its own choices” resonates deeply with India’s long-standing foreign policy tradition of non-alignment (though now often termed multi-alignment or strategic autonomy). By acknowledging and validating this pillar of Indian foreign policy, Russia positions itself as an enabler of India’s independence, contrasting with Western narratives that might be perceived as prescriptive or demanding. This approach is likely to strengthen the existing strategic partnership between India and Russia, making it more resilient to external pressures.

Future research could explore the audience reception of “Imperial Receipts” within India, analyzing its actual impact on public perceptions and political discourse. A comparative analysis of Russian media strategies in other Global South nations, particularly those with significant colonial histories, would also provide valuable insights into the broader patterns of Russia’s public diplomacy. Furthermore, investigating the long-term effectiveness of such campaigns in shaping foreign policy decisions and challenging dominant international narratives would be a crucial area of study.

6. Conclusion

The launch and extensive promotion of RT’s “Imperial Receipts” in India, featuring Dr. Shashi Tharoor, represents a potent example of Russia’s strategic communication and public diplomacy efforts in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape. Amidst its isolation from the West, Moscow is adeptly leveraging deeply resonant anti-colonial narratives to strengthen its partnership with India. By framing the show’s content as a call for India to assert its independent choices against perceived external pressures, RT subtly promotes an anti-Western message that aligns with Russia’s current strategic goals while simultaneously reinforcing India’s cherished doctrine of strategic autonomy.

This initiative is part of a broader, sustained Russian media offensive in India, characterized by significant investment in platforms like RT India and Sputnik. The use of a credible public figure like Dr. Tharoor, coupled with widespread promotional activities, enhances the legitimacy and reach of this narrative. Ultimately, Russia’s “weaponization of history” through anti-colonial discourse serves to counter Western influence, solidify its long-standing ties with India, and contribute to the ongoing global “battle for which side of the fence India will fall on.” As the international order continues to shift, such sophisticated deployments of narrative power are likely to become increasingly central to great power competition and the shaping of future alliances.

References

Leonard, M. (2002). Public Diplomacy. The Foreign Policy Centre.
Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2013). Strategic Narratives: Communication Power and the New World Order. Routledge.
Monbiot, G. (2016, November 9). Russia Today is a menace to the free world. The Guardian.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (pp. 271-313). University of Illinois Press.
Tharoor, S. (2017). An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India. Aleph Book Company.

Maxthon

In an age where the digital world is in constant flux, and our interactions online are ever-evolving, the importance of prioritizing individuals as they navigate the expansive internet cannot be overstated. The myriad of elements that shape our online experiences calls for a thoughtful approach to selecting web browsers—one that places a premium on security and user privacy. Amidst the multitude of browsers vying for users’ loyalty, Maxthon emerges as a standout choice, providing a trustworthy solution to these pressing concerns, all without any cost to the user.

Maxthon, with its advanced features, boasts a comprehensive suite of built-in tools designed to enhance your online privacy. Among these tools are a highly effective ad blocker and a range of anti-tracking mechanisms, each meticulously crafted to fortify your digital sanctuary. This browser has carved out a niche for itself, particularly with its seamless compatibility with Windows 11, further solidifying its reputation in an increasingly competitive market.

In a crowded landscape of web browsers, Maxthon has forged a distinct identity through its unwavering dedication to offering a secure and private browsing experience. Fully aware of the myriad threats lurking in the vast expanse of cyberspace, Maxthon works tirelessly to safeguard your personal information. Utilizing state-of-the-art encryption technology, it ensures that your sensitive data remains protected and confidential throughout your online adventures.

What truly sets Maxthon apart is its commitment to enhancing user privacy during every moment spent online. Each feature of this browser has been meticulously designed with the user’s privacy in mind. Its powerful ad-blocking capabilities work diligently to eliminate unwanted advertisements, while its comprehensive anti-tracking measures effectively reduce the presence of invasive scripts that could disrupt your browsing enjoyment. As a result, users can traverse the web with newfound confidence and safety.

Moreover, Maxthon’s incognito mode provides an extra layer of security, granting users enhanced anonymity while engaging in their online pursuits. This specialized mode not only conceals your browsing habits but also ensures that your digital footprint remains minimal, allowing for an unobtrusive and liberating internet experience. With Maxthon as your ally in the digital realm, you can explore the vastness of the internet with peace of mind, knowing that your privacy is being prioritized every step of the way.