Jaishankar & Annalena Baerbock – Russia oil imports

    When Germany's Foreign Minister pressed India on Russian oil imports, S. Jaishankar didn't get defensive or cave — he named the disagreement, backed his position with facts, and reframed toward shared interest. A real-world masterclass in Conflict Management.

    Jaishankar & Annalena Baerbock – Russia oil imports

    Jaishankar & Annalena Baerbock: A Masterclass in Conflict Management

    In 2022, with the Russia-Ukraine war barely months old, India's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar sat across from Germany's Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and calmly defended a decision the whole Western world was questioning — India buying discounted Russian oil. He didn't raise his voice. He didn't get defensive. He didn't dodge the question either. He simply managed the conflict, in real time, in front of the cameras.

    In short

    Where this sits on your Winning Kite

    Conflict Management is Trait #20 in the Relationship Management cluster on the EQ — left — side of your Winning Kite (KITE Leadership Framework). It sits right after Political Awareness, Influence and Communication — because those three skills build the relationship, and Conflict Management is what protects that relationship the day things get tense. A kite with a strong EQ side but no conflict management skill tears the moment the wind changes direction. Jaishankar's exchange with Baerbock is one of the cleanest real-world demonstrations of this trait I have seen — not because he "won" an argument, but because he handled a live, public, high-stakes disagreement without damaging the relationship it was embedded in.

    The setting: a question no minister wants asked on camera

    By mid-2022, the Russia-Ukraine war had reshaped global energy markets overnight. Russian crude, suddenly shunned by much of the West, was available to buyers like India at a steep discount. India took the offer — and India's oil imports from Russia jumped from a negligible share to a significant chunk of its crude basket within months.

    This did not go unnoticed. Western governments, many of which had imposed sanctions on Russia and were urging allies to isolate Moscow economically, watched India's oil-buying spree with visible discomfort. It raised an uncomfortable question for Indian diplomacy: how do you defend a decision that looks, on the surface, like undermining a moral and strategic position your partners have taken — without either capitulating to the pressure or torching the relationship?

    That question landed, directly and publicly, at Jaishankar's feet in his meetings with German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. Germany — a country central to the European response to the war, and a country that itself had deep historical dependence on Russian gas — was among the voices pressing India to explain, if not reconsider, its energy choices.

    The move: neither confrontation nor capitulation

    Here is where most people, under that kind of public pressure, pick one of two bad options. Option one: get defensive, deflect, or dismiss the question — which reads as evasive and weak. Option two: cave to the pressure and promise to change course just to make the discomfort go away — which reads as being pushed around, and sets a precedent that you fold under scrutiny.

    Jaishankar did neither. He named the disagreement openly instead of pretending it wasn't there. He defended India's oil imports directly — he did not hide behind vague diplomatic language. And in the same breath, he pointed to a fact that reframed the entire conversation: Europe itself was buying substantial quantities of Russian energy, often far more in absolute terms than India was. He wasn't scoring a "gotcha" point for its own sake — he was establishing that the standard being applied to India needed to be applied evenly, and that energy security is a universal national concern, not a uniquely Indian moral failing.

    Alongside this, he made a case rooted in India's own circumstances — a large, energy-hungry, developing economy with a legitimate need to secure affordable fuel for its people, rather than pay a premium to satisfy someone else's foreign-policy optics. And crucially, he didn't stop at defence. He pivoted toward the shared interest: the importance of India and Europe understanding each other's energy needs and priorities, and working together toward mutually beneficial solutions rather than treating this as a zero-sum standoff.

    That is conflict management in its purest form. Not avoidance. Not aggression. A direct, fact-based defence of a position, delivered with enough respect for the other side's concern that the relationship stayed intact — and in many tellings of this exchange, actually came away stronger, because both sides had been heard.

    Why this is harder than it looks

    I have sat across the table from senior managers — general managers, plant heads, HR directors — who could give a brilliant PowerPoint presentation but completely lost composure the moment a client or a boss challenged them directly in a meeting. The instinct in that moment is almost always emotional: defend the ego first, defend the position second. Jaishankar did the opposite. He defended the position with data and let the ego sit out of the room entirely.

    This is exactly the discipline I describe in the book when I talk about conflict management at work. People with this skill are good at dealing with difficult people and tense situations with tact and diplomacy. They can spot potential problems and bring disagreements into the open in a way that's good for everyone. They help de-escalate the situation and encourage open discussion and debate among the parties involved — instead of letting things fester into resentment or explode into a shouting match.

    Think about how often the opposite happens in Indian corporate life. Two department heads have a running rivalry that quietly poisons every cross-functional meeting, but nobody names it — everyone just works around it, and productivity dies a slow death. A customer complaint escalates because the account manager got defensive on the first call instead of acknowledging the concern. A supplier negotiation turns adversarial because one side treats "different priorities" as "the other side being unreasonable." In every one of these situations, the person who could have managed the conflict chose avoidance or aggression instead of the third option: open, respectful, fact-anchored engagement.

    The three moves, broken down for your next difficult conversation

    You don't need to be a Foreign Minister to use this. Break Jaishankar's approach into three transferable moves for any workplace conflict — a hard conversation with your boss, a tense client call, or a negotiation with a difficult vendor.

    1. Name the disagreement instead of dancing around it

    Jaishankar didn't pretend the oil-imports question wasn't controversial. He addressed it head-on. In your world, this means: when a client is unhappy with a delivery timeline, don't bury the issue in vague reassurance — say plainly, "I understand this is a real concern, and I want to address it directly." Naming the tension takes the air out of it. Avoidance, by contrast, lets it grow.

    2. Stay factual, not defensive

    Jaishankar's strongest card was data — India's energy needs, per-capita consumption, and Europe's own Russian energy purchases. He didn't say "you're wrong to ask this." He said, in effect, "here are the facts, and here's why this decision makes sense given them." In a salary negotiation or a performance-review disagreement, this is the difference between "that's not fair" (defensive, emotional) and "here is the data on what comparable roles are paying, and here is what I delivered this year" (factual, persuasive).

    3. Reframe toward the shared goal

    This is the move most people skip entirely. Jaishankar didn't end the conversation having "won" — he ended it by pointing toward India and Europe working together on energy security, a goal both sides actually share. In a workplace conflict, this looks like: after you've stated your position clearly, ask "what does a good outcome look like for both of us here?" It shifts the frame from adversaries to collaborators solving a shared problem — which is, not coincidentally, also the Collaborating style on the Thomas-Kilmann conflict grid shown above, generally the most sustainable of the five conflict-resolution styles for relationships you need to protect long-term.

    The larger lesson: composure is a competitive advantage

    Daniel Goleman's research on emotional intelligence has long pointed to self-regulation as the foundation that makes every other EQ competency possible — you cannot manage a conflict well if you cannot first manage your own reaction to it. Jaishankar's Baerbock exchange is a live demonstration of that principle at the highest possible stakes: a live camera, a genuinely uncomfortable question, a partner country applying real pressure — and a response that stayed composed, factual, and relationship-preserving throughout.

    That composure isn't a personality trait some people are born with and others aren't. It's a trained skill, exactly like every other trait on the Winning Kite. I have watched shop-floor supervisors and mid-level managers build this same muscle in a matter of months, once they understand that conflict management isn't about winning the argument — it's about protecting the relationship while still standing your ground on the substance.

    India's broader diplomatic posture during this period — buying oil where it made economic sense, while continuing to engage constructively with Western partners on the war itself — reflects the same underlying discipline you saw in the Jaishankar-Baerbock exchange, applied at a national scale: hold your position, respect the other side's concern, and keep looking for the shared ground.

    Bringing it back to your team

    The next time you're in a meeting where tension is rising — a teammate challenging your decision in front of others, a client pushing back hard on a deliverable, two of your own reports locked in a turf battle — resist the two easy exits. Don't go quiet and let it fester. Don't get loud and win the moment while losing the relationship. Name it, back your position with facts, and steer the conversation toward what both sides actually need. That's not diplomacy reserved for foreign ministries. That's Trait #20 on your Winning Kite, and it is available to you starting with your very next difficult conversation.

    If you want to build this skill systematically across your leadership team, explore our Signature Corporate Training Programs or browse the full set of corporate training topics we run for organisations across India.

    Bring These Ideas to Your Team

    Avinash Chate turns the traits in Stars at India Inc. into live leadership & emotional-intelligence workshops. TEDx speaker · 11+ yrs training Army, BRO, RBI, BARC, JSW & 1000+ leaders.

    ✅ Thanks! Avinash team will reach out within 24 hours.

    '}).catch(function(e){f.outerHTML='

    Something went wrong. WhatsApp +91 8793630001

    '});return false;">Select ServiceKeynote / Motivational SpeakingLeadership Development TrainingTeam Building WorkshopManager DevelopmentEmployee TrainingBook Avinash Now →

    Or WhatsApp directly: +91 87936 30001

    Work with Avinash Chate

    Avinash Chate

    TEDx Speaker · Founder, The Future Corporate · Author of Stars at India Inc.

    Avinash has trained the Indian Army, BRO, RBI, BARC, JSW Steel and 1000+ corporate leaders across India. His work focuses on leadership, emotional intelligence and behavioural training rooted in Indian values and modern business needs.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What did S. Jaishankar actually say to Annalena Baerbock about Russian oil?

    Jaishankar defended India's continued purchase of discounted Russian crude by pointing out that Europe itself was buying Russian energy in far larger volumes, and that India's per-capita energy consumption and economic needs made diversified, affordable sourcing a matter of national interest rather than moral compromise. He said it calmly, backed by data, without attacking Germany's position.

    Why is this considered good conflict management and not just clever diplomacy?

    Because Jaishankar did the three things conflict management actually requires: he named the disagreement openly instead of dodging it, he stayed factual and non-defensive under a public challenge, and he reframed the conversation toward a shared goal — India and Europe's mutual energy security — instead of a win-lose argument. That is the same discipline any manager needs in a hard conversation at work.

    How does this connect to Avinash Chate's Winning Kite framework?

    Conflict Management is Trait #20 on the Emotional Intelligence (EQ) — left — side of the Winning Kite, under the Relationship Management cluster. It sits alongside Political Awareness, Influence and Communication. Without it, even technically brilliant leaders lose trust the moment tension appears.

    What is one technique from this example I can use in my next difficult meeting?

    Separate the position from the person. Jaishankar never made the conversation about Baerbock; he made it about facts, numbers and mutual interest. In your next disagreement with a boss, client or colleague, state your position with data, acknowledge their concern as legitimate, and point to the shared outcome you both want — before you defend yourself.

    Related Articles by Avinash Chate

    Avinash Chate services

    Corporate Training · Leadership Development · Team Building · Motivational Speaking · All service locations

    ← Back to all articles · Book Avinash Chate

    By Avinash Chate — Maharashtra’s #1 Corporate Trainer & Motivational Speaker. .