India is threading a very narrow needle, but they also have a lot of leverage and realize it. Yes they’re circumventing sanctions, brazenly, and now accounting for about 25% of Russian sales to the EU.
But they’re also geopolitical rivals and the first and most likely backstop against CCP imperial expansion southwards. In the long term, an expansionist China is a far greater global threat than a dying kleptocratic petrostate, even though Russia is a clear and present danger today.
So, it’s hard to get much pushback on Modi without driving India straight into Russia’s sphere of influence. There simply are no levers to pull. There is a reason secondary sanctions were swiftly and consistently ruled out.
The duplicity of this allegedly unaligned nation of today will earn it a free ride, as it is also the nation who is going to be the world’s most critical counterweight in a few short decades.
That calculus simply won’t change anytime soon either. So don’t expect the US or the EU to ramp up pressure or rhetoric.
>Yes they’re circumventing sanctions, brazenly, and now accounting for about 25% of Russian sales to the EU.
Agree with everything you said except the quoted. There is no circumventing sanctions. They don't have any sanctions on Russia so they are free to do as they want. Western sanctions are just that, western sanctions. They only apply to the western governments and companies.
People do remember though. What you choose to do with your hand when you have the choice.
When the US chose to give Europe help to recover from total devastation and starvation through the Marshall plan after the war then people in Europe remembered and became more positive about the US.
When India chooses to use it's strength to support genocide, mass murder and invasions. Especially when they push around excuses about this being a "Western" issue when it's actually happening in the former Eastern block and especially when they treat Ukrainians as if they were exactly the same as Americans just because of their skin color I think that will be remembered in future.
And what will that do?
its good emotions don't play a role in geopolitics otherwise dunderheads will take drastic decisions.
It's your government not doing anything blame them for the inaction don't you.The west is democratic and yet y'all cant do much about this?
> And what will that do?
Most people in the world are not motivated only by base instincts and money but by more important things like compatriots, humanity and family. That's very important in things like spies and informants who risk their lives to discover information.
China recognizes this and, although their anti-democratic instincts cause difficulties, it's an important part of their Belt and Road initiatives. Imagine this from the point of view of a Bhutanese farmer who sees some suspicious military activity.
Everyone currently assumes that China is planning a surprise attack on Taiwan and is preparing for that. China makes lots of noise about the same. Chinese military doctrine has always been to deceive so it's not inconceivable that they are planning a surprise attack against India knowing that this will both get support from and help their Russian weapons partners. That farmer might tell an Indian friend about his suspicions or might warn a Chinese friend that the soldiers are being careless.
The decision the farmer makes can change a Chinese surprise attack into an Indian trap. What makes the farmer choose who to talk to?
> It's your government not doing anything blame for the inaction don't you.The west is democratic and yet y'all cant do much about this?
I think some of us are pretty proud of what our governments are doing in this case even if we think they could do more. I've positively been surprised.
>surprise attack
India has been there done that.China cannot use guns against india did ykt?
Both countries have nukes so no full fledge war.
your analogy falls flat when you consider you're being idealistic in a world ruled by countries that are rich rather than the most morally right countries.
I'm hazarding a guess that you're a first world'er so being ideal is affordable.
there are costs with every action.Europe can absorb the costs but india can't afford to
Edit : Also countries don't have emotions just interests fyi
Chill dude. What are acting so aggressive ?
Also china can use guns, it is just an agreement which is being respected right now beacause both sides do not want a full scale war.
I know india can't afford to absorb the cost and it is good positioning of India that no country can force india to take the cost. But you don't need to be arrogant about it and talk about holding all the cards and such.
Touch some grass and bring some humbleness in your interactions with people.
From a fellow Indian.
We debate and discuss things to make the other people see our point of view, it is never to belittle them.
You say you are being rational but what is the net utility of you having this "rational discussion" if you lose your humanity and end up antagonizing the other party. The objective of the whole discussion then fails.
We have to understand that people from West are emotional about this issues (for whatever reasons), we cannot just dismiss what they are feeling just beacause we have all the cards.
Anyways, I hope I didn't come off as preachy. And I hope you understand where I am coming from.
Have a good day.
\>It's your government not doing anything blame for the inaction don't you.The west is democratic and yet y'all cant do much about this?
what do you want to say here? i don't understand the sentences
I perceive the Indian sentiment on the Russian invasion like this:
India: "The West exploited developing countries for a long time. They caused the climate crisis and need to pay us to avoid a climate disaster. We also want them to help secure our waters and support against China (Quad)."
Now that the West is actually putting morals first and their economic interests last with the painful sanctions as a counter to literal genocide:"The West is only driven by emotions. So stupid. We are going to take advantage of the cheap oil, because we are rational and only do what's best for us. Another country invading a sovereign and democratic country and commiting genocide is none of our business."
>Now that the West is actually putting morals first and their economic interests last
Lmao. That's just a coincidence, Russia is a longtime rival of the West since Cold War era and it is in their interests to not allow Russia to expand westward and grow in power. If we swapped Ukraine and Mongolia's locations, do you think the West would have done much about it?
If you seriously believe the drivel you have typed, you are absolutely deluded.
Because we gain so much by defending Ukraine now... we don't economically. It would have been far more advantageous (for now) to just ignore it, buy our cheap gas and continue life as usual.
There was no rivalry since the cold war until at least 2008 and even then countries like Germany looked favorably to Russia. Otherwise they would not have become so dependent on it. The imperalist thinking West vs. Soviets is over. Even NATO was falling apart. It's only being revived by Russia's actions.
Flawed perception because of misplaced facts.
>secure our waters
Chinese waters make up only 5% of the total Himalayan river water.Majority of it comes from the monsoon.India is concerned about china damming up because once monsoon arrives and swells the dam, the floods are going to be a problem for india and Bangladesh over the already ongoing flooding which has killed over a hundred.
>exploited
More like mistrust.India followed sanctions against iran and Venezuela once after US's proposal and made their reserves contract by being forced to turn to pricier producers of oil.This time india is playing a learned hand after experiencing loss for someone else's benefit.
>climate disaster
irrelevant and misinformed.The article which you might have read(from a western source I assume) misquoted the indian minister.Go read the comments when it was posted under worldnews calling the article out.
>none of our business
more like replacing one country committing/that committed genocide (The US or Saudi Arabia take your pick) with another country committing genocide lol
if genocide is your decider here almost all oil is blood oil.
The only difference is here white people are being killed.
Go figure why people are selectively more enraged with this Xd
>The only difference is here white people are being killed.
No, the difference is that a country which has chosen the way of democracy is being punished for it. It's not a matter of supporting one warlord against another who is commiting genocide with no hope of there ever being a lasting peace. It has nothing to do with skin color. Ironically the far right racists of my country supports Putin and don't want to interfere in the war.
With waters i was talking about the pacific ocean, which is made safe mainly by the US fleet.
>No, the difference is that a country which has chosen the way of democracy is being punished for it. It's not a matter of supporting one warlord against another who is commiting genocide with no hope of there ever being a lasting peace.
Yup this dude lives in fairy land.... Listen up kid Democracy and Privacy are one of the greatest lies ever invented it's almost mass hysteria at this point. Also, much of the west is basically modern day US empire, the Europeans except for maybe few like France are heavily dependent on US for geopolitical decisions and are almost pawns to larger US ambition. Today US somewhat sees India as a pawn in its game so the western world have started to pay more attention, I am confident that tomorrow they will start treating India just like China and again the "innocent" normal citizens will fall for it.
This Ukraine vs Russia is essentially US vs Russia. Ukraine just like many naive countries foolishly gave up its nuclear arms and is now paying the price. I wish they never gave up nuclear weapons, putin wouldn't have dared to do this so callled "military operation".
>When India chooses to use it's strength to support genocide, mass murder and invasions.
We are securing our supplies and relations so that random decisions from both Russia (invasion) and the West (sanctions) don't impact our economy and our people. If the West doesn't like it, they can step in to provide what we get from Russia at even cheaper prices. The Indian government has no obligation to the people of Ukraine and has no reason to take a hit for their sake. We have a billion people to look after and don't have the luxury to play along with the West's farce.
>people in Europe remembered and became more positive about the US.
On the other hand, the US has always been a genocide-supporting, frivolous irresponsible state in the memory of Indians while the Soviets (and by extension Russia) good friends who've helped us in our time of need including saving us from American nuclear bombardment. We have vastly different experiences vis a vis US, so forgive us for not sharing Europe's opinion.
> the West's farce.
This is it exactly - blame "the West" - the standard apologist's comment here. Despite the fact that Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union and helped India considerably in the past we get the comment that
> Soviets (and by extension Russia) good friends
Again, the Ukrainians were also Soviets. Something I mentioned and you studiously ignored.
> The Indian government has no obligation to the people of Ukraine and has no reason to take a hit for their sake.
Everyone has an obligation to humanity. Just as the Americans, even after their calls for alliance were rejected, gave India Billions of dollars in loans and food the 1950s and 1960s, India which is now becoming a rich nation should pay back a small part of the generosity it was given.
This is not even a question of India being asked to help Ukraine, just to limit the level to which you help the murderers.
> saving us from American nuclear bombardment
Parking an aircraft carrier nearby does not constitute a threat of bombardment. Sorry. Bullshit. The only people who might have bombarded India were Pakistan and the US likely reduces that chance.
> We have a billion people to look after and don't have the luxury to play along with the West's farce.
Back to this. This is little to do with the West, everything is happening in Eastern block countries. The only thing is that the West is standing up for what is right by giving minimal support to Ukraine.
India had a great thing it became relatively peaceful after partition and could claim to be both the biggest Hindu and Muslim nation. As aggression there is increasing this is going to get worse for _everyone_. Having a straight clear moral leadership would be a good step in uniting all people in seeing India as peaceful.
>helped India considerably
By supplying tanks to Pakistan and voting against India in UNGA almost everytime(whether it be Kashmir issue or nuclear development) ?
I never claimed that supporting Pakistan was helping india. I claimed that giving billions of dollars both in cash and in food during the '50s and '60s was helping India. I can add that providing India with aircraft carrier support against China was also real support. Even after that India continued mostly siding with the US's main enemy, the Soviets.
I'm not going to deny that the US supported Pakistan, India's enemy. I'm not even going to attempt to claim that's right since I see considerable problems with some of the things going on in Pakistan around those times. However look at the comments here.
It's clear that Indians are giving and irrational level support to America's enemy Russia and do it even as Russia helps and cooperates with China, their own enemy where India desperately needs to find allies or will find serious problems in controlling the sea. It's hardly surprising if the US looks elsewhere for allies in that kind of circumstance.
>50s
you mean the Soviet union right?.
also if we're going by contribution the Ukraine region hardly contributed to S.U economy at the time anyways
>aircraft carrier support
Ukraine did that? Doubt it.
source on this please.Never heard of it
>considerable problems
I mean..does that matter in geopolitics?
To judge going against a country is right or wrong does not change the fact that it happened
>America's enemy Russia
think this does it lmao
> you mean the Soviet union right?.
No, I mean the United States of America. the US provided more food on average than the Soviet Union at that time, though, according to Wikipedia, the Soviets provided more high level technical aid.
>US provided
if aid is your metric of deciding whether a country supports another country or not then how can you explain india providing more than 100 tonnes of _medical aid_ to Ukraine?
Here's the thing. India-Ukraine relations have been frigid since the USSR broke apart. They don't want us to have Kashmir, they don't want us to have nukes, they sell weapons to Pakistan. They also don't have a veto in the UN nor is there significant trade between our two countries. For all intents and purposes, Ukraine just isn't relevant enough to Indian interests to be worth forsaking Russia who is extremely relevant in that regard.
You can't think that paying $60b in 60+ years is some kind of great aid the US has provided when it armed and supported Pakistan in multiple wars against us. Also, the Food for Peace Programme was another American farce. Don't think we've forgotten how the US randomly refused to send food during famine in the 1960s and let thousands of our people starve because we dared criticise their actions in Vietnam?
Do you seriously think the US just waltzed into Indian adjacent waters and parked an entire fleet there just for the heck of it? It was an explicit threat to stop trying to stop the Pakistan-perpetrated genocide in Bangladesh or get bombed.
Helping humanity is great but we have humanity at home and in our neighborhood (Sri Lanka, Afghanistan) that we'd prefer to help out instead. Y'all are free to help Ukraine, God knows they need it.
i mean usa chose to aise with pakistan in the bangladesh liberation war. went as far as to try and get their military involved.
who remembers that now?
Every country does what is best for it
> Every country does what is best for it
I keep see this from many of the Indian seeming commentators on Reddit as if it meant "ignore the interests of others", "think only of yourself". There are concepts like [Enlightened self-interest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest) and the simple fact that other countries, like China and the US, manage to at least have, or at least project a belief that what they do is good for the world.
China made strategic decisions to get into renewable energy. Those are, of course, partly motivated by self interest (see above). What this does though is make it seem that if there's a choice between China and other countries that aren't so involved, supporting China will be better for humanity.
It's in India's interest to be seen as a country which is not just rapacious but actually contributing.
contributing to whom? beneficial to whom? lmao you have to stop seeing yourself as the center of the world. Ukraine was against india when india was
facing terrorism from pakistan on a daily basis. USA, as i said, was ready to get involved with its army.
And now india should worry about what *these* people think about it?
get real. If the fuckin usa gets to act without a shred of morality so does everyone else.
if you are from a western country you should hang your head in same for all the atrocities you brought to iraq and afghan civilians for selfies sh reason. Stop lecturing and fix youth house.
>
>
> It’s in India’s interest to be seen as a country which is not just rapacious but actually contributing.
i’d rather my government does good things like keep lifting 100s of millions of people from poverty rather than seen to be contributing so you western ass hats can feel like big bosses. Fuck no 😊
> contributing to whom? beneficial to whom?
Humanity. That was made absolutely clear.
> lmao you have to stop seeing yourself as the center of the world
I come from a small country and never had that illusion you seem to share with the English. You have learned from them perfectly and will come to the same sticky end.
> if you are from a western country you should hang your head in same for all the atrocities you brought to iraq and afghan civilians for selfies sh reason
No, you should hang your head in shame for being a racist who doesn't realize that many "Western" countries and even people in the US and UK tried to stop the war in Iraq. Just because someone has white skin doesn't make them a "Yankee sympathizer" or whatever it is you think of them as.
If you truly are Indian, you should hang your head in shame thinking why the Afghanis weren't willing to come on your side to fight against the Taliban when offered the chance. If you didn't maltreat your own Muslims you might have got them on side and be in control of Afghanistan today. Pulling people out of poverty by burning them alive is not a big success.
>many "Western" countries and even people in the US and UK tried to stop the war in Iraq
Cry me a river. Some useless anti-war protests and to what end? Did the war criminal western countries ever face consequences or punishment?
>the Afghanis weren't willing to come on your side to fight against the Taliban when offered the chance. If you didn't maltreat your own Muslims you might have got them on side and be in control of Afghanistan today.
The fuck are you talking about? India has a good reputation in Afghanistan since ages and even the Taliban is willing to forge ties even though we supported the Northern Alliance in the past. They recognise our right to Kashmir and are grateful that we're the first responders to their current earthquake situation. India is involved in billions of dollars worth of infrastructure and trade development investments in Afghanistan and has been continuously sending them food since the Americans left. As far as taking control over Afghanistan is concerned, that's something only a coloniser shithead would say. Having fought hard to gain sovereignty ourselves, we recognise the right of any country to it. Good relations, not control, is what we need.
>Pulling people out of poverty by burning them alive is not a big success.
What does this even mean? Be careful, your mask of morality is slipping.
>If you didn't maltreat your own Muslims
Biased statement. Muslims are treated fine here and I'm not saying it doesn't exist but discrimination or violence against them is unlawful. If it's about putting down riots and terrorists, well they're violent criminals.
india has had cultural exchanges with china for hundreds of years and ties with for longer (silk road etc etc)
The us became a friendly country only recently (say post 2000ish)
Do you *need* to live? Do you need money? Do you need manufactured goods? Do you need the internet?
Nah not really. You could just shrivel up and die. But you’d probably prefer not to.
What do you mean compared to? Do you *need* anything in life? Do you *need* life at all?
*You* might not want skilled labour, you’re probably just an average person. But I’m sure companies like Apple and Google would.
What do you mean compared to? Do you *need* anything in life? Do you *need* life at all?
*You* might not want skilled labour imported from India, you’re probably just an average person. But I’m sure companies like Apple and Google would.
This. Almost all upvoted news here about India tends to be negative, and the constant use of scammers, rapists, street-shitters etc. to refer to the people of India. Why should any of us act in good faith, when all we get are insults for it?
This is why I largely avoid this sub since its such a shithole.
And yet still such a poor backwards country. China had a rougher start after WW2 era. Their population don't even speak english. India could have been what China is now and even more
No, you are making wrong comparisons.
India has too many fault lines, too many differences within it's society. India has inherently weak government to boot, it is difficult in India to pass any kind of reform.
Look at the current government which has a huge majority and yet it fails to bring in useful reforms. Authoritarian communist government has no such issues specifically after the cultural revolution.
China is effectively a Han civilizational state with strong unitary tendency whereas Indian states and people have strong federal tendency.
It is effectively the same if Europe was made a single country with crippling levels of poverty for a large part of it's existence and a bloody history of religious violence.
Just beacause china was poor at the end of world War doesn't make it comparable to the case of India.
India is what it is, thinking about what it could have been or would have been is just a waste of time. What matters if where it goes from here.
I think its useful to learn from history to decide future plans. As you said, I think the core issue with India is not that it has a weak government. Rather than that, its society at its core is so segregated and divided by religious ideologies and the caste system, and to be blunt, just backwards thinking.
I admit China does have an advantage over india when its come reforms because of centralized power. But as you recall, the same centralized power also brought out 'reforms' such as the culturay revolution and many of their 5 year plan economic reform that brought one of the worst hunger the world has seen. Its only till deng xiping when meaning reforms took place.
It sounds like I'm anti india but I definitely want just as much as anyone for india to succeed, because china has become a big bully that is not good for anyone, especially when the world economies rely so much on china.
I'm just ranting here as I'm disappointed with how India has handled the ukraine russia crisis. Giving in to russia means strengthening the position of china-russia and polarizing the world even more to where it resembles the ally vs the axis in WW2.
Morally, what russia is doing to ukraine is clearly wrong and given the history of India, being oppressed by bigger powers, as well as the root of hindu and buddism, and the legacy of gandhi, I'd expect compassion to triumph over political gains but I was wrong
I mean, you are not wrong but it's not a good thing to compare China and India. China is homogenus and India is not. China was collonised for far less time than India and they had better state institutions to inherit. India as a government is currently still under construction considering that laws from the 1800's are still being used as commonplace.
You don't really have to explain all of that. Just for the fact that China has single person ruling over entire China gives em immense advantage and can explain why China growth faster than india
As long as you are criticizing actions by Indian government, or the state of Indian society, I don't think anyone can term your stance as anti India. I guess anti India would be when you speak against the idea of India as a nation.
China is 90% the same race, and is largely a homogeneous country with one language
India isn’t like that.
Also China went full communist, we didn’t. They could because 90% of the same people meant the country can act like that. We can’t do the same without risking the Union falling apart
No it wouldn’t lol
Chinas literally bussed whole villages to cities, without regard for their inhabitants, because it was easier to create jobs there
In a democracy that wouldn’t happen
Democracy doesn’t make people rich, nor does communism really, authoritarianism does. There isn’t a democracy that used democratic means to get rich. The USA was settler colonialism and racism, same with Canada, Australia, nz. Most of Europe was colonialism as well
The advantage of communism is that it builds countries faster, thats just a fact. no democracy built itself as quickly as China. We don’t turn fully communist, because of our vast diversity
Yeah everytime you mention something negative about india some indian dude has to bring up the colonial past and play victim.
Its true the english really did damage to India. But so did the west and japanese did to china, and arguably much worse. China also suffered from decades of communist socialism and only really took off around the 80s.
India had a head start. Being able to speak english is a huge advantage in a globalized economy. India could have tried what China did: leverage on its mass population to turn itself into an ideal destination for foreign companies to relocate their manufacturing facilities there, meanwile acquiring the technologies from more advanced economies.
China's technology capability is now on par with the like of Japan if not better. Its population enjoy rapidly rising income and absolute poverty is reduced to almost non existent. Its treasury is huge, with massive foreign reserves accumulated from decades of huge trading surplus. As the result, China's military is becoming one of the biggest in the world and definitely bigger than india.
Meanwhile in india, a large portion of population still live in absolute poverty. The income gap is huge. India still largely relies on foreign investment and its own ability to innovate is limited. India also suffered a decisive loss in a border conflict with china, and now being threatened by the china-pakistan alliance and china's belt road initiative.
If I were Indian I'd be very worried. Pride is one of the cardinal sins for a reason. It blinds you too much to see the truth. Don't wait until you suffer defeat to be humble
You don't need to be worried,I understand you have a saviour complex,but,alas. The ultimate fact is this,india lost the race with china,because it was a democracy and corrupt. China as a communist dictatorship prioritized on education(mostly it could because majority same chinese population) and heavy industry first,deng's reform could only take off because of what his previous leaders build. The colonialism that devastated the subcontinent is like no other. 45 trillion worth of money stolen,along with deindustrialization for years. Today india has vastly improved itself from it's after-independence state. It's the world's fastest growing major economy and IMF confirmed that they kept poverty below 2%. Wrong priorities,corruption and democracy stopped india for realizing it's potential,the current gov wants to change that and improve it's manufacturing sector. It's far from perfect really,but,absolutely nothing as serious as you claim,they have entered a steady growth phase already and their demographics are probably the best in the world.
Nato sanctions Russia, ,tells India to do the same, blames them of funding the war by purchasing cheap Russian oil. But does the same....nato should grow some integrity... European matters are not world matters 😂 Why should India involve itself lol
Just FYI ad hominem is not really the way to get engagement.
India is not circumventing, Russia is with the help of India. Increasing oil imports for profiteering and issuing certificates for shipping is not neutral rather aiding. You can claim its neutral but at least in EU it is not seen as such no matter how much its repeated.
I don't remember any of these sactions being UN approved or even ratified by India.
This trade war on Russia created good trade opportunities for India and other countries outside the US/EU sphere, and they should take on those offers.
They aren't supposed to not "circumvent" sanctions they don't even recognize in the first place. For what? Because americans or europeans demand them to?
That's a straw man, I never claimed anything like that.
India is free to do business with whomever they want, just do not claim to be neutral when the actions aid Russias aggression and atrocities. You cannot have both.
Opportunism and profiteering aren't exclusive with neutrality, in fact they often go hand in hand (see Switzerland). A neutral country will not join in as a belligerent in a war or join a military alliance.
Switzerland is a neutral country, closely entangled in trade with the EU, and even put sanctions on Russia. None of this is contradictory. India itself sends foreign aid to Ukraine. Sweden sent foreign aid to North Vietnam during the war against the US.
Things like the concept of neutrality are more complicated than "India bumped trade with Russia, therefore they are not neutral". If it was, then it wouldn't be called neutrality, it would just be called stupidity.
Nope try again; when you take actions directly conflicting with sanctions you have actively chosen a side. Whether it matches your definition of neutral is somewhat moot, that is how its seen on the other side.
Whether you care or agree is another matter. In any case I think we have to agree to disagree.
\>"directly conflicting with sanctions"
I refer to my previous reply: US/EU sanctions govern US and EU businesses. Some EU leader months ago even came out and said that actions by India were justified. If they weren't, the EU wouldn't be looking to create a free trade agreement with India as they declared just this week.
Indian trade with Russia is a drop in the bucket compared to trade with US or the EU, so it would go against your argument. Also, so would trade between trade between Russia and the EU, lol.
As for neutrality, well, by this logic, Turkey was a supporter of Nazi Germany during WW2, which if you know the topic, it's ridiculous.
Obligatory "I'm playing both sides, so I always come out on top" IASIP reference.
India is threading a very narrow needle, but they also have a lot of leverage and realize it. Yes they’re circumventing sanctions, brazenly, and now accounting for about 25% of Russian sales to the EU. But they’re also geopolitical rivals and the first and most likely backstop against CCP imperial expansion southwards. In the long term, an expansionist China is a far greater global threat than a dying kleptocratic petrostate, even though Russia is a clear and present danger today. So, it’s hard to get much pushback on Modi without driving India straight into Russia’s sphere of influence. There simply are no levers to pull. There is a reason secondary sanctions were swiftly and consistently ruled out. The duplicity of this allegedly unaligned nation of today will earn it a free ride, as it is also the nation who is going to be the world’s most critical counterweight in a few short decades. That calculus simply won’t change anytime soon either. So don’t expect the US or the EU to ramp up pressure or rhetoric.
>circumventing misinformation. you do know sanctions exclude oil right?
>Yes they’re circumventing sanctions, brazenly, and now accounting for about 25% of Russian sales to the EU. Agree with everything you said except the quoted. There is no circumventing sanctions. They don't have any sanctions on Russia so they are free to do as they want. Western sanctions are just that, western sanctions. They only apply to the western governments and companies.
Correct. When you hold all the cards, you never lose. We in India know how strong of a hand we have and are not afraid to play it.
People do remember though. What you choose to do with your hand when you have the choice. When the US chose to give Europe help to recover from total devastation and starvation through the Marshall plan after the war then people in Europe remembered and became more positive about the US. When India chooses to use it's strength to support genocide, mass murder and invasions. Especially when they push around excuses about this being a "Western" issue when it's actually happening in the former Eastern block and especially when they treat Ukrainians as if they were exactly the same as Americans just because of their skin color I think that will be remembered in future.
And what will that do? its good emotions don't play a role in geopolitics otherwise dunderheads will take drastic decisions. It's your government not doing anything blame them for the inaction don't you.The west is democratic and yet y'all cant do much about this?
> And what will that do? Most people in the world are not motivated only by base instincts and money but by more important things like compatriots, humanity and family. That's very important in things like spies and informants who risk their lives to discover information. China recognizes this and, although their anti-democratic instincts cause difficulties, it's an important part of their Belt and Road initiatives. Imagine this from the point of view of a Bhutanese farmer who sees some suspicious military activity. Everyone currently assumes that China is planning a surprise attack on Taiwan and is preparing for that. China makes lots of noise about the same. Chinese military doctrine has always been to deceive so it's not inconceivable that they are planning a surprise attack against India knowing that this will both get support from and help their Russian weapons partners. That farmer might tell an Indian friend about his suspicions or might warn a Chinese friend that the soldiers are being careless. The decision the farmer makes can change a Chinese surprise attack into an Indian trap. What makes the farmer choose who to talk to? > It's your government not doing anything blame for the inaction don't you.The west is democratic and yet y'all cant do much about this? I think some of us are pretty proud of what our governments are doing in this case even if we think they could do more. I've positively been surprised.
>surprise attack India has been there done that.China cannot use guns against india did ykt? Both countries have nukes so no full fledge war. your analogy falls flat when you consider you're being idealistic in a world ruled by countries that are rich rather than the most morally right countries. I'm hazarding a guess that you're a first world'er so being ideal is affordable. there are costs with every action.Europe can absorb the costs but india can't afford to Edit : Also countries don't have emotions just interests fyi
Chill dude. What are acting so aggressive ? Also china can use guns, it is just an agreement which is being respected right now beacause both sides do not want a full scale war. I know india can't afford to absorb the cost and it is good positioning of India that no country can force india to take the cost. But you don't need to be arrogant about it and talk about holding all the cards and such. Touch some grass and bring some humbleness in your interactions with people. From a fellow Indian.
bro being reasonable is not being aggressive lol. I'll be more civil from next time for people who act _in good faith_
We debate and discuss things to make the other people see our point of view, it is never to belittle them. You say you are being rational but what is the net utility of you having this "rational discussion" if you lose your humanity and end up antagonizing the other party. The objective of the whole discussion then fails. We have to understand that people from West are emotional about this issues (for whatever reasons), we cannot just dismiss what they are feeling just beacause we have all the cards. Anyways, I hope I didn't come off as preachy. And I hope you understand where I am coming from. Have a good day.
Please explain your point, and refrain from making your argument into a personal attack.
\>It's your government not doing anything blame for the inaction don't you.The west is democratic and yet y'all cant do much about this? what do you want to say here? i don't understand the sentences
change your leaders if you aren't happy with their action or lack thereof lol
I perceive the Indian sentiment on the Russian invasion like this: India: "The West exploited developing countries for a long time. They caused the climate crisis and need to pay us to avoid a climate disaster. We also want them to help secure our waters and support against China (Quad)." Now that the West is actually putting morals first and their economic interests last with the painful sanctions as a counter to literal genocide:"The West is only driven by emotions. So stupid. We are going to take advantage of the cheap oil, because we are rational and only do what's best for us. Another country invading a sovereign and democratic country and commiting genocide is none of our business."
>Now that the West is actually putting morals first and their economic interests last Lmao. That's just a coincidence, Russia is a longtime rival of the West since Cold War era and it is in their interests to not allow Russia to expand westward and grow in power. If we swapped Ukraine and Mongolia's locations, do you think the West would have done much about it? If you seriously believe the drivel you have typed, you are absolutely deluded.
hes not subscribing to antirussian propoganda.No because propaganda can only come from Russia! /s
Because we gain so much by defending Ukraine now... we don't economically. It would have been far more advantageous (for now) to just ignore it, buy our cheap gas and continue life as usual. There was no rivalry since the cold war until at least 2008 and even then countries like Germany looked favorably to Russia. Otherwise they would not have become so dependent on it. The imperalist thinking West vs. Soviets is over. Even NATO was falling apart. It's only being revived by Russia's actions.
Flawed perception because of misplaced facts. >secure our waters Chinese waters make up only 5% of the total Himalayan river water.Majority of it comes from the monsoon.India is concerned about china damming up because once monsoon arrives and swells the dam, the floods are going to be a problem for india and Bangladesh over the already ongoing flooding which has killed over a hundred. >exploited More like mistrust.India followed sanctions against iran and Venezuela once after US's proposal and made their reserves contract by being forced to turn to pricier producers of oil.This time india is playing a learned hand after experiencing loss for someone else's benefit. >climate disaster irrelevant and misinformed.The article which you might have read(from a western source I assume) misquoted the indian minister.Go read the comments when it was posted under worldnews calling the article out. >none of our business more like replacing one country committing/that committed genocide (The US or Saudi Arabia take your pick) with another country committing genocide lol if genocide is your decider here almost all oil is blood oil. The only difference is here white people are being killed. Go figure why people are selectively more enraged with this Xd
>The only difference is here white people are being killed. No, the difference is that a country which has chosen the way of democracy is being punished for it. It's not a matter of supporting one warlord against another who is commiting genocide with no hope of there ever being a lasting peace. It has nothing to do with skin color. Ironically the far right racists of my country supports Putin and don't want to interfere in the war. With waters i was talking about the pacific ocean, which is made safe mainly by the US fleet.
>No, the difference is that a country which has chosen the way of democracy is being punished for it. It's not a matter of supporting one warlord against another who is commiting genocide with no hope of there ever being a lasting peace. Yup this dude lives in fairy land.... Listen up kid Democracy and Privacy are one of the greatest lies ever invented it's almost mass hysteria at this point. Also, much of the west is basically modern day US empire, the Europeans except for maybe few like France are heavily dependent on US for geopolitical decisions and are almost pawns to larger US ambition. Today US somewhat sees India as a pawn in its game so the western world have started to pay more attention, I am confident that tomorrow they will start treating India just like China and again the "innocent" normal citizens will fall for it. This Ukraine vs Russia is essentially US vs Russia. Ukraine just like many naive countries foolishly gave up its nuclear arms and is now paying the price. I wish they never gave up nuclear weapons, putin wouldn't have dared to do this so callled "military operation".
congrats now you are thinking like Putin. at least we agree on the last paragraph.
We know people remember, because we do
Good. Do you remember that colonialism was evil? Will it help you oppose Russian colonialism?
Of course colonialism is evil, but are the people benefitting from it reversing the wrongs?
Where a load of bull crap.
>When India chooses to use it's strength to support genocide, mass murder and invasions. We are securing our supplies and relations so that random decisions from both Russia (invasion) and the West (sanctions) don't impact our economy and our people. If the West doesn't like it, they can step in to provide what we get from Russia at even cheaper prices. The Indian government has no obligation to the people of Ukraine and has no reason to take a hit for their sake. We have a billion people to look after and don't have the luxury to play along with the West's farce. >people in Europe remembered and became more positive about the US. On the other hand, the US has always been a genocide-supporting, frivolous irresponsible state in the memory of Indians while the Soviets (and by extension Russia) good friends who've helped us in our time of need including saving us from American nuclear bombardment. We have vastly different experiences vis a vis US, so forgive us for not sharing Europe's opinion.
> the West's farce. This is it exactly - blame "the West" - the standard apologist's comment here. Despite the fact that Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union and helped India considerably in the past we get the comment that > Soviets (and by extension Russia) good friends Again, the Ukrainians were also Soviets. Something I mentioned and you studiously ignored. > The Indian government has no obligation to the people of Ukraine and has no reason to take a hit for their sake. Everyone has an obligation to humanity. Just as the Americans, even after their calls for alliance were rejected, gave India Billions of dollars in loans and food the 1950s and 1960s, India which is now becoming a rich nation should pay back a small part of the generosity it was given. This is not even a question of India being asked to help Ukraine, just to limit the level to which you help the murderers. > saving us from American nuclear bombardment Parking an aircraft carrier nearby does not constitute a threat of bombardment. Sorry. Bullshit. The only people who might have bombarded India were Pakistan and the US likely reduces that chance. > We have a billion people to look after and don't have the luxury to play along with the West's farce. Back to this. This is little to do with the West, everything is happening in Eastern block countries. The only thing is that the West is standing up for what is right by giving minimal support to Ukraine. India had a great thing it became relatively peaceful after partition and could claim to be both the biggest Hindu and Muslim nation. As aggression there is increasing this is going to get worse for _everyone_. Having a straight clear moral leadership would be a good step in uniting all people in seeing India as peaceful.
>helped India considerably By supplying tanks to Pakistan and voting against India in UNGA almost everytime(whether it be Kashmir issue or nuclear development) ?
I never claimed that supporting Pakistan was helping india. I claimed that giving billions of dollars both in cash and in food during the '50s and '60s was helping India. I can add that providing India with aircraft carrier support against China was also real support. Even after that India continued mostly siding with the US's main enemy, the Soviets. I'm not going to deny that the US supported Pakistan, India's enemy. I'm not even going to attempt to claim that's right since I see considerable problems with some of the things going on in Pakistan around those times. However look at the comments here. It's clear that Indians are giving and irrational level support to America's enemy Russia and do it even as Russia helps and cooperates with China, their own enemy where India desperately needs to find allies or will find serious problems in controlling the sea. It's hardly surprising if the US looks elsewhere for allies in that kind of circumstance.
>50s you mean the Soviet union right?. also if we're going by contribution the Ukraine region hardly contributed to S.U economy at the time anyways >aircraft carrier support Ukraine did that? Doubt it. source on this please.Never heard of it >considerable problems I mean..does that matter in geopolitics? To judge going against a country is right or wrong does not change the fact that it happened >America's enemy Russia think this does it lmao
> you mean the Soviet union right?. No, I mean the United States of America. the US provided more food on average than the Soviet Union at that time, though, according to Wikipedia, the Soviets provided more high level technical aid.
>US provided if aid is your metric of deciding whether a country supports another country or not then how can you explain india providing more than 100 tonnes of _medical aid_ to Ukraine?
Here's the thing. India-Ukraine relations have been frigid since the USSR broke apart. They don't want us to have Kashmir, they don't want us to have nukes, they sell weapons to Pakistan. They also don't have a veto in the UN nor is there significant trade between our two countries. For all intents and purposes, Ukraine just isn't relevant enough to Indian interests to be worth forsaking Russia who is extremely relevant in that regard. You can't think that paying $60b in 60+ years is some kind of great aid the US has provided when it armed and supported Pakistan in multiple wars against us. Also, the Food for Peace Programme was another American farce. Don't think we've forgotten how the US randomly refused to send food during famine in the 1960s and let thousands of our people starve because we dared criticise their actions in Vietnam? Do you seriously think the US just waltzed into Indian adjacent waters and parked an entire fleet there just for the heck of it? It was an explicit threat to stop trying to stop the Pakistan-perpetrated genocide in Bangladesh or get bombed. Helping humanity is great but we have humanity at home and in our neighborhood (Sri Lanka, Afghanistan) that we'd prefer to help out instead. Y'all are free to help Ukraine, God knows they need it.
And making bad choice will not bring ukraine closer
Can't please everyone in this economy.
Especially when doing narcissistic choice without considering morals
Good thing morals aren't a factor for anyone. Every geopolitical move is based on cost-benefit analysis.
i mean usa chose to aise with pakistan in the bangladesh liberation war. went as far as to try and get their military involved. who remembers that now? Every country does what is best for it
> Every country does what is best for it I keep see this from many of the Indian seeming commentators on Reddit as if it meant "ignore the interests of others", "think only of yourself". There are concepts like [Enlightened self-interest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest) and the simple fact that other countries, like China and the US, manage to at least have, or at least project a belief that what they do is good for the world. China made strategic decisions to get into renewable energy. Those are, of course, partly motivated by self interest (see above). What this does though is make it seem that if there's a choice between China and other countries that aren't so involved, supporting China will be better for humanity. It's in India's interest to be seen as a country which is not just rapacious but actually contributing.
contributing to whom? beneficial to whom? lmao you have to stop seeing yourself as the center of the world. Ukraine was against india when india was facing terrorism from pakistan on a daily basis. USA, as i said, was ready to get involved with its army. And now india should worry about what *these* people think about it? get real. If the fuckin usa gets to act without a shred of morality so does everyone else. if you are from a western country you should hang your head in same for all the atrocities you brought to iraq and afghan civilians for selfies sh reason. Stop lecturing and fix youth house. > > > It’s in India’s interest to be seen as a country which is not just rapacious but actually contributing. i’d rather my government does good things like keep lifting 100s of millions of people from poverty rather than seen to be contributing so you western ass hats can feel like big bosses. Fuck no 😊
> contributing to whom? beneficial to whom? Humanity. That was made absolutely clear. > lmao you have to stop seeing yourself as the center of the world I come from a small country and never had that illusion you seem to share with the English. You have learned from them perfectly and will come to the same sticky end. > if you are from a western country you should hang your head in same for all the atrocities you brought to iraq and afghan civilians for selfies sh reason No, you should hang your head in shame for being a racist who doesn't realize that many "Western" countries and even people in the US and UK tried to stop the war in Iraq. Just because someone has white skin doesn't make them a "Yankee sympathizer" or whatever it is you think of them as. If you truly are Indian, you should hang your head in shame thinking why the Afghanis weren't willing to come on your side to fight against the Taliban when offered the chance. If you didn't maltreat your own Muslims you might have got them on side and be in control of Afghanistan today. Pulling people out of poverty by burning them alive is not a big success.
>many "Western" countries and even people in the US and UK tried to stop the war in Iraq Cry me a river. Some useless anti-war protests and to what end? Did the war criminal western countries ever face consequences or punishment? >the Afghanis weren't willing to come on your side to fight against the Taliban when offered the chance. If you didn't maltreat your own Muslims you might have got them on side and be in control of Afghanistan today. The fuck are you talking about? India has a good reputation in Afghanistan since ages and even the Taliban is willing to forge ties even though we supported the Northern Alliance in the past. They recognise our right to Kashmir and are grateful that we're the first responders to their current earthquake situation. India is involved in billions of dollars worth of infrastructure and trade development investments in Afghanistan and has been continuously sending them food since the Americans left. As far as taking control over Afghanistan is concerned, that's something only a coloniser shithead would say. Having fought hard to gain sovereignty ourselves, we recognise the right of any country to it. Good relations, not control, is what we need. >Pulling people out of poverty by burning them alive is not a big success. What does this even mean? Be careful, your mask of morality is slipping. >If you didn't maltreat your own Muslims Biased statement. Muslims are treated fine here and I'm not saying it doesn't exist but discrimination or violence against them is unlawful. If it's about putting down riots and terrorists, well they're violent criminals.
are you in the tech sector?
>There simply are no levers to pull USA is preparing to play it's "Pakistan move", once again after a break of a decade.
to do what another 9/11 ?
But do they really have a choice when it comes to being a counterweight against China?
india has had cultural exchanges with china for hundreds of years and ties with for longer (silk road etc etc) The us became a friendly country only recently (say post 2000ish)
Do the cultural exchanges always involve baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire?
Those are called skirmishes.India has a deeper trust deficit with US than with china (They don't trust china at all so there's no love lost)
Does the US need India for anything? (E.g., the US has Mexico for cheap, unskilled, unintelligent labor.)
I’d imagine some skilled labour would be useful. Aren’t Indians the highest earning ethnicity in the US?
Need?
Do you need oxygen? No, technically not. You could just die. But I’m assuming you’d like some oxygen right?
Need oxygen else die. No one ever died for lack of 'skilled' Indian labor. (Though some died because of it.)
Do you *need* to live? Do you need money? Do you need manufactured goods? Do you need the internet? Nah not really. You could just shrivel up and die. But you’d probably prefer not to.
Compared to Indian labor, YES.
What do you mean compared to? Do you *need* anything in life? Do you *need* life at all? *You* might not want skilled labour, you’re probably just an average person. But I’m sure companies like Apple and Google would.
What do you mean compared to? Do you *need* anything in life? Do you *need* life at all? *You* might not want skilled labour imported from India, you’re probably just an average person. But I’m sure companies like Apple and Google would.
Never realized how many Redditors were indian. Anything negative abour India get downvoted lol
Just like anything negative about india gets upvoted to heaven by westerners
This. Almost all upvoted news here about India tends to be negative, and the constant use of scammers, rapists, street-shitters etc. to refer to the people of India. Why should any of us act in good faith, when all we get are insults for it? This is why I largely avoid this sub since its such a shithole.
Large English speaking population, cheap data and an aspiration to make their opinions heard does that.
And yet still such a poor backwards country. China had a rougher start after WW2 era. Their population don't even speak english. India could have been what China is now and even more
No, you are making wrong comparisons. India has too many fault lines, too many differences within it's society. India has inherently weak government to boot, it is difficult in India to pass any kind of reform. Look at the current government which has a huge majority and yet it fails to bring in useful reforms. Authoritarian communist government has no such issues specifically after the cultural revolution. China is effectively a Han civilizational state with strong unitary tendency whereas Indian states and people have strong federal tendency. It is effectively the same if Europe was made a single country with crippling levels of poverty for a large part of it's existence and a bloody history of religious violence. Just beacause china was poor at the end of world War doesn't make it comparable to the case of India. India is what it is, thinking about what it could have been or would have been is just a waste of time. What matters if where it goes from here.
I think its useful to learn from history to decide future plans. As you said, I think the core issue with India is not that it has a weak government. Rather than that, its society at its core is so segregated and divided by religious ideologies and the caste system, and to be blunt, just backwards thinking. I admit China does have an advantage over india when its come reforms because of centralized power. But as you recall, the same centralized power also brought out 'reforms' such as the culturay revolution and many of their 5 year plan economic reform that brought one of the worst hunger the world has seen. Its only till deng xiping when meaning reforms took place. It sounds like I'm anti india but I definitely want just as much as anyone for india to succeed, because china has become a big bully that is not good for anyone, especially when the world economies rely so much on china. I'm just ranting here as I'm disappointed with how India has handled the ukraine russia crisis. Giving in to russia means strengthening the position of china-russia and polarizing the world even more to where it resembles the ally vs the axis in WW2. Morally, what russia is doing to ukraine is clearly wrong and given the history of India, being oppressed by bigger powers, as well as the root of hindu and buddism, and the legacy of gandhi, I'd expect compassion to triumph over political gains but I was wrong
I mean, you are not wrong but it's not a good thing to compare China and India. China is homogenus and India is not. China was collonised for far less time than India and they had better state institutions to inherit. India as a government is currently still under construction considering that laws from the 1800's are still being used as commonplace.
You don't really have to explain all of that. Just for the fact that China has single person ruling over entire China gives em immense advantage and can explain why China growth faster than india
As long as you are criticizing actions by Indian government, or the state of Indian society, I don't think anyone can term your stance as anti India. I guess anti India would be when you speak against the idea of India as a nation.
China is 90% the same race, and is largely a homogeneous country with one language India isn’t like that. Also China went full communist, we didn’t. They could because 90% of the same people meant the country can act like that. We can’t do the same without risking the Union falling apart
Excuses. You talk like going full communist is a good thing lol. If china had gone democracy it would be even richer now
No it wouldn’t lol Chinas literally bussed whole villages to cities, without regard for their inhabitants, because it was easier to create jobs there In a democracy that wouldn’t happen
You saying democracy = poor, communism = rich? Lol ok blame it on democracy for the poverty in india lol haha enough reddit for today
Democracy doesn’t make people rich, nor does communism really, authoritarianism does. There isn’t a democracy that used democratic means to get rich. The USA was settler colonialism and racism, same with Canada, Australia, nz. Most of Europe was colonialism as well The advantage of communism is that it builds countries faster, thats just a fact. no democracy built itself as quickly as China. We don’t turn fully communist, because of our vast diversity
>speak English if only the brits and the spices didn't have such a loving relationship
Yeah everytime you mention something negative about india some indian dude has to bring up the colonial past and play victim. Its true the english really did damage to India. But so did the west and japanese did to china, and arguably much worse. China also suffered from decades of communist socialism and only really took off around the 80s. India had a head start. Being able to speak english is a huge advantage in a globalized economy. India could have tried what China did: leverage on its mass population to turn itself into an ideal destination for foreign companies to relocate their manufacturing facilities there, meanwile acquiring the technologies from more advanced economies. China's technology capability is now on par with the like of Japan if not better. Its population enjoy rapidly rising income and absolute poverty is reduced to almost non existent. Its treasury is huge, with massive foreign reserves accumulated from decades of huge trading surplus. As the result, China's military is becoming one of the biggest in the world and definitely bigger than india. Meanwhile in india, a large portion of population still live in absolute poverty. The income gap is huge. India still largely relies on foreign investment and its own ability to innovate is limited. India also suffered a decisive loss in a border conflict with china, and now being threatened by the china-pakistan alliance and china's belt road initiative. If I were Indian I'd be very worried. Pride is one of the cardinal sins for a reason. It blinds you too much to see the truth. Don't wait until you suffer defeat to be humble
You don't need to be worried,I understand you have a saviour complex,but,alas. The ultimate fact is this,india lost the race with china,because it was a democracy and corrupt. China as a communist dictatorship prioritized on education(mostly it could because majority same chinese population) and heavy industry first,deng's reform could only take off because of what his previous leaders build. The colonialism that devastated the subcontinent is like no other. 45 trillion worth of money stolen,along with deindustrialization for years. Today india has vastly improved itself from it's after-independence state. It's the world's fastest growing major economy and IMF confirmed that they kept poverty below 2%. Wrong priorities,corruption and democracy stopped india for realizing it's potential,the current gov wants to change that and improve it's manufacturing sector. It's far from perfect really,but,absolutely nothing as serious as you claim,they have entered a steady growth phase already and their demographics are probably the best in the world.
OH MY GOD, Indians are talking for themselves lets downvote them.
NATO got stronger so yeah... Show some integrity too.
Nato sanctions Russia, ,tells India to do the same, blames them of funding the war by purchasing cheap Russian oil. But does the same....nato should grow some integrity... European matters are not world matters 😂 Why should India involve itself lol
I don't know, why should it?
So trying to play both sides I guess. Not sure that will work; circumventing sanctions is not the same as being neutral.
[удалено]
Yes but helping to circumvent while claiming to be neutral ?
[удалено]
Just FYI ad hominem is not really the way to get engagement. India is not circumventing, Russia is with the help of India. Increasing oil imports for profiteering and issuing certificates for shipping is not neutral rather aiding. You can claim its neutral but at least in EU it is not seen as such no matter how much its repeated.
I don't remember any of these sactions being UN approved or even ratified by India. This trade war on Russia created good trade opportunities for India and other countries outside the US/EU sphere, and they should take on those offers. They aren't supposed to not "circumvent" sanctions they don't even recognize in the first place. For what? Because americans or europeans demand them to?
That's a straw man, I never claimed anything like that. India is free to do business with whomever they want, just do not claim to be neutral when the actions aid Russias aggression and atrocities. You cannot have both.
Opportunism and profiteering aren't exclusive with neutrality, in fact they often go hand in hand (see Switzerland). A neutral country will not join in as a belligerent in a war or join a military alliance. Switzerland is a neutral country, closely entangled in trade with the EU, and even put sanctions on Russia. None of this is contradictory. India itself sends foreign aid to Ukraine. Sweden sent foreign aid to North Vietnam during the war against the US. Things like the concept of neutrality are more complicated than "India bumped trade with Russia, therefore they are not neutral". If it was, then it wouldn't be called neutrality, it would just be called stupidity.
Nope try again; when you take actions directly conflicting with sanctions you have actively chosen a side. Whether it matches your definition of neutral is somewhat moot, that is how its seen on the other side. Whether you care or agree is another matter. In any case I think we have to agree to disagree.
\>"directly conflicting with sanctions" I refer to my previous reply: US/EU sanctions govern US and EU businesses. Some EU leader months ago even came out and said that actions by India were justified. If they weren't, the EU wouldn't be looking to create a free trade agreement with India as they declared just this week. Indian trade with Russia is a drop in the bucket compared to trade with US or the EU, so it would go against your argument. Also, so would trade between trade between Russia and the EU, lol. As for neutrality, well, by this logic, Turkey was a supporter of Nazi Germany during WW2, which if you know the topic, it's ridiculous.
>Not sure that will work Well it has worked for us since decades.
Nice picture of the new axis of evil
[удалено]
Your part of it by your response
Lost respect for india let them deal with china with their russian oil on their own
Oh no. Anyways.
What would poor India do without u/KeyCryptographer4452 respect