Because they are risking being labelled as assisting Russia and then sanctioned themselves. This is one of those situations where playing clever isn't going to pay off.
Make their grievances known in the fora where the sanctions have been decided upon, indicate that they are going to suffer disproportionally, demand to be made good on and indicate that if that does not work that they will have to get creative.
These are harsh times, I don't think any of this is fair per se but at the same time once India becomes the conduit to evade the sanctions there will be far larger trouble.
Watch this video to get an idea on what the mood currently is:
This sort of blatant bullying by the west will only end of bringing the world closer to a thermonuclear event. Let's hope the leaders understand nuance and can handle this delicately.
Harsh times? Are you suggesting that 1.35 billion people should starve during what seems like a never ending pandemic to win brownie points with western bullies for a popularity contest?
>Because they are risking being labelled as assisting Russia and then sanctioned themselves
Won't happen. India is not going the China route of "No Limits ties" with Russia on this. The US/EU know India's needs and some trade will be exempt from sanctions. This happened with Iran and also after the Crimean crisis.
India is setting itself up to be sanctioned themselves if they are not careful with this. There is a whole barrage of social media activity excusing Russia and blaming the West for Russias invasion of Ukraine, none of it makes sense but they are very vocal and numerous.
Any of the countries that have sanctioned Russia if this is done with the express intent of evading those sanctions. There is plenty of precedent for that.
> For putting Indian interests first?
There is precedent for that too.
> This is the most dumbass comment I have ever heard during this crisis.
France and some other countries wanted to do business after Iran got sanctioned by the US government, they were told quite clearly what the consequences would be and backed off.
A Latvian bank decided that the American sanctions against a particular group of Russians was an excellent business opportunity. This led to the bank being cut off, the Latvian authorities being told that if they did not control their banks better that all of Latvia would follow and extensive reworking of all of the AMT laws in all of Europe in case some other bank got the same bright idea and to avoid losing the ability to transact with the United States. As a result all of Europe is now required to have an UBO registry for every bank account and every company registered.
This sort of thing is taken very seriously. If you want I can dig up the references. Is it fair? No, it isn't fair, but that is the kind of weight the USA can throw around if they feel like it.
As an aside: you have now made three snarky comments, I have no idea what prompts you to do this but it is HN unworthy.
I understand your argument, and personally am looking to find some way to contribute baby formula to Ukrainian families from India. If you know any way, please let me know.
But sanctions end up hurting many more economies than one country's alone. There should be a way to help countries which will end up with a significant problem for issues that were not even caused by their government, but some foreign government altogether. The farmers of India are a struggling lot, and this is a whole lot of trouble they don't want when summer is just about to begin.
The best way is likely to send it to a known contact in Poland who might be able to pass your good on to people traveling to the border at the checkpoint, there are tons of good moving like that at the moment (and I mean actual tons). If you want I can ask a friend in Poland who may be making another trip to the border but I'm not sure how you would get your transport inside Ukraine done and there is a fair chance that the good would not make it to their intended destination for a variety of reasons. Also there are already shortages of many goods in the region.
world is getting smaller and smaller for sanctions to work russia, iran are already under sanction, if china and india are sanctioned which comprise more than half of world population and sizable amount of trade it would have no effect. They can just trade among themselves. Already china has shown that it doesn't care about sanctions. Only good thing for west is that india and china are at odds with each other had it not been the case west would become irrelevant as far as these countries are concerned.
India and China will find a way to cooperate. Together, they are half the world’s population. With the new Chinese silk route, the west is literally being cut out.
China can easily replace SWIFT with CIPS.
I wonder if the USA realizes that with banning SWIFT, they have jeopardized the USD? The only winner is Germany and will become the most powerful in the EU economic block.
Much like business leaders only looking at the next quarter, politicians in the west increasingly look only at the next election. If something harms their country in the long-term but helps them win an election this year, they're going with the immediate benefit to them and long-term harm to the country.
>There is a whole barrage of social media activity excusing Russia and blaming the West for Russias invasion of Ukraine
There is a certain truth to this (though obviously, one cannot "completely" excuse Russia). Unfortunately, the Ukrainian People are paying the price in the Geopolitical game between US/EU and Russia. First read this piece from Henry Kissinger himself : https://cnnbc.com/henry-kissinger-on-ukraine written after the last conflict in 2014. Now listen to Putin's grievances (address on Feb 22 & 24) translated by Michael Rossi (asst. prof. political science, Rutgers and Univ. of Brooklyn) here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APPjVlUA-gs&list=PLCFS2rj-qI...
Basically, the US/EU played a very good game to isolate, denigrate, ruin and in a word, make obsolete Russia, after the fall of the USSR. This pushed Russia against the wall and Putin started hitting back using everything he got culminating in the current Ukrainian invasion.
> This pushed Russia against the wall and Putin started hitting back using everything he got culminating in the current Ukrainian invasion.
I always wonder how people with unfettered access to information are able to reach the most wildly inaccurate conclusions. Seriously: this is the way you see it?
Did you miss: Chechnya, Belarus, Georgia, 2014?
Even the Russian propaganda disagrees with your viewpoint, they are pretty clear that they want to unite the 'Big Russians' with the 'Little Russians (read 'vassals', to be ordered around and sacrificed to serve the masters)'.
The point here is trying to understand the motives behind the current Russia/Ukraine war without trying to justify it (i.e. "don't shoot the messenger"). A geopolitical game was played between NATO and Russia with Ukraine as the sacrificial pawn. See also https://www.dawn.com/news/1677138/ukraine-crisis for some more data. The relevant research by the professor referenced in that article can be found at https://www.jrishifrinson.com/. There is more; In one of his papers (George H.W.Bush: Conservative Realist as President) i read this:
Acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger observed in an accompanying memorandum, “It is in our interest to see the peaceful end of the Soviet Union as we have known it since 1917—a strong, totalitarian central government able to mobilize the vast human and material resources at its control. . . . The sine qua non for eliminating this threat is substantial devolution of economic and political power [emphasis added].” Even more direct was Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas Brady, who argued in a June 1991 meeting of senior policymakers that “A real reform program would turn [the Soviet Union] into
a third-rate [military] power, which is what we want;” judging from their comments at this meeting, Baker, Scowcroft, and others seemed to accept this point of view. Put simply, the spread of freedom, liberty, and U.S. values into the Soviet space was normatively attractive, but it also carried starkly advantageous geopolitical consequences for the United States.
It is well known that ever since Putin came to power, he has been on a mission to restore the "Russian Empire" by any means possible. One doesn't have to agree with it but it is what it is. You should now be able to connect the dots between NATO's actions/Putin's response and the resulting vicious cycle which has lead to this point; There is enough blame to go around.
You can spend the rest of your life analyzing this, but the simple fact is that Russia was already on the skids and that Putin stays in power only because he is seen as strong and decisive. Being in a war pretty much guarantees that he gets to cling to power for the duration, and if successful for a long time after that.
For the duration because nobody else wants to own the mess, and if not successful then he gets to exit stage left with a bullet in his head or to rot in jail in the Hague for the rest of his trial, and the rest can wash their hands of it by throwing him under the bus.
All that conditional on him not trying to take the rest of the world with him because we've been witness to his fall from grace, something this personality type has a hard time dealing with, see 'Jim Jones'.
Any motivation that I've seen so far is pretexts or historical stuff that has very little bearing on the situation between Ukraine and Russia since 2014, when it all materially changed. Clinging to the past isn't going to help you to understand the present, things can and do change and not everything can be justified by pointing to events from relatively long ago as inevitably leading to the present, there were many choices made along the way by various parties that had a tremendous effect on the outcome, and not all of those choices were large enough to make it into the history books. For instance: the operational readiness of the Russian army was substantially higher a decade ago than it is today, a consequence of replacing one Russian officer.
History is exactly what you need to be aware of when dealing with Putin; he is bent on "righting" the "Wrongs" as he perceives it, whatever be the cost.
Here is a relevant para from the Kissinger article;
Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist – on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.
As i have argued, the US/EU are equally to blame for this mess; Putin is the Naked Aggressor while the US/EU roles have been more insidious. Ukrainians should take them to task for egging them on, promising support/help (since 2014) and delivering on none of them.
Ok, so let's just assume that this is 100% the fault of the EU so we can move past that. What do you propose to do? Stand by and watch while the world burns because we can all pretend it isn't us? Let Putin annex Ukraine, the Baltics next and Poland after that? Or do you think that it will stop with just Ukraine and that that's the price to pay for fuckups?
This article has flaws. Just in the above portion alone:
The rules of conduct were established by the Soviet Union too. They were a founding member of the United Nations, and a member of the League of Nations before that. As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, Russia knows full well that this is a violation of the U.N. Charter - that no attempt at a peaceful resolution to the dispute was made because the dispute is entirely fabricated by Putin. He is a transparently unserious and untrustworthy person, and a revanchist pining away for the glory days of the USSR, while heading a kleptocracy to steal from anyone and everyone until his last breath.
As bad as that is, in some sense I find it rather ordinary. What I find disappointing is the West's fixation on profit encouraged it to play footsie with a mob boss, as if it wouldn't one day have consequences. There have been dress rehearsals and speeches all along, by Putin, that draw a line directly to what we're witnessing today.
The only motive is Putin's vanity and greed. He's a revanchist, pining for the days of the USSR. He hates democracy because he's scared of it. He was in Dresden as a KGB officer when East Germany imploded, and attached himself to the idea of enriching himself at the expense of the Russian people, while being one of The Great Tsars of Russia. It has jack shit to do with feeling nervous about NATO. His own actions now prove that NATO expansion was exactly the right thing to do. Hindsight being 20/20 he is completely untrustworthy in all things, it was only wishful thinking and a dose of greed that the West coddled Putin as long as it has.
And point in fact, probably would coddle him yet again if he pulled out of Ukraine before flattening it.
This would completely change the world perception of India, and it wouldn't bode well with regards to having any sort of international support in their troubles with Pakistan, China, or any other neighbors.
The West ought to work with India to help with alternative sourcing of fertilizer.
India relies on Russian spare parts for our ships and planes. Russia has stood behind India when everyone else abandoned. USA just left behind billions of arms and weapons in Afghanistan that is being sold as parts and transported to Pakistan. With whom there is still border conflict.
Make their own. Seriously, spare parts is such a silly reason. India has fairly diverse access to primary resources, a growing manufacturing sector, a solid education system. It's time to make your own stuff.
Not very practical. India is among the densest countries in the world. Resources per unit population are pathetically low. Russia is among the least dense. India is 1.4 billion people, and Russia is 140 million -- ten times as many people.
Russia is 17 million square kilometers, while India is 3 million. Russia is 5-6 times as large.
That's 50-60 times the density.
Flow of natural resources out of Russia into India is the natural state of things. I do think India ought to decouple, but it's not that easy. The economic hit will be large.
The West should take some of that hit. Without the US and Canada stepping in, India can't decouple from Russia. Both sides ought to know that, and cooperate.
Raw density doesn't mean nearly as much as mineral geography and availability.
It's because of the number of people that there's a race to the bottom in terms of wages. Skilled labour is almost half the price in India, $7kpa vs $13kpa (old Russian XR). Secondary materials like steel are 80% the price in India. Harvest materials like cotton and rubbers come from India in the first place.
I'm not suggesting that the process would be free or fast or painless, but risking sanctions for something that could be in-housed for a relatively small in-house fee, and long term savings seems like a stupid thing to do. India needs an external market more than anything; certainly more than spare parts.
According to the article: "Russia and Belarus usually account for nearly a third of India's total potash imports. It would not be feasible to replace them amid a rally in fertilizer prices to a record high, a senior industry official told Reuters."
As if the west has ever cared about these things, when it comes to India. /s
Our conflict with Pakistan exists because the US wants to hold back India's progress and needs an excuse to interfere in the indian sub-continent. The US is still one of the consistent arm suppliers of Pakistan that has mostly always been used against India (3+ wars and counting). This despite the fact that India is a flourishing democracy that respects western values, while Pakistan has had many dictators over the last 5+ decades. Even during the Bangladesh liberation wars, the US threatened India by sending its nuclear fleet to force it to back down. They have consistently created hurdles or denied us access to technology to cripple our defence research and development (once even offering major concessions to Russia so to deny us technology transfer of cryogenic engines used in rockets and missiles). And yet, despite the underlying US suspicion and hostility against India, we have progressed and earned the goodwill of the international community on our own merits.
(And I won't even get into the geo politics of what it means for India to be under the political sphere of control of Russia ...).
My family has served in the Indian Army and Air Force for multiple generations. Still do .. to this day.. I grew up with stories..this was sent by one of my brothers..
[..] India abstained from voting against Russia today at the UN. Many in India are criticizing India for this action. There is one reason...
50 years ago, in Dec 1971, the USA threatened India to stop the 1971 war. An alarmed India sent a SOS to the Soviet Union. A story that has been nearly erased from Indian history books.
When Pakistan's defeat in the 1971 war seemed imminent, Kissinger spurred Nixon to send the US 7th Fleet’s Task Force, led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, to the Bay of Bengal. The USS Enterprise, at 75,000 ton, was the world's largest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the 1970s with more than 70 fighter aircraft. A monster. The Indian Navy’s fleet was led by the 20,000-ton aircraft carrier, Vikrant, with 20 light fighter aircraft.
The USS Enterprise was being dispatched to secure American citizens in Bangladesh was the official American statement. Unofficially it was to threaten the Indian forces and prevent the liberation of East Pakistan. India soon got another bad news.
Soviet intelligence reported to India that a powerful British naval group led by the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle with commando carrier HMS Albion, several destroyers and other ships were approaching India's territorial waters from the west, towards the Arabian Sea. The British and the Americans planned a coordinated pincer attack to intimidate India: the British ships in the Arabian Sea will target India's western coast, while the Americans would make a dash to Chittagong. Caught between the British & the American ships was the Indian Navy.
It was December 1971, and the world’s two leading democracies were now threatening the world’s largest democracy. An SOS from Delhi was sent to Moscow. The Red Navy soon dispatched 16 Soviet naval units and six nuclear submarines from Vladivostok to block USS Enterprise.
Admiral N. Krishnan, the chief of the Eastern Command of the Indian Navy, wrote in his book, 'No Way But Surrender' that he was afraid that the Americans will reach Chittagong. He mentions how they even thought of attacking Enterprise, in a do or die move, to slow it down.
On December 2nd week 1971, the US 7th Fleet’s Task Force, led by the monstrous USS Enterprise arrived in the Bay of Bengal. The British fleet was arriving in the Arabian Sea. The world held its breath.
But, unknown to the Americans, the submerged Soviet submarines had overtaken them.
As USS Enterprise moved towards East Pakistan, the Soviet submarines surfaced without any warning. The Soviet subs were now standing between India and the US naval force.
The Americans were shocked.
Admiral Gordon told the 7th American Fleet Commander: "Sir, we are too late. The Soviets are here!"
Both the American and British fleets backed off. Today, most Indians have forgotten about this colossal naval chess battle between the two superpowers in the Bay of Bengal[..]
There's a good reason that we don't teach this in our history books - We don't want our countrymen irrationally romanticising this fact too much. (Though it was a very important gesture of friendship).
It was the height of cold war politics, and initially the Soviets too weren't too warm to India's overture towards it in the 1960's and preferred to court Pakistan instead because it knew the US was using it to open channels to China. (USSR and China at that time didn't share a good relationship). It was only after indian diplomats convinced the Soviets that Pakistan had firmly allied with the west, that they decided a closer friendship with India would be more desirable.
The Indo-Soviet relationship reached the peak just before the Bangladesh Liberation war, when both signed the "Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation". It was the first time India had swung away so far from it's non-aligned policy of not siding with a world power during the cold war. Anticipating that the US (and maybe even China) would take some military action against India when they attacked Pakistan, Mrs. Indira Gandhi reached out to the Soviets who were delighted that the Indians were ready to "abandon" their non-aligned policy by signing the treaty. Article IX of the treaty said:
> ‘In the event of either Party being subjected to an attack or a threat thereof, the High Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into mutual consultations to remove such threat and to take appropriate effective measures to ensure peace and security of their countries’.
USSR cited this treaty to warn US and China that it bound them to come to India's military defence, even as Nixon was encouraging China to attack India and assured them of US support. (It's interesting that even as India was considering how to deal with the refugee crisis from East Pakistan, even the Soviets told them that it wasn't in favour of breaking up Pakistan).
Later, when these treaties were renewed, this clause was removed.
Ironically, today, Sino-Russian treaties include this clause. And that means, if India and China go to war, India may also have to fight the Russians!
An act of friendship and solidarity when it mattered. But weren't those Soviet submarines made and based in the Ukraine? One part of the union that helped India is invading another.
The only way I can make the pieces fit together is to say that somehow Russia is the part of the Soviet Union that matters and Ukraine was a sort of colony. In which case India now takes the side of the coloniser (and would-be re-coloniser) against the former (and perhaps future) colony. That's real friendship.
More than Russia and NATO I blame Ukraine's poor political leadership for the current pathetic situation of Ukraine. If Ukraine's politicians believes it can ignore either Russia's or NATO's security concern, they are fools. They are also fools if they believe either Russia or NATO can be fully trusted. What is needed is not false bravado, but the pragmatism to realistically understand one's position in the world order, and act accordingly.
Look at how India walks a tightrope while managing its relationship with the super powers USA and Russia and emerging power China. Whenever any of these countries raise security concern about the other, we weigh our own positions realistically and carefully (both security concerns and our own soft and hard power) and then try to balance that while trying to address the concerns raised. And that's why today we are part of both BRICS, which is seen as an anti-west organisation, while also being part of the Quad, which is perceived as an anti-China and anti-Russia outfit. At the same time India knows it needs to be economically and militarily self-reliant, and has never ignored that aspect and thus has military relationships with both the US and Russia, and economic relationship with all three.
People mock our non-aligned foreign policy, but the far-sightedness of not allying with any super power continues to serve India very well even today, and something that the Ukrainians need to understand and embrace too. If they play their card well, they could very well replace Russia as the major power in that area, with the right leadership and patience.
>This would completely change the world perception of India
Not at all. It is a perfectly understandable tactical move in support of a "neutral" strategy in the current Russian/Ukrainian War. There is a lot of History and Relationship here which cannot be denied.
Mark my words. Eurasia is uniting. Notice the Gulf Arabs don't support NATO? Notice the Indians, after having been trampled by the British a century ago. Nor do the Chinese after having been force fed dope by the same.
Seems like we are fast approaching the day when Anglo emperor has no clothes.
The backstory - from what I've gathered so far after reading way too much in the last hours - is that there is some confusion here. The border is officially closed for men of fighting age, women and children are being led through, and are given transportation.
Badly communicated orders are apparently the cause of the males being stopped from crossing, and in the confrontation there were some scuffles. You don't get to demand your rights and confront a bunch of soldiers that may well not speak English and/or have been given strict but ultimately faulty instructions.
So this is all probably true but needs a lot more context.
They absolutely should have. But this is a pretty tense situation with hundreds of thousands of people trying to get out and many people that are refused exit are getting belligerent. Ukraine has decreed a mandatory immediate conscription and obviously that should only be for Ukrainian citizens. It's a very messy situation at the border, waiting times right now are decreasing a bit because there are no more id checks on the Ukranian side (like there were before) so hopefully the flow of refugees will speed up, the wait earlier today was 60(!, not a typo) hours.
This incident likely happened at the Polish border where the lines were longest and there were the most problems, if anybody is still trekking towards the border and they have the choice between Hungary, Romania or Poland I would advise to take the Hungarian or the Romanian route because the lines there are - from what I hear - considerably shorter and there are less problems at those borders.
This wasn't informed by racism from what I understand but much simpler: the students were males and did not understand that right now it is transport is reserved for women and children first. You don't get to jump the line right now, and the Polish border is a relatively safe place.
This is the only way out for India given that it is now caught between a rock and a hard place.
The mess created by US/EU/Russia/Ukraine is their problem and cannot be allowed to affect the Indian Economy and People. You created your problems and hence solve them yourself.
India has always been a responsible international player (has the World forgotten how India supplied it with Covid vaccines without stockpiling for itself which led to it suffering from a horrendous 2nd wave?) and if sanctions are imposed on India, things will go "further south" in the World. India is poised to be the next "manufacturing hub" of the World (with China now playing hardball) and it is to the World's advantage that they do not do anything to hurt India's economy in particular; the "Farming Sector" is sacrosanct (more than 50% labour employment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#Sectors).
What the international community needs right now is for India to act responsibly instead of aiding an aggressor who is currently conducting an unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country in order to change its democratically elected leadership. Nobody is threatening anyone. It's just how things work out.
You may have missed, it, for which I can't fault you if that is the case but Putin has threatened first strike use of nuclear weapons, which definitely would impact India in ways that defy description. Whether you like it or not: you have already been affected, how you react to that is up to you.
That's exactly what they said about Russia invading Ukraine until 7 days ago. "It's just posturing." Look where we are now, the Russian defense minister just said that Kyiv residents should leave while they can. Do you think that is just posturing too?
Dude, Seriously? The threat of Nuclear War is a whole other dimension than any posturing (for a lack of a better word), "Standard" War. Since the consequences will be planet-wide, the checks and balances to prevent Nuclear War are far far more stringent than we "the common public" could know. I am not worried about that. What i am worried about is a protracted War which will lead to innumerable deaths and devastation.
What i meant was "posturing for Nuclear War" is different from "posturing for Standard War". The former is of a far more serious "dimension" than the latter and current posturing by Putin on that dimension does not warrant taking it seriously.
>If the consensus was that this is an empty threat there would be immediate intervention.
I am not clear what you mean here; Joe Biden is already on record saying he does not want American and Russian soldiers shooting at each other since that may lead to WW3. The same goes for the EU countries via the NATO pact.
Yes, but the alternative is to stand by while a couple of million people are going to be slaughtered and anybody that knows anything about European history knows that that will not stand unopposed. So: whatever Putin does he should do but the world should not be standing by while we're being salamied into non-existance.
Remember?:
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Right now we can stand by and pretend we're not Ukrainians, but the fact is that no longer matters, we are all Ukrainians right now, whether we like it or not.
What we do about it is what will set us apart, and sometimes it is better to act and to suffer than not to act. I'm getting the feeling that sentiment in Europe is shifting from inaction to action, and the current troop movements are a reflection of the fact that that is not just public sentiment. Just standing by is being an accomplice.
Putin may well see that as a pretext (or even an actual reason) to turn this into a nuclear war, but right at this moment the only thing that stops an incursion by NATO is the fact that Putin has threatened to retaliate with nukes. Do not underestimate the very thin knife edge on which the world is currently balancing.
Long-term investments are not done based on knee-jerk reactions to events when this actor (i.e. India) is not even involved in those events. Given China's belligerence/assertiveness against "Western Interests", India is the only safe and logical choice available today.
China is currently very cautious in their stance. The West have given them a wonderful opportunity to buy Russian resources for cheap. They also have investments in Ukraine, in agriculture. It's very likely that Russia's economy will be quite dependent on China in the following years, just like Kazahstan and Mongolia are today. This is a golden oportunity for China and they are a lot more pragmatic and smarter than India not to openly aid Russia right now. They'll buy their stuff later and cheaper after Russia defaults on its debts due to Putin's war in Ukraine while also doing business as usual with the West.
> The mess created by US/EU/Russia/Ukraine is their problem and cannot be allowed to affect the Indian Economy
Despicably, blatantly, selfish. US/EU have been burning money trying to help millions of people in severe trouble of being destroyed by weapons. You think Indians should care more about their own money. History won't be kind.
This has nothing to do with "Selfishness" but everything to do with "Self-Preservation". I hope you understand the distinction between the two. Given our huge population and agrarian-based economy there is no other option.
Coming to the current mess, Ukraine is being used as a pawn in a "proxy war" between NATO and Russia. The US/EU are fully to blame for pushing Russia against a wall resulting in the current invasion. Here is Henry Kissinger himself after the Ukraine crisis in 2014 - https://cnnbc.com/henry-kissinger-on-ukraine What he feared has come true today.
In summary, Geopolitics involves overall Strategy achieved by a set of Tactics all in the service of Self-Preservation.
> The US/EU are fully to blame for pushing Russia against a wall resulting in the current invasion.
"fully". This isn't even supported by your Kissinger article for starters. "Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse." L. Honestly, a geopolitical view that puts 100% blame on NATO for a Ukrainian invasion and civilian murder is nothing more than Kremlin regurgitation. It's rich you're lecturing on geopolitics with that kind of black and white view that can't even backup their statements with their sources. Have you ever considered why would Russia be afraid of a NATO attack on Russia, when NATO won't even defend an atrocious invasion of another country, Ukraine? Good luck squaring that cognitive dissonance.
Remember, Ukrainian civilians in their cities are dying by Russian rockets right this moment. https://twitter.com/maria_avdv/status/1498544825062375434 Who do you want to help? The rest of the world is watching your government with shame. If you don't stand up to tyranny, there's not going to be anyone standing up for tyranny happening against you. Slava Ukraini
You are cherry-picking words out of context and engaging in "Emotional Propaganda". This is disingenuous and not appreciated.
The phrase "fully" here means as much as the Russians (probably "equally" would have been a better choice). You have read too much into it (i thought the context would have made it clear) and then tried to turn it around.
Quoting Henry Kissinger can under no stretch of imagination be called "Kremlin Regurgitation". Read it again carefully. All of his advice were ignored by NATO/US/EU. See also https://www.dawn.com/news/1677138/ukraine-crisis for some more data. Now watch Putin's grievances (Feb 22 & 24 video addresses linked in another of my comments) and note where his aggression comes from. Taken altogether they give a good idea of how we came to be in this mess and it is clear that the NATO/US/EU played a game with Russia where Ukraine is the sacrificial pawn. Whether one agrees with it or not is beside the point, it is the confluence of policies since the breakup of USSR which has led to this Global crisis and Ukrainian suffering. It is compounded by the fact that NATO/US/EU egged and promised Ukraine all sorts of support/help but when push came to shove, abandoned them just like that. It is inexcusable and your ire is better directed at them.
The Indian Govt. is doing the right thing by helping Ukraine with Humanitarian Aid (as everybody should) while diplomatically staying out of the conflict. This is the best course of action for all parties concerned until a ceasefire is reached.
Love the hectoring by the West on the death of India's standing as a global actor, downgrading of India's democracy etc. etc. because of India voting its own interests at the UN.
Remember in March, 2020, China occupied (disputed) Indian territory and the two Asian giants fought a brief border war. Which western "liberal" Western power supported India? Right, none, other than urging the two powers to sort it out.
The same West for decades has armed Pakistan whose secret services turned Indian cities into regular 9/11 reenactment theaters before the West knew the term 9/11, all with blessings of their CIA and MI6 partners. Bomb blasts in Indian cities would regularly kill hundreds of civilians [3]. They looked the other way even when presented with incontrovertible evidence because Pakistan was key to containing the Soviets.
In 1971, the Pakistani Army unleashed a genocide in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to contain the freedom movement and killed 300,000 mostly Hindu Bangladeshis. Far from stopping it, the US and the UK dispatched Nuclear armed naval strike forces to defend the Pakistani right to commit genocide. All documented in the famous book by American Diplomat Gary Bass, called "The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide"[1]. He was (famously) fired for protesting American Policy supporting genocide. Just like when the CIA and MI6 got the democratically elected Mosaddegh govt. in Iran deposed in 1954 in favor of the autocratic Shah because the Shah was more suited to their ideologies than the left leaning but democratically elected govt [2].
Indians understand that the West is about liberalism and democracy when it supports their interests and not when it does not. They are just doing what any rational state actor does - using all levers of power and influence to pursue their own interests.
Today, most Indians DGAF what "liberal" democracies in the West think about them, because to them the West is neither liberal nor democratic when it comes to people other than their own kind.
India and Russia seem to have a long and amicable history with one another.
On youtube I often see Russian men and women as the only foreigners in those Harikrishna groups.
india has 50% of its population that is dependent on agriculture, which due to elctoral democracy means they would vote out any govt. that doesn't looks out after their interests. There is no way india would abide by the sanctions if it would lead to famine like situation in india more people in india would die than in the war between ukraine and russia. Things are complicated and USA/west understands it that is the reason they are not insisting on it.
I think that China will pay the price of its burgeoning relationship with Russia at some point. No country wants to be seen as Russia's enabler by the American public. The optics for China is bad: Xi / Putin "no limit" meeting just before the invasion, China may have shared US-provided intel information with the Russian,.. At the moment all the eyes are on Ukraine. But soon the world will start wondering who made that possible. And the American public is already biased toward China.
I would think following the same path is a bit risky for India.
You are not understanding the gravity of the situation. Failures in sourcing fertilizers can create severe food security crisis in the country and will further push farmers who already live on the edge. Farmer suicide is a big issue in India. I would also like to remind you that India is neighbored by two nuclear armed hostile nations who have invaded India in the past.
India doesn't work with Russia because of some world domination goals. It works with Russia to ensure its food security and safety.
Russia also worked with Nazi Germany before being invaded themselves in WW2. You don't get security by appeasing and helping tyrants. If a Russian-China alliance comes knocking at India, the world might remember your own "not my problem" stance.
> Russia also worked with Nazi Germany before being invaded themselves in WW2.
So did Poland and other countries. It's not always easy to avoid the beast. India does have the most pro-West government it has seen till now and is already sending medical supplies to Ukraine. I am certain that they have taken a note of Russian atrocities and will take steps to gradually wean off Russia dependence. But it's not something you can do in a day or month.
Some people really need to see what the other parts of the world are thinking. Why would India take a stance in this war? When the border dispute between China and India broke up Russia still signed a huge military contract with India despite China's request. Was China angry? Probably, but they kept on with a good relationship with Russia. Was India angry about Russia's collaboration with China in many ways? Maybe, but you do not switch sides over this. Was Putin worried that two of his most important allies are having a border dispute? Of course, but what silly superpower would try to determine what their allies should do?
As an Indian, I wish that India would take a stronger stance against the Putin regime. I can understand them trying to stay neutral against a historic ally though, that is the reality of the modern geopolitics.
At the very least, I hope they keep out of the way of the countries that are standing with Ukraine today. There is clearly only one right side at this stage of this invasion.
104 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadSo what is your solution, where should India get the fertilisers for its food supply?
These are harsh times, I don't think any of this is fair per se but at the same time once India becomes the conduit to evade the sanctions there will be far larger trouble.
Watch this video to get an idea on what the mood currently is:
https://twitter.com/NYBackpacker/status/1498328163188977666
I posted this on HN earlier but it was flagged after I got scolded for being ‘snarky’.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
However, I don't see why should India compromise its food security and safety for that?
Won't happen. India is not going the China route of "No Limits ties" with Russia on this. The US/EU know India's needs and some trade will be exempt from sanctions. This happened with Iran and also after the Crimean crisis.
Any of the countries that have sanctioned Russia if this is done with the express intent of evading those sanctions. There is plenty of precedent for that.
> For putting Indian interests first?
There is precedent for that too.
> This is the most dumbass comment I have ever heard during this crisis.
Time will tell.
A Latvian bank decided that the American sanctions against a particular group of Russians was an excellent business opportunity. This led to the bank being cut off, the Latvian authorities being told that if they did not control their banks better that all of Latvia would follow and extensive reworking of all of the AMT laws in all of Europe in case some other bank got the same bright idea and to avoid losing the ability to transact with the United States. As a result all of Europe is now required to have an UBO registry for every bank account and every company registered.
This sort of thing is taken very seriously. If you want I can dig up the references. Is it fair? No, it isn't fair, but that is the kind of weight the USA can throw around if they feel like it.
As an aside: you have now made three snarky comments, I have no idea what prompts you to do this but it is HN unworthy.
But sanctions end up hurting many more economies than one country's alone. There should be a way to help countries which will end up with a significant problem for issues that were not even caused by their government, but some foreign government altogether. The farmers of India are a struggling lot, and this is a whole lot of trouble they don't want when summer is just about to begin.
Just for historical context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
China can easily replace SWIFT with CIPS.
I wonder if the USA realizes that with banning SWIFT, they have jeopardized the USD? The only winner is Germany and will become the most powerful in the EU economic block.
There is a certain truth to this (though obviously, one cannot "completely" excuse Russia). Unfortunately, the Ukrainian People are paying the price in the Geopolitical game between US/EU and Russia. First read this piece from Henry Kissinger himself : https://cnnbc.com/henry-kissinger-on-ukraine written after the last conflict in 2014. Now listen to Putin's grievances (address on Feb 22 & 24) translated by Michael Rossi (asst. prof. political science, Rutgers and Univ. of Brooklyn) here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APPjVlUA-gs&list=PLCFS2rj-qI...
Basically, the US/EU played a very good game to isolate, denigrate, ruin and in a word, make obsolete Russia, after the fall of the USSR. This pushed Russia against the wall and Putin started hitting back using everything he got culminating in the current Ukrainian invasion.
I always wonder how people with unfettered access to information are able to reach the most wildly inaccurate conclusions. Seriously: this is the way you see it?
Did you miss: Chechnya, Belarus, Georgia, 2014?
Even the Russian propaganda disagrees with your viewpoint, they are pretty clear that they want to unite the 'Big Russians' with the 'Little Russians (read 'vassals', to be ordered around and sacrificed to serve the masters)'.
The point here is trying to understand the motives behind the current Russia/Ukraine war without trying to justify it (i.e. "don't shoot the messenger"). A geopolitical game was played between NATO and Russia with Ukraine as the sacrificial pawn. See also https://www.dawn.com/news/1677138/ukraine-crisis for some more data. The relevant research by the professor referenced in that article can be found at https://www.jrishifrinson.com/. There is more; In one of his papers (George H.W.Bush: Conservative Realist as President) i read this:
Acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger observed in an accompanying memorandum, “It is in our interest to see the peaceful end of the Soviet Union as we have known it since 1917—a strong, totalitarian central government able to mobilize the vast human and material resources at its control. . . . The sine qua non for eliminating this threat is substantial devolution of economic and political power [emphasis added].” Even more direct was Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas Brady, who argued in a June 1991 meeting of senior policymakers that “A real reform program would turn [the Soviet Union] into a third-rate [military] power, which is what we want;” judging from their comments at this meeting, Baker, Scowcroft, and others seemed to accept this point of view. Put simply, the spread of freedom, liberty, and U.S. values into the Soviet space was normatively attractive, but it also carried starkly advantageous geopolitical consequences for the United States.
It is well known that ever since Putin came to power, he has been on a mission to restore the "Russian Empire" by any means possible. One doesn't have to agree with it but it is what it is. You should now be able to connect the dots between NATO's actions/Putin's response and the resulting vicious cycle which has lead to this point; There is enough blame to go around.
For the duration because nobody else wants to own the mess, and if not successful then he gets to exit stage left with a bullet in his head or to rot in jail in the Hague for the rest of his trial, and the rest can wash their hands of it by throwing him under the bus.
All that conditional on him not trying to take the rest of the world with him because we've been witness to his fall from grace, something this personality type has a hard time dealing with, see 'Jim Jones'.
Any motivation that I've seen so far is pretexts or historical stuff that has very little bearing on the situation between Ukraine and Russia since 2014, when it all materially changed. Clinging to the past isn't going to help you to understand the present, things can and do change and not everything can be justified by pointing to events from relatively long ago as inevitably leading to the present, there were many choices made along the way by various parties that had a tremendous effect on the outcome, and not all of those choices were large enough to make it into the history books. For instance: the operational readiness of the Russian army was substantially higher a decade ago than it is today, a consequence of replacing one Russian officer.
History is exactly what you need to be aware of when dealing with Putin; he is bent on "righting" the "Wrongs" as he perceives it, whatever be the cost.
Here is a relevant para from the Kissinger article;
Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist – on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.
As i have argued, the US/EU are equally to blame for this mess; Putin is the Naked Aggressor while the US/EU roles have been more insidious. Ukrainians should take them to task for egging them on, promising support/help (since 2014) and delivering on none of them.
The rules of conduct were established by the Soviet Union too. They were a founding member of the United Nations, and a member of the League of Nations before that. As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, Russia knows full well that this is a violation of the U.N. Charter - that no attempt at a peaceful resolution to the dispute was made because the dispute is entirely fabricated by Putin. He is a transparently unserious and untrustworthy person, and a revanchist pining away for the glory days of the USSR, while heading a kleptocracy to steal from anyone and everyone until his last breath.
As bad as that is, in some sense I find it rather ordinary. What I find disappointing is the West's fixation on profit encouraged it to play footsie with a mob boss, as if it wouldn't one day have consequences. There have been dress rehearsals and speeches all along, by Putin, that draw a line directly to what we're witnessing today.
And point in fact, probably would coddle him yet again if he pulled out of Ukraine before flattening it.
The West ought to work with India to help with alternative sourcing of fertilizer.
What do you think India should do?
Or they can risk it all to prop up a dictator.
Russia is 17 million square kilometers, while India is 3 million. Russia is 5-6 times as large.
That's 50-60 times the density.
Flow of natural resources out of Russia into India is the natural state of things. I do think India ought to decouple, but it's not that easy. The economic hit will be large.
The West should take some of that hit. Without the US and Canada stepping in, India can't decouple from Russia. Both sides ought to know that, and cooperate.
It's because of the number of people that there's a race to the bottom in terms of wages. Skilled labour is almost half the price in India, $7kpa vs $13kpa (old Russian XR). Secondary materials like steel are 80% the price in India. Harvest materials like cotton and rubbers come from India in the first place.
I'm not suggesting that the process would be free or fast or painless, but risking sanctions for something that could be in-housed for a relatively small in-house fee, and long term savings seems like a stupid thing to do. India needs an external market more than anything; certainly more than spare parts.
Our conflict with Pakistan exists because the US wants to hold back India's progress and needs an excuse to interfere in the indian sub-continent. The US is still one of the consistent arm suppliers of Pakistan that has mostly always been used against India (3+ wars and counting). This despite the fact that India is a flourishing democracy that respects western values, while Pakistan has had many dictators over the last 5+ decades. Even during the Bangladesh liberation wars, the US threatened India by sending its nuclear fleet to force it to back down. They have consistently created hurdles or denied us access to technology to cripple our defence research and development (once even offering major concessions to Russia so to deny us technology transfer of cryogenic engines used in rockets and missiles). And yet, despite the underlying US suspicion and hostility against India, we have progressed and earned the goodwill of the international community on our own merits.
(And I won't even get into the geo politics of what it means for India to be under the political sphere of control of Russia ...).
[..] India abstained from voting against Russia today at the UN. Many in India are criticizing India for this action. There is one reason...
50 years ago, in Dec 1971, the USA threatened India to stop the 1971 war. An alarmed India sent a SOS to the Soviet Union. A story that has been nearly erased from Indian history books.
When Pakistan's defeat in the 1971 war seemed imminent, Kissinger spurred Nixon to send the US 7th Fleet’s Task Force, led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, to the Bay of Bengal. The USS Enterprise, at 75,000 ton, was the world's largest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the 1970s with more than 70 fighter aircraft. A monster. The Indian Navy’s fleet was led by the 20,000-ton aircraft carrier, Vikrant, with 20 light fighter aircraft.
The USS Enterprise was being dispatched to secure American citizens in Bangladesh was the official American statement. Unofficially it was to threaten the Indian forces and prevent the liberation of East Pakistan. India soon got another bad news.
Soviet intelligence reported to India that a powerful British naval group led by the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle with commando carrier HMS Albion, several destroyers and other ships were approaching India's territorial waters from the west, towards the Arabian Sea. The British and the Americans planned a coordinated pincer attack to intimidate India: the British ships in the Arabian Sea will target India's western coast, while the Americans would make a dash to Chittagong. Caught between the British & the American ships was the Indian Navy.
It was December 1971, and the world’s two leading democracies were now threatening the world’s largest democracy. An SOS from Delhi was sent to Moscow. The Red Navy soon dispatched 16 Soviet naval units and six nuclear submarines from Vladivostok to block USS Enterprise.
Admiral N. Krishnan, the chief of the Eastern Command of the Indian Navy, wrote in his book, 'No Way But Surrender' that he was afraid that the Americans will reach Chittagong. He mentions how they even thought of attacking Enterprise, in a do or die move, to slow it down.
On December 2nd week 1971, the US 7th Fleet’s Task Force, led by the monstrous USS Enterprise arrived in the Bay of Bengal. The British fleet was arriving in the Arabian Sea. The world held its breath.
But, unknown to the Americans, the submerged Soviet submarines had overtaken them.
As USS Enterprise moved towards East Pakistan, the Soviet submarines surfaced without any warning. The Soviet subs were now standing between India and the US naval force.
The Americans were shocked.
Admiral Gordon told the 7th American Fleet Commander: "Sir, we are too late. The Soviets are here!"
Both the American and British fleets backed off. Today, most Indians have forgotten about this colossal naval chess battle between the two superpowers in the Bay of Bengal[..]
It was the height of cold war politics, and initially the Soviets too weren't too warm to India's overture towards it in the 1960's and preferred to court Pakistan instead because it knew the US was using it to open channels to China. (USSR and China at that time didn't share a good relationship). It was only after indian diplomats convinced the Soviets that Pakistan had firmly allied with the west, that they decided a closer friendship with India would be more desirable.
The Indo-Soviet relationship reached the peak just before the Bangladesh Liberation war, when both signed the "Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation". It was the first time India had swung away so far from it's non-aligned policy of not siding with a world power during the cold war. Anticipating that the US (and maybe even China) would take some military action against India when they attacked Pakistan, Mrs. Indira Gandhi reached out to the Soviets who were delighted that the Indians were ready to "abandon" their non-aligned policy by signing the treaty. Article IX of the treaty said:
> ‘In the event of either Party being subjected to an attack or a threat thereof, the High Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into mutual consultations to remove such threat and to take appropriate effective measures to ensure peace and security of their countries’.
USSR cited this treaty to warn US and China that it bound them to come to India's military defence, even as Nixon was encouraging China to attack India and assured them of US support. (It's interesting that even as India was considering how to deal with the refugee crisis from East Pakistan, even the Soviets told them that it wasn't in favour of breaking up Pakistan).
Later, when these treaties were renewed, this clause was removed.
Ironically, today, Sino-Russian treaties include this clause. And that means, if India and China go to war, India may also have to fight the Russians!
The only way I can make the pieces fit together is to say that somehow Russia is the part of the Soviet Union that matters and Ukraine was a sort of colony. In which case India now takes the side of the coloniser (and would-be re-coloniser) against the former (and perhaps future) colony. That's real friendship.
Look at how India walks a tightrope while managing its relationship with the super powers USA and Russia and emerging power China. Whenever any of these countries raise security concern about the other, we weigh our own positions realistically and carefully (both security concerns and our own soft and hard power) and then try to balance that while trying to address the concerns raised. And that's why today we are part of both BRICS, which is seen as an anti-west organisation, while also being part of the Quad, which is perceived as an anti-China and anti-Russia outfit. At the same time India knows it needs to be economically and militarily self-reliant, and has never ignored that aspect and thus has military relationships with both the US and Russia, and economic relationship with all three.
People mock our non-aligned foreign policy, but the far-sightedness of not allying with any super power continues to serve India very well even today, and something that the Ukrainians need to understand and embrace too. If they play their card well, they could very well replace Russia as the major power in that area, with the right leadership and patience.
Not at all. It is a perfectly understandable tactical move in support of a "neutral" strategy in the current Russian/Ukrainian War. There is a lot of History and Relationship here which cannot be denied.
Seems like we are fast approaching the day when Anglo emperor has no clothes.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/politics/indian-students-i...
Badly communicated orders are apparently the cause of the males being stopped from crossing, and in the confrontation there were some scuffles. You don't get to demand your rights and confront a bunch of soldiers that may well not speak English and/or have been given strict but ultimately faulty instructions.
So this is all probably true but needs a lot more context.
They cant see the Indian passport and then just allowing them to leave?
This incident likely happened at the Polish border where the lines were longest and there were the most problems, if anybody is still trekking towards the border and they have the choice between Hungary, Romania or Poland I would advise to take the Hungarian or the Romanian route because the lines there are - from what I hear - considerably shorter and there are less problems at those borders.
That's far far far worse than your weak case for racism.
The mess created by US/EU/Russia/Ukraine is their problem and cannot be allowed to affect the Indian Economy and People. You created your problems and hence solve them yourself.
India has always been a responsible international player (has the World forgotten how India supplied it with Covid vaccines without stockpiling for itself which led to it suffering from a horrendous 2nd wave?) and if sanctions are imposed on India, things will go "further south" in the World. India is poised to be the next "manufacturing hub" of the World (with China now playing hardball) and it is to the World's advantage that they do not do anything to hurt India's economy in particular; the "Farming Sector" is sacrosanct (more than 50% labour employment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#Sectors).
For those interested, Wikipedia as usual is a good starting point to understand "Indian Economy" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India
Not after this or at least not with Western investments.
Absolutely, Categorically False.
India is NOT aiding any aggressors but trying to stay neutral in the conflict while taking care of its own people.
However, the US Intel agencies are trying to figure out Putin's state of mind : https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/01/politics/us-intelligence-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30514339
You were the one that said it was posturing.
Me:
"Putin has threatened first strike use of nuclear weapons"
You:
"That is just posturing by Putin to keep NATO's forces at bay; nobody believes he is that crazy, both the US and UK have dismissed it."
If the consensus was that this is an empty threat there would be immediate intervention.
What i meant was "posturing for Nuclear War" is different from "posturing for Standard War". The former is of a far more serious "dimension" than the latter and current posturing by Putin on that dimension does not warrant taking it seriously.
>If the consensus was that this is an empty threat there would be immediate intervention.
I am not clear what you mean here; Joe Biden is already on record saying he does not want American and Russian soldiers shooting at each other since that may lead to WW3. The same goes for the EU countries via the NATO pact.
Remember?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...Right now we can stand by and pretend we're not Ukrainians, but the fact is that no longer matters, we are all Ukrainians right now, whether we like it or not.
What we do about it is what will set us apart, and sometimes it is better to act and to suffer than not to act. I'm getting the feeling that sentiment in Europe is shifting from inaction to action, and the current troop movements are a reflection of the fact that that is not just public sentiment. Just standing by is being an accomplice.
Putin may well see that as a pretext (or even an actual reason) to turn this into a nuclear war, but right at this moment the only thing that stops an incursion by NATO is the fact that Putin has threatened to retaliate with nukes. Do not underestimate the very thin knife edge on which the world is currently balancing.
Long-term investments are not done based on knee-jerk reactions to events when this actor (i.e. India) is not even involved in those events. Given China's belligerence/assertiveness against "Western Interests", India is the only safe and logical choice available today.
Despicably, blatantly, selfish. US/EU have been burning money trying to help millions of people in severe trouble of being destroyed by weapons. You think Indians should care more about their own money. History won't be kind.
India is following the proper strategic and diplomatic path. It has good relations with both Russia and Ukraine and has even been approached to mediate between the two (https://www.opindia.com/2022/02/ukraine-requests-pm-modi-to-...). It is already sending Medicines and Humanitarian Assistance to Ukraine (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-will-send-human...). Diplomatic efforts via back channels are ongoing.
Coming to the current mess, Ukraine is being used as a pawn in a "proxy war" between NATO and Russia. The US/EU are fully to blame for pushing Russia against a wall resulting in the current invasion. Here is Henry Kissinger himself after the Ukraine crisis in 2014 - https://cnnbc.com/henry-kissinger-on-ukraine What he feared has come true today.
In summary, Geopolitics involves overall Strategy achieved by a set of Tactics all in the service of Self-Preservation.
"fully". This isn't even supported by your Kissinger article for starters. "Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse." L. Honestly, a geopolitical view that puts 100% blame on NATO for a Ukrainian invasion and civilian murder is nothing more than Kremlin regurgitation. It's rich you're lecturing on geopolitics with that kind of black and white view that can't even backup their statements with their sources. Have you ever considered why would Russia be afraid of a NATO attack on Russia, when NATO won't even defend an atrocious invasion of another country, Ukraine? Good luck squaring that cognitive dissonance.
Remember, Ukrainian civilians in their cities are dying by Russian rockets right this moment. https://twitter.com/maria_avdv/status/1498544825062375434 Who do you want to help? The rest of the world is watching your government with shame. If you don't stand up to tyranny, there's not going to be anyone standing up for tyranny happening against you. Slava Ukraini
The phrase "fully" here means as much as the Russians (probably "equally" would have been a better choice). You have read too much into it (i thought the context would have made it clear) and then tried to turn it around.
Quoting Henry Kissinger can under no stretch of imagination be called "Kremlin Regurgitation". Read it again carefully. All of his advice were ignored by NATO/US/EU. See also https://www.dawn.com/news/1677138/ukraine-crisis for some more data. Now watch Putin's grievances (Feb 22 & 24 video addresses linked in another of my comments) and note where his aggression comes from. Taken altogether they give a good idea of how we came to be in this mess and it is clear that the NATO/US/EU played a game with Russia where Ukraine is the sacrificial pawn. Whether one agrees with it or not is beside the point, it is the confluence of policies since the breakup of USSR which has led to this Global crisis and Ukrainian suffering. It is compounded by the fact that NATO/US/EU egged and promised Ukraine all sorts of support/help but when push came to shove, abandoned them just like that. It is inexcusable and your ire is better directed at them.
The Indian Govt. is doing the right thing by helping Ukraine with Humanitarian Aid (as everybody should) while diplomatically staying out of the conflict. This is the best course of action for all parties concerned until a ceasefire is reached.
Remember in March, 2020, China occupied (disputed) Indian territory and the two Asian giants fought a brief border war. Which western "liberal" Western power supported India? Right, none, other than urging the two powers to sort it out.
The same West for decades has armed Pakistan whose secret services turned Indian cities into regular 9/11 reenactment theaters before the West knew the term 9/11, all with blessings of their CIA and MI6 partners. Bomb blasts in Indian cities would regularly kill hundreds of civilians [3]. They looked the other way even when presented with incontrovertible evidence because Pakistan was key to containing the Soviets.
In 1971, the Pakistani Army unleashed a genocide in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to contain the freedom movement and killed 300,000 mostly Hindu Bangladeshis. Far from stopping it, the US and the UK dispatched Nuclear armed naval strike forces to defend the Pakistani right to commit genocide. All documented in the famous book by American Diplomat Gary Bass, called "The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide"[1]. He was (famously) fired for protesting American Policy supporting genocide. Just like when the CIA and MI6 got the democratically elected Mosaddegh govt. in Iran deposed in 1954 in favor of the autocratic Shah because the Shah was more suited to their ideologies than the left leaning but democratically elected govt [2].
Indians understand that the West is about liberalism and democracy when it supports their interests and not when it does not. They are just doing what any rational state actor does - using all levers of power and influence to pursue their own interests.
Today, most Indians DGAF what "liberal" democracies in the West think about them, because to them the West is neither liberal nor democratic when it comes to people other than their own kind.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Kissinger-Forgotten-Ge...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthr...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in...
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/not-possible-to-reach...
I would think following the same path is a bit risky for India.
As I said in another thread: I believe that the government and policies of a country is a (very lagging) reflexion of the value of the citizens.
India doesn't work with Russia because of some world domination goals. It works with Russia to ensure its food security and safety.
So did Poland and other countries. It's not always easy to avoid the beast. India does have the most pro-West government it has seen till now and is already sending medical supplies to Ukraine. I am certain that they have taken a note of Russian atrocities and will take steps to gradually wean off Russia dependence. But it's not something you can do in a day or month.
At the very least, I hope they keep out of the way of the countries that are standing with Ukraine today. There is clearly only one right side at this stage of this invasion.