So the article presents the motivations of India around this consideration, but could anyone possibly elaborate on what the thinking might be? The article states that the Indian defense department cannot suffer the energy costs because of "simmering territorial disputes with China". India also has longstanding border disputes with Pakistan. I always thought (potentially ignorantly) that India would largely align itself with "the West". Moreover, the countries that would potentially aid India in any escalation of border disputes would be the US, Europe, etc.
How does this purchase not ending hurting them in the sense that, if they buy Russian oil in this crisis in defiance of the West's objections; wouldn't that come back to bite them potentially if China aggressed on India in a potentially parallel border dispute?
> Moreover, the countries that would potentially aid India in any escalation of border disputes would be the US, Europe, etc.
Nope, first it would be Russia that would help India. Russia has been the long term trust worthy friend of India.
Ideally, yes, India should align with the West and probably wants to. But, without a NATO like equivalent that guarantees protection India gains nothing by aligning solely with the West instead of a known bad weather friend Russia.
It's not just about direct military aid. Russia will be the base for any trilateral talks with China when escalation happens. Russia's closeness with China also means some gains for India.
I think the opposite, India has benefitted historically from friction between Russia and China (Russia wanted a warm-water port in the area, but if China is a strategic partner, that's mostly irrelevant).
Wow, pardon my ignorance. There's a whole wikipedia article on India Russia relations [1]. (I then checked how many bilateral relation articles there are, turns out a lot but clearly not exhaustive). there's a lot to the India Russia relationship dating back to the cold war and it's a close tie.
On a work trip to India, I had a chance to visit the HAL aerospace museum in Bangalore. It was interesting as a museum of aircraft history but also told a story of diplomatic relations over time as well.
I, as an American, was unaware of Russian-Indian relations until that visit.
Yes. I'd say the average American when asked which nation the US has had closer relations with (once you screen out the ones who don't even know Pakistan exists) would say "India" 9 times out of 10.
> Nope, first it would be Russia that would help India. Russia has been the long term trust worthy friend of India.
No matter how the war turns out, Russia will be significantly weakened. The isolation from the West will force it into a closer and subservient relationship with China. There is no way Russia will take India's side against China.
With US pulling out of Afghanisthan, importance of Pakistan reduces for the US and with Quad the relationship will grow. Until things solidify and some deals are worked out, India will have to tread carefully. That's my point.
> without a NATO like equivalent that guarantees protection
This is also the problem with Ukraine. NATO members may like Ukraine and India for being democracies, but that's not worth much if they won't step up to defend when those democracies are under attack.
I think the US, EU or NATO should form a broader alliance that extends this mutual defense to all democracies, at least when under attack by dictatorships. Not doing so gives dictatorships a free reign to attack democracies just outside NATO's borders, as we're seeing with Ukraine.
And I'm mentioning the EU because I think being a democracy should also automatically come with beneficial free trade agreements.
We like to talk much about how democracy is better, but if we leave struggling democracies to fend for themselves, democracy will always be under attack. I think that's a much better idea than allying with autocracies, as the US certainly has done way too often in the past.
> Not doing so gives dictatorships a free reign to attack democracies
Well, over the last twenty years it's arguably been democracies doing the attacks, to be fair...
Maybe it would make more sense to rebuild supranational institutions that, y'know, actually make people figure things out. The UN Security Council has been effectively sidestepped since 2001, to the irritation of many. We need to rebuild mechanisms to resolve problems.
>How does this purchase not ending hurting them in the sense that, if they buy Russian oil in this crisis in defiance of the West's objections; wouldn't that come back to bite them potentially if China aggressed on India in a potentially parallel border dispute?
Some people on the internet will moan, John Oliver will have some witty quip. Bono will say something insufferable. But at the end of the day, few in the west are gonna give a crap about a poor nation buying commodities on the cheap even if we don't like the source. China is the long term competitor in that region and the west isn't going to mind India buying Russian oil, and doing all sorts of things that we wouldn't allow in the west, if that's what it takes for them to be marginally stronger w.r.t. China.
Look at how the west treats the middle east. Nobody cares what terrible things KSA, Jordan, Israel, etc. do so long as they remain stable, don't align with our enemies and don't F with out interests. India, Vietnam, every other developing east Asian country gets the same treatment
The "west" has never really aided with or aligned with India. In the 1971 war with Pakistan[0], when Pakistan was carrying out genocide in Bangladesh, America sent its warships to attack India. They only backed off when Russia sent its own warships. It's been almost 50 years, but India hasnt forgotten than incident, and it still, to this day, affects public opinion/policy.
In most diplomatic disputes, the Ussr (and later to some extent, Russia) sided with India, while USA sided with Pakistan.
Even though India has been a democracy, relationships with the USA (and most western nations) have been cool, at best.
>> wouldn't that come back to bite them potentially if China aggressed on India in a potentially parallel border dispute?
I doubt USA would do anything if China and India went to war; USA and India are sort of aligned in trying to contain China, but in itself this isnt a strong enough factor to counter all the other bad blood over the years.
It also doesnt help that the American political system is a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde-- one President can promise you anything, the next will completely overturn it. Trump tearing up Obama's Iran deal is an example (but this goes beyond just Trump). Most Asian/Arab countries know you can't trust America-- Obama betraying long term ally Mubarak (in Egypt) and throwing him to the wolves is another example.
Hate Russia all you want-- but the general feeling is: Your deals/relationships with Russia won't change every 4 years, and you can build long term plans.
> The "west" has never really aided with or aligned with India.
Maybe the "west" should.
We used to assume that every country will eventually become democratic, but recent years have shown there's quite a bit of pushback. But Russia and China would love to undermine the idea of democracy, and show it to be weak in ineffective. I think we've taken democracy for granted too much, and we should take it more seriously. Including supporting other democracies, when necessary.
Democracy is not ineffective by definition. It has been kept ineffective so that the ruling elite can do what they want. Should the voters have the right to immediately remove a politician from power (not by protest, but by direct voting) things will look very different. Now, politicians don't serve the electorate because they simply can can afford it. It doesn't have to be that way. It is just that because the feedback loop is slow/broken and people loose faith in democracy.
If that is fixed, next battle will be for your mind (I am looking at you mass media).
But the battle is already for your mind. Propaganda is turning out to be a pretty big threat to democracy. Look at the whole Trump and QAnon thing in the US, where media happily keep feeding people utter nonsense because it makes people want to hurt their political opponents. It's by far the most blatant example, but not remotely the only one.
Democracy is fantastic when you've got an informed electorate interested in the truth and in good governance, but it can get really messy when hit with tribalism, celebrity worship, conspiracy thinking, and an overdose of propaganda.
That said, it's still better than the alternatives, because it's ultimately self-correcting.
Right, thanks for pointing this out. I forgot to mention the problems of scale. My answer to this would be that democracy shall be fixed on the smaller scale first (municipality, city etc) where people can feel the effects immediately (e.g. traffic jams, pollution, parking spaces, bueraucracy etc). Then hopefully people will get a taste of real democracy and will start choosing their leaders more carefully.
Historically Soviet Union (and later Russia) had been a reliable partner for India, specially during crisis and on tricky issues (Nuclear...). While US and west generally aligned with Pakistan.
> India also has longstanding border disputes with Pakistan. I always thought (potentially ignorantly) that India would largely align itself with "the West"
India is not really west-aligned. The US also isn't exactly unfriendly with Pakistan and hasn't helped stability in that region, which India isn't happy about.
India likely also would rather have a useful Russia than China dominate entirely, and has long-standing existing trade etc relationships with Russia, where afaik India has gotten little downside or pressure from. Also, Russia is a source of cheap energy. Along the same lines, the west isn't interested in antagonizing India because it's important for influence in the region, so is unlikely to escalate unless really pushed - and buying fossil fuel which the west also hasn't entirely stopped doing it isn't pushing very hard. India does not fit in a neat this-side/that-side box here, and nobody is interested in forcing them to do so, because they might very well choose the wrong box.
An event of this magnitude is going to change alliances.
If you look at a map of the Belt and Road initiative it makes no sense why India would be allied with the West long term. That is the next world order and now Russia is absolutely a part of it.
IMO the history books will view this event as an utter disaster for the West and a gain for Belt and Road that would have been tough get otherwise.
From the Indian perspective, bombs falling in Gaza or Yemen are no different from those falling in Ukraine. From their government's perspective, the fuel that is essential to keep the poor people alive and well has risen in price... and any kind of mass poverty in a country which is already VERY POOR is absolutely terrible for the establishment... and that won't happen in years or decades... it is likely to happen in a matter of weeks to months... so they will have to take the path which can be of any help with the fuel prices situation.
A video from the perspective of an Indian YouTuber which covers how they see it was posted on HN a few days ago but was promptly flagged because it goes against the American propaganda. I know this comment will be too but at least if you have showdead, you may see it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnfqgKTz3fk
Isn't US considering buying oil from Venezuela? What happened to human rights concerns in Venezuela? There was also a statement from an US official that buying oil from Iran is not off the table. US forced other countries to not buy Iranian oil by imposing sanctions which I think are still in place. What I am saying is each country has its own interests. There are no morals, only interests. We may not like it that way but that's the way it is and US leads the way there.
Isn't Europe continuing to buy from Russia. I don't know why people make a big deal out of a third world emerging economy buying from its trust worthy friend.
People ascribe a different moral calculation for continuing to buy Russian oil and gas and newly buying Russian oil and gas. The end effect is the same, Russia gets money in return for its fossil fuels. But the rhetoric and the morality ascribed to each is different. Should it be? I don't know.
I'm not making a case either way. I'm stating why I think this is being raised as an issue. You are absolutely right in that moving the conversation to be about the relationships of the two countries makes a big difference in how one may feel about the ethics of the issue. People do place a great stock in loyalty and friendship, even among nations.
If Russia is India’s “friend”, they’re the type of friend you’re better off without unless you don’t mind having your life ruined over that friendship.
There are no friends here. It’s a juvenile idea. The point is that India is a poor country with big energy demands. This is a good deal. Passing it up over “moral” reasons is pretty stupid.
Very well said. Buying from Venezuela and Iran is something that some American prefer over local production even, which further exacerbates the obvious lack of morals.
No, it's not fair. "Record levels" means the high point, not 11% less than the high point. Why do you insist on redefining language to fit your argument?
I think the idea is that we're punishing Russia for inciting war and rewarding countries that have repressed their urges to attack other countries.
You would think India would greatly empathize with the plight of the Ukrainian people given that Pakistan would like to steamroll India and China would love to subjugate India diplomatically. I really don't know why India thinks this is a good idea other than that they think they could single-handedly take on both China and Pakistan without the West's help in the future.
If China attacks, Russia will be the intermediary for any trilateral talks.
If Pakistan attacks, it's because of all the money that US put in to Pakistan for Afghanistan and war against terror. If it's also only Pakistan, Russia will help in China not directly getting involved.
Geopolitics is complicated. Least you can do is remove some of the ignorance of historical relationships.
If US is not helping Ukraine, do you think it will directly help India against China?
Every nation is interested in preventing wars of aggression due to their potential to grow out of control and escalate to a world war, except for nations who have their own imperial ambitions
Are you saying India is that? The country known for non alignment and no aggression in history? It's a third world country trying to survive. Everyday oil is $100+, India bleeds heavily.
India empathizes with Ukraine, and is sending humanitarian assistance. But it buys 85% of its military hardware from Russia. Russia has supported it on many occasions in the past, whereas the USA once sent the USS Enterprise into Indian waters to stop India going to war with the then (East) Pakistan, where genocide was being committed. The USA was then a close ally of Pakistan.
India is slowly warming to the USA and is in the quad and other security-oriented multilateral relationships but there is very well-founded distrust of the US and a general positive feeling about Russia, its most steadfast and reliable ally ever since India became independent and pursued a policy of non-alignment during the cold war.
India has over 100 million poor people, and a lot more in lower middle class who will plunge into poverty because of the higher oil prices, and the resultant increase in the cost of food and goods due to higher cost of transportation. The import bill will be $60 billion higher, leaving less money to spend on social welfare and the military to deter China's aggression.
The choice is not simple like in the west, if they don't get cheaper gas millions may die.
I understand what you're saying and I certainly wouldn't want to be a decision-maker in India in 2022.
That said, Russia now seems to have a capricious and unstable leader. Gas prices are bad but the choice is either to stomach the high prices now or wait until Russia rips the band-aid off later for you at their own leisure.
Just to chime in, the lackadaisical efforts by India in supporting Ukraine is also due to the NIMBY effect. Compared to a war in a distant land, poverty & hunger are more pressing issues for them. They don't have an incentive to bend over the back for extra $60Bn in energy import, especially when Ukraine hasn't stood as a all-weather friend for them
Crude oil is not a fungible commodity. Refineries can process only certain types of crude. Also, depending on logistics (delivery of crude to refineries), a country could be simultaneously exporting crude in one region and importing it in another.
The US was a net-exporter of energy in 2020 (and maybe 2019) but decided since then to become a net-importer.
That said, refineries are actually somewhat specialized wrt what kind of crude they can process. The US produces some types of crude in excess of its capacity to refine said crude and has more capacity to refine some types of crude than there is domestic supply.
Note also that the Canadian fossil fuel industry is somewhat intertwined with the US fossil fuel industry. The same is true wrt Mexico, albeit to a lesser extent.
They are, but it likely wouldn't be nearly enough. The US was importing ~700k barrels from Russia daily. But Venezuela was only 634k barrels daily, and all of that is already accounted for (200k of it stays in the country). Even if we get the remaining 434k barrels, that wouldn't offset our loss. And the only way that we get that other oil is if the current buyers start buying from Russia instead.
This is the problem with only the US stopping oil purchases from Russia. The oil market is fungible, so buyers/sells are just going to move around, without any real impact.
The issue against Venezuela was often founded in the confiscation of Plants and Equipment by the gov (Nationalization)... Same for Cuba (and the embargo against them)
But... Well, now the West has decided unilaterally to confiscate the Yachts from Oligarchs (who are not even gov representatives, but are ascribed 'ties to Putin).
It goes without saying that these guys aren't always the most moral bunch... but that still should not mean we forget about law for the sake of convenience.
We even returned some hundreds of millions to the Iran regime --despite claiming it belonged to the previous legitimate government...
> The issue against Venezuela was often founded in the confiscation of Plants and Equipment
Yep - you can absolutely rule with medieval institutions, abuse your citizens as you see fit, and even bomb your neighbours at will, but God forbid that you take a bit of money from US companies - then the gloves are off for good!
The situation in Ukraine is unfortunate & Russia is squarely to blame. But there are other factors India has been calculating IMHO in keeping its long-term interests intact. I will add some more to the answers by <manojlds>:
Tracking diplomatic relations, US has blown hot blown cold with its strategic partners time and again. Some people are old enough to remember Donald Rumsfeld flew in meet Saddam Hussein, CIA trained Bin Laden in Yemen & Pakistan was a SEATO member with a huge military & financial backing. None of it holds today. Rather the very opposite. I think that scares Indian polity. They aren't dynamic enough to see the country as foes after enjoying decades of friendship, where they rely on US framework solely. At the same time, they feel independent enough to not be toeing the diplomatic line like S Korea or Japan for continued support. The ramifications & outcry from the Indian population can be quite severe. Western friendship has always been treated with a spoon of skepticism. This creates a terrible fix for the politicians.
That probably has been the premise why India was always gunning for NAM. They have wanted to position themselves between the two poles, maintaining cordiality & enough economic exchange. It gives them a sense of failsafe. Given their size, they see themselves as a regional power. But even today, they have to depend extensively on external support - on military & scientific projects, mainly.
Indian polity sees it in their interest to keep their ties to Russia for these reasons. They have an oversized dependence due to all the military hardware & industrial setup going back several decades. They are gradually transitioning to French, Israeli & US technology but they are still reliant on Soviet machinery in military & heavy industries (steel, shipbuilding, plastics etc.) That factors in their decision to act somewhat of a "friend in need".
EDIT: I will add in something my father, an ex-diplomat, mentioned the other day. This is chiming in the diplomatic chatter going around:
Ukraine apparently never supported India's position in several UN resolutions. From not supportong WTO-related pharma patent disputes & not endorsing India's NSG membership to not providing spares for the ageing Antonov transport equipment (instead, Russia provides the franchise version), Ukraine either was passive or voted against India. Much to India's diplomatic displeasure, they also sold & equipped Pakistan Army with T-80U tanks. When this war happened the bureaucratic / diplomatic mandarins have been non-commital about doing anything significant in support. In his words, "we aren't enemies, but Ukraine isn't a favored friend either".
EDIT2: I read some of the China related discussion. Frankly, with the border tussle, Russians have been non-committal so I don't think India is supporting Russia as a quid pro quo. In the event of any escalation, US would be more interested in keeping the balance of power in India's favor. Russians are reliant on Chinese consumption - and they know that to be the elephant in the room.
NATO, not the US, and because they’re asking us to.
Also it’s a chilling return to a Soviet era Europe in a way that hasn’t happened since WW2. The whole world is watching to see what a country can get away with, nearly 80 years after Hitler’s Germany.
Ukraine wants to join NATO. And, if they join NATO, rules can be bent, and they can do anything which Russia doesn't like. What would happen to Crimea if Ukraine had joined NATO in 2020 or 2021?
So my friend from Ukraine is lying and reciting Russian state propaganda? If there was ever a time for him to be anti-Russia, presumably, it would be whilst his country is being invaded.
I guess you're right. I'm clearly ignorant for trying to wade through the immense amount of propaganda from both sides[1] here by getting some insight from someone born and raised in Kyiv.
Also, I think Russian state-backed media is banned in the US now (where I am), but I could be wrong.
I hope that these people are just paid Russian trolls cause if that many people in the West are following Russian propaganda so blindly, the future is bleak. Russia has not produced anything of value to humanity in decades, just suffering and decay of common sense.
I was trying to refute the claims of the GP. Please don't insinuate I'm on Russia's side because I'm trying to understand both sides of this horrific situation. It's possible to be pro-Ukraine but also see why Putin invaded.*
We need nuance rather than black-or-white positions.
Accepting the most radical point of view of the state massacring civilians in another country is not "trying to wade through the immense amount of propaganda from both sides". Even if your friend "born and raised in Kyiv" is real, lived in Ukraine in recent decades and its their actual point of view that Ukrainians == Russians, that's still just an anecdote. And well, because of people with the views like that, horrible atrocities are justified.
Russian state-backed media is not "banned" in the US (who, exactly, would do this universal "ban"?), and the fact that you think such a thing is even possible makes me suspicious of your claim that you're from or are currently in the US to begin with...
> So my friend from Ukraine is lying and reciting Russian state propaganda?
I'm Ukrainian from South. Yes, he's lying. They might speak Russian or be sceptical about decisions that our government makes, but they're in no way identify themselves as Russians.
I watched a brilliant interview with Vladimir Klitschko with him basically saying that Ukraine is part of Europe. Why are you standing by and not defending this European country? It was the way he said it, so brilliant and convincing.
Ukraine has won the information war in a total wipe out.
Russia and US have been fighting via proxy wars for decades. So in this case it's less about helping Ukraine, and more about thumbing our nose at Russia.
> Because this is the first war in recent memory the US didn't start.
It's not even the first war between Russia and one of its neighbors in the last twenty years that the US didn't start, much less the first war of any kind in recent memory.
The election is coming soon, Audience is bored of Xinjiang "genocide" [1], inflation is high due to printer brrrr.. And, the president is losing reputation due to the Afghanistan war, inflation. So, what can they do? Poke the bear and a madman from Russia starts to invade. Now, they can so pretend they are aligned with humanity by doing something.
However, the Yemen war is still going on and only a few people know that. EU is still buying Russian oil. The US is begging despots from Saudi, Venezuela, or Iran ..... What a mess.
My cynical bet - the victims (aka Ukrainians) look (in popular press photos & video) similar enough to "white" Americans to really push the emotional buttons.
I have Ukrainian friends from college and co-workers (at least in part because my wife is Russian). We have a Ukrainian cleaning lady. It is easy to see people you know caught in this war.
Contrary to what some people believe US gets involved in conflicts beneficial to US. US and Russia have been in a proxy war for years now. Russia was putting bounties on US military.
It is in US interest that Ukraine does as much damage as possible to Russia. Now, the world is seeing how weak the Russian military is, a lot of poorly maintained equipment. Sanctions are going to cripple Russian economy. The western world is completely turning against Russia. London is passing laws to stop Russian oligarchs from owning property. Switzerland stopped being neutral and is freezing accounts. This is unprecedented.
We might be witnessing the downfall of Russian empire.
Please stop spreading literally fake news, it hurts the cause for us to stop real Russian misinformation. Things like this is used to say that ALL western media is lies
I don't know. It might mean having some proper negotiations over the future of Ukraine. It might end in partition. It might end in some other way. Right now things are headed in directions that strike me as very dangerous. I would feel a lot better if there was an attempt at negotiation.
Negotiation would require acceptance that one side is the West/EU, which itself would be a major escalation. As long as the situation continues to be framed as Ukraine defending on its own, then the only negotiation point is for Russia to decide to stop attacking - Ukrainians won't stop defending their country.
Internationally, Russia has dug itself a deep hole with its own shortsighted actions - 1. hundreds of billions of dollars of damage and outsized civilian death that necessitates hefty war reparations to Ukraine 2. foreign investment and reconstruction that Russia simply cannot supply 3. Ukraine would be highly foolish to give up seeking NATO membership as "neutrality" would just be an invitation for Russia to rebuild its army and restart the same war in the future 4. becoming part of Russia's empire has become even less attractive with the ascendant totalitarianism.
Having part of Ukraine in EU is not impossible and I think with the current state of matters, may be accepted by many. The other option is a full NATO-Russia confrontation that will tip the scales in one or the other direction. Of course all this assumes that it doesn't escalate up to a nuclear exchange. It looks like the desired outcome for the US is to remove Putin from power and to bring democracy to Russia. Whether this war is seen by US as a shortcut to this or as a long term, strategic move to achieve it is currently not very obvious. It looks like the desired outcome for Russia is to have a clear border with NATO, that is sufficiently distant from Moscow, to gain some territory in the process that is rich in natural resources and inhabited by many Russians and dare I think about it, to push the world's financial system away from USD.
What are proper negotiations? Russia will stop shelling civilians if Ukraine cedes them territory? If they're willing to shell maternity wards now do you think they'll think twice about Holodomor 2 to pacify the territory they stole?
What about a year from now when they decide they want more of Ukraine? Ukraine should negotiate then and cede more territory? Agree to be a Russian puppet state?
What we need is a compromise on the partition of Russia.
Russia is the last empire in Europe. It needs to be broken down along ethnic lines like the Austrian Empire was. The remaining Russian part would be much less of a threat to world peace.
Sure, buying oil from authoritarian dictatorships that bomb innocent civilians is distasteful. But that hasn't stopped the West from buying Saudi oil. Hell, the EU is still buying gas from Russia!
So, why do people feel moral indignation if a relatively poor country might do something to mitigate commodity inflation?
EU is still buying gas from Russia but plans are being cancelled. German pipeline has been cancelled, and EU plans to minimize use of Russian gas in the coming years.
Last I heard Russia was losing money on oil as they had discounted it heavily and now had to ship it, instead of using pipelines.
Saudi Arabia is not Russia, and Russia is invading a democratic country that is a part of the western world and like it or not Europeans can relate to Ukrainians. People care more when their friend gets sick vs someone they don't know. Plus, Ukraine conflict just got a lot of traction and is extremely popular.
Sure, in the same way a bone saw and Polonium are different.
> invading a democratic country that is a part of the western world and like it or not Europeans can relate to Ukrainians. People care more when their friend gets sick vs someone they don't know.
All the more reason for India not to concern itself with European squabbles.
EU doesn't have the moral high ground yet when it is still importing energy resources from Russia. Putin hasn't changed overnight. He was always sinister. Pipelines and refineries were built over last several years. This is a shock reaction but economics doesn't work on its basis, rather planning and counter-planning. As for your comment:
> Saudi Arabia is not Russia,
In many ways it is worse in human rights track record.
> Russia is invading a democratic country
Saudis attacked Yemen. Yemenis are suffering too. And then there are other stunts like kidnapping a prime-minister, murdering a well-known Saudi American journalist, phone hacking internationally, exporting/ funding Islamic militancy etc. List is equally long and dishonorable.
> that is a part of the western world and like it or not Europeans can relate to Ukrainians.
I think this is where your argument was gravitating to. tl;dr
> People care more when their friend gets sick vs someone they don't know. Plus, Ukraine conflict just got a lot of traction and is extremely popular.
That's saying some genocides like Eritrea, Rohingyas or Uyghurs aren't worth the same as Ukraine because we don't get social media updates. If TikTok is your standard, this is a poor hill to die on.
More interesting is they are working on mechanism to bypass dollar. They will settle deals in their own currencies, perhaps pegged to Chinese renminbi. It is very bad!
Because it will limit the circulation of USD and may have disastrous outcomes to the US financial system and the western world as we know it. The ability to expand money supply is directly dependent on where you could put this money into use. And it is not like there hasn't been an oversupply of EUR/USD lately.
So, where's the bad part, here? Oh no, a huge parasitic industry that comprises 9% of GDP but produces precisely nothing of value will be hurt?
Dollar demand will have to be predicated on real demand for actual American goods and services instead of relying on artificial demand driven by the forced settlement of trade contracts in dollars?
We'll have to actually produce value for the world instead of living profligately off the backs of Chinese, Korean, Mexican, and German labor? We'll have to actually put things into the empty containers leaving our ports? We'll have to actually work real jobs instead of being instagram influencers and optimizing click campaigns?
Yeah, I agree. Dad's a dick for taking the heroin away. It's definitely not our fault for becoming addicted in the first place. What a jerk.
It would have been nice if it was so simple. However, I don't think the process you described can be carried out without major turmoil in US/EU. It would probably include a default on the US debt or at least hyperinflation (soft default). People's income, savings and retirement will be affected (the latter two close to non-existent). Many may fall below the line of poverty. The elite will probably figure out how to keep their ruling position and disproportionate wealth once again at the expense of the rest. I am concerned that all this will have negative effects on democracy and human rights as well, because hard times you know ...
Oh, it will definitely be extraordinarily painful.
But the thing is, it's inevitable. And the longer we put off the day of reckoning, the more painful it will be.
The rest of the world should have de-dollarized and moved to floating reserve baskets and flexible settlements in 1971 after Nixon told everyone that if they expected their dollars to be backed by anything other than unicorn farts, they can go eat a dick.
Bretton Woods II was apparently too convenient for the world to discard. My personal tinfoil hat opinion is that certain very-low-time-preference East Asian powers encouraged adoption of Bretton Woods II specifically to make us soft and easy to topple a century later.
But now, it's too late. We can either start producing actual goods and services for export again and get our trade deficit down to a reasonable level, in anticipation of the inevitability of de-dollarization, or we could pretend it's not a problem, and experience a colossal currency crisis in 40 years ANYWAY.
Can someone pls explain the meaning of the term ‘pegged to the dollar’ (in context of oil)? If someone has boat load of cash in non dollar - but valid currency - they still cant buy oil? Why is that?
It's natural. There is a long history of bilateral ties, Indian arms are almost entirely Russian or Russian-derived, and America ultimately chose Pakistan as their South Asian ally to the degree that their most celebrated heroes trained Pakistani pilots in use of US jets that were used as the first strike in the last formal war between India and Pakistan.
If I recall correctly, a CSG was sent to cut off Bangladeshi independence - only stymied in that goal by a Russian submarine squadron.
Indian politics is more West-aligned in that it is a democracy that is opening up as a market economy, but the geopolitics is different. The US chose India's local enemy and funded and equipped them while Russia chose India and equipped them. In order to walk over and align to the West, India has to walk a thin line that involves not antagonizing their present partner while obtaining significant support from the US - who have historically not helped.
It does help that the US and the UK have a massive expat Indian community, but not nearly enough when the geopolitics is taken into account.
137 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 215 ms ] threadHow does this purchase not ending hurting them in the sense that, if they buy Russian oil in this crisis in defiance of the West's objections; wouldn't that come back to bite them potentially if China aggressed on India in a potentially parallel border dispute?
Nope, first it would be Russia that would help India. Russia has been the long term trust worthy friend of India.
Ideally, yes, India should align with the West and probably wants to. But, without a NATO like equivalent that guarantees protection India gains nothing by aligning solely with the West instead of a known bad weather friend Russia.
Some initial read on Russia (USSR) helping in the 1971 war - https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/governa...
PS: this is just my limited understanding and how many see this in India.
The US supplying military aid, specifically F-16s, to Pakistan has been the biggest issue for a US/India strategic relationship.
Pardon my silly US lack of knowledge
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Russia_relations
I, as an American, was unaware of Russian-Indian relations until that visit.
No matter how the war turns out, Russia will be significantly weakened. The isolation from the West will force it into a closer and subservient relationship with China. There is no way Russia will take India's side against China.
Even US understands it - https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1497314441141972993?t=X8Yc55p...
This is also the problem with Ukraine. NATO members may like Ukraine and India for being democracies, but that's not worth much if they won't step up to defend when those democracies are under attack.
I think the US, EU or NATO should form a broader alliance that extends this mutual defense to all democracies, at least when under attack by dictatorships. Not doing so gives dictatorships a free reign to attack democracies just outside NATO's borders, as we're seeing with Ukraine.
And I'm mentioning the EU because I think being a democracy should also automatically come with beneficial free trade agreements.
We like to talk much about how democracy is better, but if we leave struggling democracies to fend for themselves, democracy will always be under attack. I think that's a much better idea than allying with autocracies, as the US certainly has done way too often in the past.
Well, over the last twenty years it's arguably been democracies doing the attacks, to be fair...
Maybe it would make more sense to rebuild supranational institutions that, y'know, actually make people figure things out. The UN Security Council has been effectively sidestepped since 2001, to the irritation of many. We need to rebuild mechanisms to resolve problems.
Some people on the internet will moan, John Oliver will have some witty quip. Bono will say something insufferable. But at the end of the day, few in the west are gonna give a crap about a poor nation buying commodities on the cheap even if we don't like the source. China is the long term competitor in that region and the west isn't going to mind India buying Russian oil, and doing all sorts of things that we wouldn't allow in the west, if that's what it takes for them to be marginally stronger w.r.t. China.
Look at how the west treats the middle east. Nobody cares what terrible things KSA, Jordan, Israel, etc. do so long as they remain stable, don't align with our enemies and don't F with out interests. India, Vietnam, every other developing east Asian country gets the same treatment
I don't think the West disagrees.
In most diplomatic disputes, the Ussr (and later to some extent, Russia) sided with India, while USA sided with Pakistan.
Even though India has been a democracy, relationships with the USA (and most western nations) have been cool, at best.
>> wouldn't that come back to bite them potentially if China aggressed on India in a potentially parallel border dispute?
I doubt USA would do anything if China and India went to war; USA and India are sort of aligned in trying to contain China, but in itself this isnt a strong enough factor to counter all the other bad blood over the years.
It also doesnt help that the American political system is a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde-- one President can promise you anything, the next will completely overturn it. Trump tearing up Obama's Iran deal is an example (but this goes beyond just Trump). Most Asian/Arab countries know you can't trust America-- Obama betraying long term ally Mubarak (in Egypt) and throwing him to the wolves is another example.
Hate Russia all you want-- but the general feeling is: Your deals/relationships with Russia won't change every 4 years, and you can build long term plans.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971
Maybe the "west" should.
We used to assume that every country will eventually become democratic, but recent years have shown there's quite a bit of pushback. But Russia and China would love to undermine the idea of democracy, and show it to be weak in ineffective. I think we've taken democracy for granted too much, and we should take it more seriously. Including supporting other democracies, when necessary.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/16/aukus-india-australia-u...
India is the largest democracy in the world by far, they should be a cornerstone of an alliance of democracies.
If that is fixed, next battle will be for your mind (I am looking at you mass media).
Democracy is fantastic when you've got an informed electorate interested in the truth and in good governance, but it can get really messy when hit with tribalism, celebrity worship, conspiracy thinking, and an overdose of propaganda.
That said, it's still better than the alternatives, because it's ultimately self-correcting.
During the India Pak war of 1971, US and Britain had their ships near Indian waters to threaten India. While it was Soviet that sent ships to support India. http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10/1971-india-pakistan-...
Russia collaborated with India in setting up nuclear reactors when the west was imposing sanctions.
https://www.orfonline.org/research/india-civil-nuclear-agree...
India is not really west-aligned. The US also isn't exactly unfriendly with Pakistan and hasn't helped stability in that region, which India isn't happy about.
India likely also would rather have a useful Russia than China dominate entirely, and has long-standing existing trade etc relationships with Russia, where afaik India has gotten little downside or pressure from. Also, Russia is a source of cheap energy. Along the same lines, the west isn't interested in antagonizing India because it's important for influence in the region, so is unlikely to escalate unless really pushed - and buying fossil fuel which the west also hasn't entirely stopped doing it isn't pushing very hard. India does not fit in a neat this-side/that-side box here, and nobody is interested in forcing them to do so, because they might very well choose the wrong box.
If you look at a map of the Belt and Road initiative it makes no sense why India would be allied with the West long term. That is the next world order and now Russia is absolutely a part of it.
IMO the history books will view this event as an utter disaster for the West and a gain for Belt and Road that would have been tough get otherwise.
A video from the perspective of an Indian YouTuber which covers how they see it was posted on HN a few days ago but was promptly flagged because it goes against the American propaganda. I know this comment will be too but at least if you have showdead, you may see it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnfqgKTz3fk
India is CONTINUING the relationship. Why did west START?
Didn't Germany INCREASE dependence on Russia even after Crimea?
There are no friends here. It’s a juvenile idea. The point is that India is a poor country with big energy demands. This is a good deal. Passing it up over “moral” reasons is pretty stupid.
Very well said. Buying from Venezuela and Iran is something that some American prefer over local production even, which further exacerbates the obvious lack of morals.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
It's double the amount produced 10 years ago, so I think it's fair to say "record levels".
The 10% reduction began in April 2020, well before Biden, and since May 2021, production has equalled or exceeded 2020 production month-to-month.
You would think India would greatly empathize with the plight of the Ukrainian people given that Pakistan would like to steamroll India and China would love to subjugate India diplomatically. I really don't know why India thinks this is a good idea other than that they think they could single-handedly take on both China and Pakistan without the West's help in the future.
If Pakistan attacks, it's because of all the money that US put in to Pakistan for Afghanistan and war against terror. If it's also only Pakistan, Russia will help in China not directly getting involved.
Geopolitics is complicated. Least you can do is remove some of the ignorance of historical relationships.
If US is not helping Ukraine, do you think it will directly help India against China?
India is slowly warming to the USA and is in the quad and other security-oriented multilateral relationships but there is very well-founded distrust of the US and a general positive feeling about Russia, its most steadfast and reliable ally ever since India became independent and pursued a policy of non-alignment during the cold war.
The choice is not simple like in the west, if they don't get cheaper gas millions may die.
That said, Russia now seems to have a capricious and unstable leader. Gas prices are bad but the choice is either to stomach the high prices now or wait until Russia rips the band-aid off later for you at their own leisure.
That said, refineries are actually somewhat specialized wrt what kind of crude they can process. The US produces some types of crude in excess of its capacity to refine said crude and has more capacity to refine some types of crude than there is domestic supply.
Note also that the Canadian fossil fuel industry is somewhat intertwined with the US fossil fuel industry. The same is true wrt Mexico, albeit to a lesser extent.
This is the problem with only the US stopping oil purchases from Russia. The oil market is fungible, so buyers/sells are just going to move around, without any real impact.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-eyes-venezuelan-oil-russi...
But... Well, now the West has decided unilaterally to confiscate the Yachts from Oligarchs (who are not even gov representatives, but are ascribed 'ties to Putin).
It goes without saying that these guys aren't always the most moral bunch... but that still should not mean we forget about law for the sake of convenience.
We even returned some hundreds of millions to the Iran regime --despite claiming it belonged to the previous legitimate government...
So, it's all BS.
Yep - you can absolutely rule with medieval institutions, abuse your citizens as you see fit, and even bomb your neighbours at will, but God forbid that you take a bit of money from US companies - then the gloves are off for good!
Tracking diplomatic relations, US has blown hot blown cold with its strategic partners time and again. Some people are old enough to remember Donald Rumsfeld flew in meet Saddam Hussein, CIA trained Bin Laden in Yemen & Pakistan was a SEATO member with a huge military & financial backing. None of it holds today. Rather the very opposite. I think that scares Indian polity. They aren't dynamic enough to see the country as foes after enjoying decades of friendship, where they rely on US framework solely. At the same time, they feel independent enough to not be toeing the diplomatic line like S Korea or Japan for continued support. The ramifications & outcry from the Indian population can be quite severe. Western friendship has always been treated with a spoon of skepticism. This creates a terrible fix for the politicians.
That probably has been the premise why India was always gunning for NAM. They have wanted to position themselves between the two poles, maintaining cordiality & enough economic exchange. It gives them a sense of failsafe. Given their size, they see themselves as a regional power. But even today, they have to depend extensively on external support - on military & scientific projects, mainly.
Indian polity sees it in their interest to keep their ties to Russia for these reasons. They have an oversized dependence due to all the military hardware & industrial setup going back several decades. They are gradually transitioning to French, Israeli & US technology but they are still reliant on Soviet machinery in military & heavy industries (steel, shipbuilding, plastics etc.) That factors in their decision to act somewhat of a "friend in need".
EDIT: I will add in something my father, an ex-diplomat, mentioned the other day. This is chiming in the diplomatic chatter going around:
Ukraine apparently never supported India's position in several UN resolutions. From not supportong WTO-related pharma patent disputes & not endorsing India's NSG membership to not providing spares for the ageing Antonov transport equipment (instead, Russia provides the franchise version), Ukraine either was passive or voted against India. Much to India's diplomatic displeasure, they also sold & equipped Pakistan Army with T-80U tanks. When this war happened the bureaucratic / diplomatic mandarins have been non-commital about doing anything significant in support. In his words, "we aren't enemies, but Ukraine isn't a favored friend either".
EDIT2: I read some of the China related discussion. Frankly, with the border tussle, Russians have been non-committal so I don't think India is supporting Russia as a quid pro quo. In the event of any escalation, US would be more interested in keeping the balance of power in India's favor. Russians are reliant on Chinese consumption - and they know that to be the elephant in the room.
Also it’s a chilling return to a Soviet era Europe in a way that hasn’t happened since WW2. The whole world is watching to see what a country can get away with, nearly 80 years after Hitler’s Germany.
And of course you have a source for that?
This is not true, ignorant, and parrots hateful Russian state propaganda.
I guess you're right. I'm clearly ignorant for trying to wade through the immense amount of propaganda from both sides[1] here by getting some insight from someone born and raised in Kyiv.
Also, I think Russian state-backed media is banned in the US now (where I am), but I could be wrong.
1: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-...
We need nuance rather than black-or-white positions.
*: I'm still trying to wrap my head around this.
I'm Ukrainian from South. Yes, he's lying. They might speak Russian or be sceptical about decisions that our government makes, but they're in no way identify themselves as Russians.
Ukraine has won the information war in a total wipe out.
And yours is an "is" argument, I'm giving an "ought" argument. NATO ought to fight for Ukraine, because Ukraine is asking NATO to do so.
It's not even the first war between Russia and one of its neighbors in the last twenty years that the US didn't start, much less the first war of any kind in recent memory.
However, the Yemen war is still going on and only a few people know that. EU is still buying Russian oil. The US is begging despots from Saudi, Venezuela, or Iran ..... What a mess.
[1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/02/13/genocide-is-the...
No one cared when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.
The US (and NATO more generally) is hell-bent on not fighting for Ukraine, because Russia.
It is in US interest that Ukraine does as much damage as possible to Russia. Now, the world is seeing how weak the Russian military is, a lot of poorly maintained equipment. Sanctions are going to cripple Russian economy. The western world is completely turning against Russia. London is passing laws to stop Russian oligarchs from owning property. Switzerland stopped being neutral and is freezing accounts. This is unprecedented.
We might be witnessing the downfall of Russian empire.
Please stop spreading literally fake news, it hurts the cause for us to stop real Russian misinformation. Things like this is used to say that ALL western media is lies
Fact check: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56775660.amp
It's not, so far, but it would be because Ukraine is a democracy and Russia is a dictatorship.
Internationally, Russia has dug itself a deep hole with its own shortsighted actions - 1. hundreds of billions of dollars of damage and outsized civilian death that necessitates hefty war reparations to Ukraine 2. foreign investment and reconstruction that Russia simply cannot supply 3. Ukraine would be highly foolish to give up seeking NATO membership as "neutrality" would just be an invitation for Russia to rebuild its army and restart the same war in the future 4. becoming part of Russia's empire has become even less attractive with the ascendant totalitarianism.
What about a year from now when they decide they want more of Ukraine? Ukraine should negotiate then and cede more territory? Agree to be a Russian puppet state?
Russia is the last empire in Europe. It needs to be broken down along ethnic lines like the Austrian Empire was. The remaining Russian part would be much less of a threat to world peace.
So, why do people feel moral indignation if a relatively poor country might do something to mitigate commodity inflation?
Last I heard Russia was losing money on oil as they had discounted it heavily and now had to ship it, instead of using pipelines.
Saudi Arabia is not Russia, and Russia is invading a democratic country that is a part of the western world and like it or not Europeans can relate to Ukrainians. People care more when their friend gets sick vs someone they don't know. Plus, Ukraine conflict just got a lot of traction and is extremely popular.
Certification of Nord Stream 2 has been suspended. And this is hardly the first time it happened: https://m.dw.com/en/german-agency-suspends-certification-for...
> Saudi Arabia is not Russia,
Sure, in the same way a bone saw and Polonium are different.
> invading a democratic country that is a part of the western world and like it or not Europeans can relate to Ukrainians. People care more when their friend gets sick vs someone they don't know.
All the more reason for India not to concern itself with European squabbles.
Maybe then we can save our moral outrage for when the EU’s hypocrisy is official and not just token?
> Saudi Arabia is not Russia,
In many ways it is worse in human rights track record.
> Russia is invading a democratic country
Saudis attacked Yemen. Yemenis are suffering too. And then there are other stunts like kidnapping a prime-minister, murdering a well-known Saudi American journalist, phone hacking internationally, exporting/ funding Islamic militancy etc. List is equally long and dishonorable.
> that is a part of the western world and like it or not Europeans can relate to Ukrainians.
I think this is where your argument was gravitating to. tl;dr
> People care more when their friend gets sick vs someone they don't know. Plus, Ukraine conflict just got a lot of traction and is extremely popular.
That's saying some genocides like Eritrea, Rohingyas or Uyghurs aren't worth the same as Ukraine because we don't get social media updates. If TikTok is your standard, this is a poor hill to die on.
Why?
So, where's the bad part, here? Oh no, a huge parasitic industry that comprises 9% of GDP but produces precisely nothing of value will be hurt?
Dollar demand will have to be predicated on real demand for actual American goods and services instead of relying on artificial demand driven by the forced settlement of trade contracts in dollars?
We'll have to actually produce value for the world instead of living profligately off the backs of Chinese, Korean, Mexican, and German labor? We'll have to actually put things into the empty containers leaving our ports? We'll have to actually work real jobs instead of being instagram influencers and optimizing click campaigns?
Yeah, I agree. Dad's a dick for taking the heroin away. It's definitely not our fault for becoming addicted in the first place. What a jerk.
But the thing is, it's inevitable. And the longer we put off the day of reckoning, the more painful it will be.
The rest of the world should have de-dollarized and moved to floating reserve baskets and flexible settlements in 1971 after Nixon told everyone that if they expected their dollars to be backed by anything other than unicorn farts, they can go eat a dick.
Bretton Woods II was apparently too convenient for the world to discard. My personal tinfoil hat opinion is that certain very-low-time-preference East Asian powers encouraged adoption of Bretton Woods II specifically to make us soft and easy to topple a century later.
But now, it's too late. We can either start producing actual goods and services for export again and get our trade deficit down to a reasonable level, in anticipation of the inevitability of de-dollarization, or we could pretend it's not a problem, and experience a colossal currency crisis in 40 years ANYWAY.
I prefer the former.
If I recall correctly, a CSG was sent to cut off Bangladeshi independence - only stymied in that goal by a Russian submarine squadron.
Indian politics is more West-aligned in that it is a democracy that is opening up as a market economy, but the geopolitics is different. The US chose India's local enemy and funded and equipped them while Russia chose India and equipped them. In order to walk over and align to the West, India has to walk a thin line that involves not antagonizing their present partner while obtaining significant support from the US - who have historically not helped.
It does help that the US and the UK have a massive expat Indian community, but not nearly enough when the geopolitics is taken into account.