India considers buying discounted Russian oil, commodities
reuters.com
reuters.com
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.
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!
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Maybe then we can save our moral outrage for when the EU’s hypocrisy is official and not just token?
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
The US supplying military aid, specifically F-16s, to Pakistan has been the biggest issue for a US/India strategic relationship.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
I don't think the West disagrees.
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.
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
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 has won the information war in a total wipe out.
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-...
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.
We need nuance rather than black-or-white positions.
*: I'm still trying to wrap my head around this.
And of course you have a source for that?
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, so far, but it would be because Ukraine is a democracy and Russia is a dictatorship.
No one cared when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.
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...
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.