Hacker News Reader

Comment by wpasc | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

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...

> 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.

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.

That's the 90s/00s view, but I think there's a reassessment underway that Russia cannot practically extend military aid right now.

The US supplying military aid, specifically F-16s, to Pakistan has been the biggest issue for a US/India strategic relationship.

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.

Pardon my silly US lack of knowledge

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Russia_relations

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.

Curious, are Americans also unaware of America's close relationship and propping up of Pakistan?

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.

QUAD relationship would be under strain given that other 3 members have sided with West.

The whole point of Quad is to counter China which is meaningless without Indian involvement.

People here are more worried than even the US diplomats.

Even US understands it - https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1497314441141972993?t=X8Yc55p...

> 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.

> 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.

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.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

> 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.

The relationship has been slowly strengthening with India since the end of the cold war, and is now forming into real alliances. E.g.,

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.

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.

>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

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

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.

Russia is also "The West", culturally.

Maybe "The North" would be a better label then.

Russians would argue Russia is just Russia.

I don't think the West disagrees.

way off the mark. Moscow and St. Petersburg, maybe.

Not really. Their cultural heritage is in the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com