India still does business with them, yet there’s no push back about it.
'India deserves a thank you for purchasing Russian oil': EAM S Jaishankar - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NYRk_Vgm-g
The World Is Thanking Us For Buying Russian Oil: Hardeep Singh Puri | Davos 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VDpVY44rNUw
An equivalent economic policy would be if Europe and India were both allowed to buy oil, but capped at India's current amount (let's say 20% of pre-war baseline). Perhaps this can be called a "fractional" embargo.
Is this really desirable? The pain of going from 80% embargoed to 100% is much greater for Russia than 0% to 20% -- a 100% would likely cripple the war. To be fair, not saying that was a card in play due to China, Iran, etc. But arguing it's good economic/diplomatic policy is unclear since it makes the embargo weaker
1) The disillusionment and hope of Western sanctions against Russia - https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/disillusionment-russia-sa...
2) The impact of Russia–Ukraine war on crude oil prices: an EMC framework - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02526-9
At deep discounts. Discounts which finance its balancing vis-à-vis China. It’s a stable system, provided Xi’s replacement isn’t a Caligula.
As an example aspect of how India might view Western nations: the US was one of the first to recognize Pakistan after the forced partition of India by the British on their way out of South Asia. Despite a long history of harboring terrorist groups (like the Taliban or Al Qaeda) and themselves conducting terrorist attacks, Pakistan was somehow recently designated as a major non NATO ally of the US. India has strained relations with Pakistan and Bangladesh, whose territories were historically part of the Indian / Hindu world, but were taken away to form those nations as part of the partition of India. Obviously given Islamic invaders were the original colonizers of India for hundreds of years, before European colonizers arrived, anyone legitimizing those nations as the US has, will not be seen by India as a reliable friend.
Meanwhile Russia has long supported India and cooperated with them on defense, space, etc. Although Russia does have diplomatic relations that India does not support, they have been a friend to India on very important and sensitive areas like defense. That has made them a very popular ally, not just with the government of India, but also its citizens. They’re seen as being far less fickle than Western partners.
So India finds itself in the middle of all these global conflicts, and is taking a somewhat neutral route that serves its interests well. I think to them, these other conflicts aren’t “their fight” and they’re more focused on their own reality. If other countries take issue with it, we need to work to earn their trust, and give something significant in return for the long history of not treating them as friends. I am no foreign policy expert, but I feel it would be irrational for us to expect them to act against their own interests.
EDIT: I am not sure how to reply to the flagged reply under me, so adding some thoughts here. There is a long and documented history of Islamic Arabs invading India and taking over most of its territory, which is what I was referring to, and which underpins their geopolitical position today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian...
These invasions involved killing huge numbers of people, settling/occupying their lands (almost the entirety of modern India), ruling over them through authoritarian power, subjugating them, extracting wealth from them, and destructively affecting local culture (for example by demolishing buildings). This is all very literally colonialism, and there are many similarities between this period and the period under European rule. I think that HAS to affect how India evaluates foreign policy today.
Most Islamic empires in India Indianized rapidly, adopting local customs, languages, and traditions. Does this legitimatize invasion/forced conversion? Of course not, but things were different 1300 years ago (first Islamic invasion). No Muslim empire ever ruled the entirety of the subcontinent.
Colonizers? Most Muslim empires came and stayed and did not pilfer to benefit the motherland like the British Raj. India was likely the world's largest economy under the Mughals (Muslims) before the British came and did what they do best.
The most well-known symbol of India, the Taj Mahal, was built under Muslims, exemplifying a blend of Indo-Islamic architecture.
In the modern age of Modi, I keep seeing this garbage viewpoint. The Great Qing dynasty was not Han Chinese, but the Chinese didn't attempt to shed that vital piece of their heritage. I don't care if you're specifically Hindu or not but consider adopting a more nuanced viewpoint.
Who cares what the US stance and role in this is. India is a big boy and this is their stance in Ukraine's anticolonial struggle.
I’m not familiar with their relations - can you share how they’ve been a good friend? I’ve only heard of their relations after the current conflict began, where there were reports that Africans and Indians faced racism and segregation at the Ukraine border:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/europe/students-allege-racism...
But the real question is how is it that India is always whining about the colonial past yet they are not even prepared to politically confront neoimperial Russia at such minor economic costs.