5 ms·

Why India isn’t denouncing Russia’s Ukraine war

15 points by amardeep 5y ago

known 5y ago
naruvimama 5y ago
I remember the time India had to pay for its Iranian oil (which btw. now is currently down to 0) Surprise, surprise it had to do the payments through German banks, which btw is part of NATO. It is a bit hypocritical for the west to expect India to act as a client state while NATO states like Germany continue to buy Russian gas.
cmurf 5y ago
I consider this "neutrality" position both specious and pernicious. This is a clear cut case of aggressive war, a war of conquest to expand borders, what Nuremberg trials judged as the supreme international crime. Countries claiming they are "neutral" belies their position on more important prior agreements. U.N. Charter article 2(5) applies, and India and China are frankly not doing enough. They are weakening their own sincerity, and the international institutions we need. If the U.N. system is being unwound, and I think it may be because having nuclear weapons is a more effective deterrent than the U.N. Security Council, the next causality will be the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. In 1994, Poland insisted on joining NATO otherwise they were going to start a nuclear weapons program, because they didn't trust Russia. They weren't alone. China and India's "neutrality" might be just enough non-coercive force that the war lasts longer, turning Ukraine into rubble. And what will Ukraine and other countries conclude? That the international community isn't at all effective at stopping wars of aggression, and they should probably develop nuclear weapons. In effect, "neutrality" incentivizes long term nuclear proliferation. I don't see how nuclear proliferation is in the long term security of any country on earth. They are a deterrent up to a point, but I suspect the more nukes there are the greater the chance they're going to be used.
- trasz 5y ago
  Unless it turns out the sanctions actually worked and it topples the Russian government.
- zhengiszen 5y ago
  What do China or India have to win by choosing a side ? Yesterday the US was waging war across the Middle East for the nearly the same reasons as Russia and they kept for themselves quite the same still...
  - cmurf 5y ago
    > What do China or India have to win by choosing a side? China already chose a side. They are a party to the Budapest memorandum, they acknowledged Ukraine is a sovereign country, with its 1994 borders. China and India are parties to the UN Charter, and as this is clearly an unprovoked attack, a war of aggression to expand borders, is illegal under article 2(4). China and India are obligated by article 2(5) to do more than they are doing. >US was waging war across the Middle East for the nearly the same reasons as Russia Wrong. No major powers are backing Russia, the overwhelming majority of nations have condemned it and insist Russia should cease the attack. Russia insists upon the right to expand its borders, that's how this war got started in 2014, that's been the consistent position at the negotiating table now. They want territorial expansion and subjugation of the Ukrainian people contrary to the same Budapest memorandum they too are a party of. Iraq had over a dozen UN resolutions against it before the 2003 invasion. 31 countries were party to the multinational force. (I think it's wrong that invasion occurred without UNSC approval. Nevertheless this was not a unilateral invasion.) And most importantly it was not a war of conquest, nor one to expand borders. Very much unlike what Russia is doing.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  >I don't see how nuclear proliferation is in the long term security of any country on earth PRC and India are already in rough nuclear neighbourhoods, while they don't want any more regional proliferation, it's not exactly severely against their interests if US/EU are also encumbered with similar regional threats. Like PRC doesn't want NK to have nukes, but if NK must get nukes, then they better not be limited to short range nukes limited to region, including PRC's backyard - they better have ICBMs that can threaten US as well. The international community isn't good at stopping wars conducted by major powers. It's not designed to be.
lashkhi 5y ago

15 points by amardeep 5y ago

I remember the time India had to pay for its Iranian oil (which btw. now is currently down to 0) Surprise, surprise it had to do the payments through German banks, which btw is part of NATO. It is a bit hypocritical for the west to expect India to act as a client state while NATO states like Germany continue to buy Russian gas.

cmurf 5y ago

I consider this "neutrality" position both specious and pernicious. This is a clear cut case of aggressive war, a war of conquest to expand borders, what Nuremberg trials judged as the supreme international crime. Countries claiming they are "neutral" belies their position on more important prior agreements. U.N. Charter article 2(5) applies, and India and China are frankly not doing enough. They are weakening their own sincerity, and the international institutions we need. If the U.N. system is being unwound, and I think it may be because having nuclear weapons is a more effective deterrent than the U.N. Security Council, the next causality will be the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. In 1994, Poland insisted on joining NATO otherwise they were going to start a nuclear weapons program, because they didn't trust Russia. They weren't alone. China and India's "neutrality" might be just enough non-coercive force that the war lasts longer, turning Ukraine into rubble. And what will Ukraine and other countries conclude? That the international community isn't at all effective at stopping wars of aggression, and they should probably develop nuclear weapons. In effect, "neutrality" incentivizes long term nuclear proliferation. I don't see how nuclear proliferation is in the long term security of any country on earth. They are a deterrent up to a point, but I suspect the more nukes there are the greater the chance they're going to be used.

trasz 5y ago
Unless it turns out the sanctions actually worked and it topples the Russian government.
zhengiszen 5y ago
What do China or India have to win by choosing a side ? Yesterday the US was waging war across the Middle East for the nearly the same reasons as Russia and they kept for themselves quite the same still...
- cmurf 5y ago
  > What do China or India have to win by choosing a side? China already chose a side. They are a party to the Budapest memorandum, they acknowledged Ukraine is a sovereign country, with its 1994 borders. China and India are parties to the UN Charter, and as this is clearly an unprovoked attack, a war of aggression to expand borders, is illegal under article 2(4). China and India are obligated by article 2(5) to do more than they are doing. >US was waging war across the Middle East for the nearly the same reasons as Russia Wrong. No major powers are backing Russia, the overwhelming majority of nations have condemned it and insist Russia should cease the attack. Russia insists upon the right to expand its borders, that's how this war got started in 2014, that's been the consistent position at the negotiating table now. They want territorial expansion and subjugation of the Ukrainian people contrary to the same Budapest memorandum they too are a party of. Iraq had over a dozen UN resolutions against it before the 2003 invasion. 31 countries were party to the multinational force. (I think it's wrong that invasion occurred without UNSC approval. Nevertheless this was not a unilateral invasion.) And most importantly it was not a war of conquest, nor one to expand borders. Very much unlike what Russia is doing.
dirtyid 5y ago
>I don't see how nuclear proliferation is in the long term security of any country on earth PRC and India are already in rough nuclear neighbourhoods, while they don't want any more regional proliferation, it's not exactly severely against their interests if US/EU are also encumbered with similar regional threats. Like PRC doesn't want NK to have nukes, but if NK must get nukes, then they better not be limited to short range nukes limited to region, including PRC's backyard - they better have ICBMs that can threaten US as well. The international community isn't good at stopping wars conducted by major powers. It's not designed to be.

lashkhi 5y ago