4 ms·

India still does business with them, yet there’s no push back about it.

by b3ing 2y ago

throwxr 2y ago
Europe & america also do business with Russia.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Probably because it makes sense to everyone why India does business with Russia, and they can’t be faulted for it. Briefly it is simply because Russia has been a good friend to India and everyone else has not. A secondary reason is that they are able to buy things from Russia at steep discounts right now and that is very helpful to India’s economy. 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_subcontinent 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.
- faizan-ali 2y ago
  I personally don't think partition was a good idea but give me a fucking break with this Hindu-nationalist view that Muslims were the "original colonizers" of India. 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.
- humanlion87 2y ago
  To add to that, the US tried hard to block India from getting advanced engines for use with space rockets. Initially the US wanted to sell engines to India but the cost was too high. But when India tried to make a deal with Russia, the US immediately stepped in and threatened sanctions to block the deal. This was in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union.
- Paradigma11 2y ago
  But it goes to show how shallow all that anticolonial rhetoric is. Ukraine also has been a good friend to India but now there is no support. 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.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > Ukraine also has been a good friend to India but now there is no support. 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-ukraine-cmd-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/europe/students-allege-racism...
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> India still does business with them 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.
- nradov 2y ago
  Xi's replacement might be a Caligula, at least in terms of governing incompetence. He has successfully purged the Party leadership of any potential challengers, leaving only ineffectual sycophants.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Are they actually incompetent? China’s long term planning seems to be effective in that they seem to reach their own stated objectives for the most part. That said, it is possible we can’t know for sure how well they’re actually doing if they’re lying. I also recognize their economy is fragile right now and they could be at a point of instability. But when I look at politics in the US for example, I am not sure we can claim to be any more competent haha.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Xi’s replacement is likely 10-15 years out unless he kicks the bucket, I think that’s too far off to worry about stable system since he’ll be around for a while almost guaranteeing the same system
rramadass 2y ago
For a very good reason; it is keeping international oil prices stable and so the world as a whole and in particular; the poorer countries are not devastated. Get a clue about how all economies are highly interlinked together and how to use diplomacy for the benefit of the World. Incidentally, Europe/Americas/Other Developed Countries are also a huge beneficiary of this. 'India deserves a thank you for purchasing Russian oil': EAM S Jaishankar - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NYRk_Vgm-g 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 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VDpVY44rNUw
- ReaLNero 2y ago
  I don't really buy this. 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
  - rramadass 2y ago
    The paramount objective is Economic stability by controlling/managing global oil price volatility; everything else is secondary (i.e. Realpolitik). That is why the sanctions are full of loopholes for various European countries (see [1] below). 1) The disillusionment and hope of Western sanctions against Russia - https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/disillusionment-russia-sanctions/ 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 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02526-9

India still does business with them, yet there’s no push back about it.

by b3ing 2y ago

India still does business with them, yet there’s no push back about it.

throwxr 2y ago

Europe & america also do business with Russia.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Probably because it makes sense to everyone why India does business with Russia, and they can’t be faulted for it. Briefly it is simply because Russia has been a good friend to India and everyone else has not. A secondary reason is that they are able to buy things from Russia at steep discounts right now and that is very helpful to India’s economy. 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_subcontinent 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.

faizan-ali 2y ago
I personally don't think partition was a good idea but give me a fucking break with this Hindu-nationalist view that Muslims were the "original colonizers" of India. 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.
humanlion87 2y ago
To add to that, the US tried hard to block India from getting advanced engines for use with space rockets. Initially the US wanted to sell engines to India but the cost was too high. But when India tried to make a deal with Russia, the US immediately stepped in and threatened sanctions to block the deal. This was in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Paradigma11 2y ago
But it goes to show how shallow all that anticolonial rhetoric is. Ukraine also has been a good friend to India but now there is no support. 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.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > Ukraine also has been a good friend to India but now there is no support. 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-ukraine-cmd-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/europe/students-allege-racism...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> India still does business with them 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.

nradov 2y ago
Xi's replacement might be a Caligula, at least in terms of governing incompetence. He has successfully purged the Party leadership of any potential challengers, leaving only ineffectual sycophants.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Are they actually incompetent? China’s long term planning seems to be effective in that they seem to reach their own stated objectives for the most part. That said, it is possible we can’t know for sure how well they’re actually doing if they’re lying. I also recognize their economy is fragile right now and they could be at a point of instability. But when I look at politics in the US for example, I am not sure we can claim to be any more competent haha.
EasyMark 2y ago
Xi’s replacement is likely 10-15 years out unless he kicks the bucket, I think that’s too far off to worry about stable system since he’ll be around for a while almost guaranteeing the same system

rramadass 2y ago

For a very good reason; it is keeping international oil prices stable and so the world as a whole and in particular; the poorer countries are not devastated. Get a clue about how all economies are highly interlinked together and how to use diplomacy for the benefit of the World. Incidentally, Europe/Americas/Other Developed Countries are also a huge beneficiary of this. 'India deserves a thank you for purchasing Russian oil': EAM S Jaishankar - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NYRk_Vgm-g 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 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VDpVY44rNUw

ReaLNero 2y ago
I don't really buy this. 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
- rramadass 2y ago
  The paramount objective is Economic stability by controlling/managing global oil price volatility; everything else is secondary (i.e. Realpolitik). That is why the sanctions are full of loopholes for various European countries (see [1] below). 1) The disillusionment and hope of Western sanctions against Russia - https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/disillusionment-russia-sanctions/ 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 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02526-9