Blog: India Is Right To Remain Neutral On Ukraine War

As we move into the second year of the Russia-Ukraine war, India's neutral stance and its political leadership have drawn much ire from the American and West European community, with the condemnation now creeping into the mass media space. Not just politicians and global leaders, but also Youtubers and social media users are denouncing us for staying neutral on political, ethical, humanitarian, and moral grounds. This kind of systematic disapprobation of our administration's neutral stance is unwarranted.

As S Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs, said, "The West is not concerned about all of Asia's problems, but wants Asia to be concerned about every problem of theirs."

This is an immemorial problem for the Global South - we are usually under pressure to support or do the bidding of our American and West European friends.

Was there a widespread call to action or interference when the US invaded Iraq?

No one blamed or demonized Switzerland when they remained neutral even during World War II and the Holocaust, so why are we being demonized by the Western media?

It is widely known that in the current political climate, especially as tensions with China mount and there is a possibility of more intense aerial combat in the Himalayan region, our dependency on Russian defense aircraft and technology is one of the key reasons for us choosing to remain neutral in a war we never started, and which has nothing to do with us. Yet we have been crucified by the Western media for it.

Let's also take a good, long look at this war. In 2018, Vladimir Putin drew certain "red lines" in Ukraine and said if NATO planned to encroach on those lines Russia would retaliate in a military counter-offensive. His demand was that Ukraine shouldn't join NATO and should remain neutral. Sweden complied but Ukraine did not, and Russia invaded Ukraine.

The Minsk Agreement was signed in 2015 to bring about a ceasefire amid heavy losses for both the Russians and the Ukrainians in military combat, and intended to stop the fighting in the Donbas region of Ukraine. Donbas was granted special status and was meant to be reintegrated into the Ukrainian system, with the Russian military and civilians still present there, and elections were to be held autonomously, for the people, by the people.

Recently, Angela Merkel admitted that the Minsk agreement, though projected as a way of deescalating the Ukraine conflict, "was just a stopgap to allow Ukraine and the West to rebuild and become stronger". Putin and Russia, which had always identified itself as an integral part of Western Europe, felt betrayed, and expressed disappointment as he said in response to Ms. Merkel's words, "It turns out no one was going to implement the agreement."

Ms. Merkel's words reveal how Western countries really view Russia as a diplomatic alien and a threat, since its massive military power and iron-clad political system do not meet the heavily Washington-influenced "Western standards".

Russia on the other hand, is losing trust in this "Western alliance" and diplomatic dialogue after the fiasco of the Minsk agreement, which revealed that the US chooses to follow only what advances its own interests and does not honour contractual obligations. This is also painfully evident when you see the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the 'Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The US gets away with being a "defaulter" because it is protected by the Western hegemony that has Washington at its core. It is not called the most powerful nation in the world without reason, and it obviously does not want this status challenged in any way.

Last year, then Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett held crisis talks with both Zelensky and Putin, wherein Putin agreed to a ceasefire and withdrawal of the Russian military as long as they could keep control over the Donbas region, but Boris Johnson threatened Zelensky with the withdrawal of military support if this ceasefire took place, and the talks fell through.

The Washington Post reported that the Biden administration privately informed Zelensky that if there was a ceasefire, they too would withdraw all forms of support. Germany was also arm-twisted by the same Biden administration into sending 18 of their cutting-edge main battle tanks, also known as Leopard 2 tanks, to Ukraine recently. 

NATO was formed essentially to keep the Soviets out, the Americans in and the Germans down. American arms dealers and conglomerates such as JP Morgan with heavy financial interests in arms are laughing their way to the bank, while thousands are dying on the battlefield. The US has managed to line up all their Western allies like ducks, while the Nord Stream gas pipeline has been sabotaged and blown up, thus ending the dependency of Western countries on Russian gas, so now all of Europe has to buy gas from the US.

Russia and Ukraine have been in a state of war since 1783. Russia, essentially, just wanted Ukraine to not be a part of hostile organisations, as was agreed in the UN-backed Minsk Agreement. Also, their only warm weather port, Sevastapol is in the continental part of Ukraine in the Black Sea region. Under Zelensky, an agreement was signed between the US and Ukraine, after which Zelensky passed a constitutional amendment that would enable Ukraine to commit to NATO, when Russia had already made clear that it would not allow NATO to arrive on their borders without some sort of military resistance and consequences.

In April 2022, it was decided in Turkey that Russia would withdraw if Ukraine pulled back from NATO, but this plan was aborted after a firebolt visit from Boris Johnson, who held "talks" with Zelensky at a time when Ukraine was considering neutrality to recover its territories. This agreement in Turkey was eventually rescinded.

The reality is that a war against Russia cannot be won. French President Emmanuel Macron has been quoted saying, "Russia should be crushed, not defeated." The West is very aware of this, and they are being very careful with how they arm Ukraine and how they want this war to continue. They fear a Russian and Chinese partnership, as this is a possible union that can emerge as a possible threat to the global dominance of the US, and a weakened Russia will not be an attractive ally for China. However, the Russian economy seems to be holding on and has contracted about 4 per cent, which is much less than the 8 per cent projected by the IMF. The US economy has contracted by 1%, while countries like India, which have remained neutral, have not been affected. Of course, US oil and gas companies are in heavy profit. US double standards have been criticized by several global leaders.

War is not a good idea under any circumstances, for anyone but those handful of people who might profit from it financially. It is not a good idea for Ukraine, which is fighting for its fundamental existence. Nor is it good for Russia, which is suffering the loss of soldiers and the economic setbacks that are a fallout of war. Russia's economy will also suffer due to stringent sanctions, and now that it has been cut off from Western finance and technology, it will take more than double the time to recover lost ground, even though it has ample natural resources and an educated workforce.

The global South, including China and India, will also suffer due to the disruption in the supply chain that will stunt development. Global economy will suffer of course, as stability is integral to development, which is impossible during war.

India has, by far, managed to navigate the choppy waters well and avoid any significant damage due to the elasticity of its diplomatic relations. In the long run, it may also benefit because of this reason.

As for the world, let's hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

(Monjorika Bose is a freelance writer based in Delhi.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.