Perspectived: Russia-Ukraine, India, Oil, and Consequences of History

"The opportunity of India to buy Russian Oil comes from the fact that Ukrainians are suffering and dying every day." Commented Ukraine's Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba a few hours ago.

“It is our fundamental obligation to ensure that the Indian consumer has the best possible access on the most advantageous terms to international (oil and gas) markets,” said S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs.

Russia and Ukraine

The Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic remained a Russian Constituent until 1991 when slight democratization methods in a communist 'heaven' led to its inevitable consequence- the annihilation of the entire nation (USSR) as it was. Ukraine, and others like Latvia and Estonia, emerged as their own republics, no longer subject to the murderous hold of the USSR. However, Ukraine was not only the hub of major nuclear and industrial sectors, it was also the most powerful state after the USSR itself. Thus Russia had, kind of in a similar fashion to China-Taiwan or Pakistan-PoK, tried to maintain its claim on the land ever since which was subtle enough, until on 24th February 2022, 30 years of smaller conflicts later, Russia launched a full-blown, multi-million-men invasion of Ukraine. The biggest conflict of the century, according to the West of course.

India and USSR/Russia

Historically speaking, Europe and especially the USA couldn't care less about the world's humanitarian crises, let alone more often than not causing them. During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation war, which was undeniably a consequence of mass genocide by current Pakistan on erstwhile East Pakistan, countries like France, UK, USA, Jordan, and Iran all flocked with moral and military support to 'little-guy' Pakistan. USA's Seventh Fleet, for example, was deployed in the Bay of Bengal and British troops were stationed in the West to attack India.

However, India had its backing in the form of the Indra Gandhi- Nikita Khurushev Treaty (India-Soviet Treaty of Peace, signed in August 1971), which was essentially Clause 5 of the NATO agreement, warranting any attack on India to be considered equally an attack on the USSR, and vice-versa. Thus as soon as the Bangladesh Liberation War began, USSR deployed naval vessels from Vladivostok to support India and Moscow stopped American fleets from entering India, thus a direct India-America conflict was prevented.

From starting the first mines in India to fighting for India's geopolitical interests in UN, G20, etc, to 60% of India's defense imports, Russia from its USSR days has been instrumental to India. A lot of this was also a direct consequence of the USA's irrationality and public appeasement against communism, thus the political rhetoric found its consequence in foreign policy. India and USA indeed had a very shaky relationship until as recently as the 1990s, thus it was inevitable for India to find an ally in the 'other' of the two great powers. Post-1990s, India aligned itself closely with the USA and other European nations, including Ukraine with the 1992 Treaty on Friendship and Co-operation. However, no one has been as vital an uncompromising ally to India as Russia.

Non-Alignment

Non-Alignment, like the Panchsheel, was the brainchild of Nehruvian politics. Given its effect in the 1950s, it was essentially a claim to 'minding our own business'. Championed primarily by India and Yugoslavia, it attained the highest relevance for dozens of nations during the Cold-War era between USA and USSR, until now. Nations under it absolutely retain the sovereign right to trade and work with whichever country they want, without triggering a conflict with the rivals of those nations.

However, there is also a reasonable counterargument. If nations like India do wish to reap the benefits of global summits dominated by the West, like the G20, shouldn't they also maintain the political stances as deemed appeasing by them? Firstly, non-alignment is exactly a consequence of this thought process, and not the other way around, and secondly, if anything the West owes a lot of appeasement, along with apologies, reparations, and aid to many nations like India. It is not whataboutery, it is simply pointing out hypocrisy. The lack of balance of power and Western domination is a direct consequence of their historical oppression, so the rest of the world should at least have the right to promote their own interests.

As S. Jaishankar brilliantly said, "Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems. That if it is you, it’s yours, if it is me it is ours."

Oil, India, and Economics

There is an ongoing global oil crisis, with the monopolistic OPEC and intentional OPEC+ fluctuations. This is especially true in regard to Russia. The only reason Russia has been able to make a consistent profit from India and China despite selling oil at a discounted price is that as soon as the invasion was launched, the prices skyrocketed (in February). However, as the global rate is to fall, so is the Russian economy. As the companies leave, businesses slow, and the available market is decreasing, the Russian economy is going down an inevitable downward spiral. This is not helped in the least by the fact that while 'experts' predicted a smooth Russian victory within a month, Russia had been facing humiliating defeats and retreats, such as the recent most significant one from Kherson.

Conclusion

While the West holds no authority to criticize India's actions lest being subject to mockery, what Russia is doing is indeed an invasion. It is very easy, however, and thus very popular amongst the younger side, to moralize in black and white without accounting for any consequence whatsoever. But the truth is, India is not a historically expansionist, resource-draining, genocidal nation like almost all of the West, and with the need to support its 1.4 Billion-mouths population, all while being a rational welfare state (quite unlike the disastrous erstwhile USSR) India has no choice but to look inwards and play its signature 'non-alignment' card to its riskiest gamble yet all while the Russian economic collapse is near. The news of Finland and Sweden joining NATO now makes it pretty much a lose-lose situation for Russia. It is thus necessary for Russia to understand to prioritize the social and economic well-being of its own citizens rather than take more, and accept that this is, in fact, "Not an era of war."