The conflict in Ukraine, by seemingly dividing the world into two mutually hostile camps, poses a fundamental challenge to India’s traditional strategy of non-alignment. The country now finds itself between a rock and a hard place, potentially antagonizing the West while still losing Russia to China's embrace.
NEW DELHI – Russia’s war in Ukraine has exposed India’s strategic vulnerabilities as few other things could, raising fundamental questions about the country’s position in the world, its regional security, and the wisdom of its long-term relationships.
India abstained in a succession of United Nations votes – in the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the Human Rights Council – condemning the Russian invasion. In its initial “explanation of vote,” India did not even mention Russia or deplore the invasion. Instead, India merely urged a de-escalation of the conflict by those involved, as if both countries were belligerents, when in fact there is an obvious aggressor and a clear victim. India did not even object to Russia’s earlier recognition of the independence of the separatist Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
In subsequent statements, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has at least reiterated India’s longstanding principles, while calling for “concerted efforts from all sides to return to the path of diplomatic negotiations and dialogue.” In the face of mounting casualties – including an Indian student killed by Russian fire while queuing for food in Kharkiv – Modi’s government continues to call in vain for peace, while ensuring that no criticism, let alone condemnation, of Russia passes official lips.
The reasons for India’s reticence are easy to discern. For starters, Russia supplies India with about 50% of its weapons and defense equipment. And while India’s other commercial ties with Russia are much more modest than those it has with the United States, diplomatic relations with the Kremlin have been close since the days of the Soviet Union. Soviet vetoes at the UN frequently shielded India on Kashmir, and the Kremlin’s protection was indispensable during the 1971 Bangladesh War of Independence, when the US and China supported Pakistan.
Russia’s increasing closeness to, and geopolitical affinity with, China has therefore been worrying Indian policymakers for some time. The Kremlin has also been visibly warming to Pakistan, China’s client state. Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was in Moscow on the day Russia invaded Ukraine, and continued with his meetings, including with President Vladimir Putin – a clear sign that Russia’s calculations in the subcontinent have shifted. India seems to feel that it needs to cling to Russia’s goodwill in order to avoid losing it altogether.
But India has also been looking west in recent years, building a strategic partnership with the US that includes increasingly significant defense ties. It has embraced the US-led “Quad” (an informal four-country grouping that also includes Japan and Australia) as a useful counter to China. But Indian leaders realize that their continuing failure to join their Quad partners in opposing Russia’s invasion could jeopardize these links. The government thus finds itself on a tightrope, anxious not to fall to either side.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
The war in Ukraine poses another strategic challenge for India. Until the crisis began to escalate late last year, the US seemed to be focusing on the global threat posed by China, and on the Indo-Pacific rather than Europe. But America may now revive its adversarial obsession with Russia. That could reduce US hostility toward China, India’s menacing northern neighbor, which has repeatedly encroached on Indian territory along the two countries’ disputed Himalayan border, even killing 20 Indian soldiers in an unprovoked attack less than two years ago.
All this is happening at a time when the security threat from Afghanistan is at its greatest since the Taliban was last in power two decades ago. China’s buildup of military infrastructure in the region, its financial patronage of the Taliban, its opening to Iran (which cooperated with India in countering the previous Taliban regime), and an increase in Pakistani-supported militancy in Kashmir have put India on the defensive. Russia, China, and Iran recently conducted joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean.
India’s traditional allies in the region can sense which way the wind is blowing. Nepal has allowed China to build major railway lines and highways across its northern border areas. Bhutan signed a border agreement last October that surrenders territory coveted by China, giving the Chinese an advantage in any future conflict with India. Most of India’s other South Asian neighbors have signed up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which India strenuously opposes.
China’s increasing influence over these countries undermines India’s diplomatic position in its own backyard. And to the east, the ruling junta in Myanmar has declared a “special kinship” with China, whereas its predecessor had come to see India as a valuable counterbalance to China.
In short, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has placed India in an unenviable position. Ideally, India would have liked to continue strengthening its partnerships with Western democracies, especially Australia, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the US, while maintaining its traditional closeness to Russia, in the hope of deterring China from further encroachment on India’s core security interests. Instead, India finds itself between a rock and a hard place. It could antagonize the West while still losing Russia to China’s embrace, even as Pakistan – with friendlier Afghan and Iranian neighbors – feels emboldened in Kashmir.
The conflict in Ukraine is posing a profound challenge to Indian grand strategy. Non-alignment is hardly an option for a country with antagonistic neighbors seeking to violate its borders. India’s traditional reluctance to choose sides on major international issues could prove highly costly in the not-too-distant future, when it wants other countries’ support. It will be either Hobson’s choice, or Modi’s.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
The European Union’s cumbersome and narrowly defined regulations for public procurement and spending are not simply inadequate; they are dangerous. They weaken the bloc’s ability to protect itself from a broad range of Russian hybrid attacks while prolonging Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.
propose a European Defense Production Act to help fast-track processes for public procurement and spending.
The intricate legal issues and colorful characters in Donald Trump's criminal trials will undoubtedly keep the media and the viewing public enraptured for months to come. But when it comes to the 2024 election, all that really matters is how the defendant appears to a narrow sliver of undecided voters.
points out that optics, more than the law or the facts, will be what matters most for the election.
NEW DELHI – Russia’s war in Ukraine has exposed India’s strategic vulnerabilities as few other things could, raising fundamental questions about the country’s position in the world, its regional security, and the wisdom of its long-term relationships.
India abstained in a succession of United Nations votes – in the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the Human Rights Council – condemning the Russian invasion. In its initial “explanation of vote,” India did not even mention Russia or deplore the invasion. Instead, India merely urged a de-escalation of the conflict by those involved, as if both countries were belligerents, when in fact there is an obvious aggressor and a clear victim. India did not even object to Russia’s earlier recognition of the independence of the separatist Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
In subsequent statements, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has at least reiterated India’s longstanding principles, while calling for “concerted efforts from all sides to return to the path of diplomatic negotiations and dialogue.” In the face of mounting casualties – including an Indian student killed by Russian fire while queuing for food in Kharkiv – Modi’s government continues to call in vain for peace, while ensuring that no criticism, let alone condemnation, of Russia passes official lips.
The reasons for India’s reticence are easy to discern. For starters, Russia supplies India with about 50% of its weapons and defense equipment. And while India’s other commercial ties with Russia are much more modest than those it has with the United States, diplomatic relations with the Kremlin have been close since the days of the Soviet Union. Soviet vetoes at the UN frequently shielded India on Kashmir, and the Kremlin’s protection was indispensable during the 1971 Bangladesh War of Independence, when the US and China supported Pakistan.
Russia’s increasing closeness to, and geopolitical affinity with, China has therefore been worrying Indian policymakers for some time. The Kremlin has also been visibly warming to Pakistan, China’s client state. Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was in Moscow on the day Russia invaded Ukraine, and continued with his meetings, including with President Vladimir Putin – a clear sign that Russia’s calculations in the subcontinent have shifted. India seems to feel that it needs to cling to Russia’s goodwill in order to avoid losing it altogether.
But India has also been looking west in recent years, building a strategic partnership with the US that includes increasingly significant defense ties. It has embraced the US-led “Quad” (an informal four-country grouping that also includes Japan and Australia) as a useful counter to China. But Indian leaders realize that their continuing failure to join their Quad partners in opposing Russia’s invasion could jeopardize these links. The government thus finds itself on a tightrope, anxious not to fall to either side.
Subscribe to PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
The war in Ukraine poses another strategic challenge for India. Until the crisis began to escalate late last year, the US seemed to be focusing on the global threat posed by China, and on the Indo-Pacific rather than Europe. But America may now revive its adversarial obsession with Russia. That could reduce US hostility toward China, India’s menacing northern neighbor, which has repeatedly encroached on Indian territory along the two countries’ disputed Himalayan border, even killing 20 Indian soldiers in an unprovoked attack less than two years ago.
All this is happening at a time when the security threat from Afghanistan is at its greatest since the Taliban was last in power two decades ago. China’s buildup of military infrastructure in the region, its financial patronage of the Taliban, its opening to Iran (which cooperated with India in countering the previous Taliban regime), and an increase in Pakistani-supported militancy in Kashmir have put India on the defensive. Russia, China, and Iran recently conducted joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean.
India’s traditional allies in the region can sense which way the wind is blowing. Nepal has allowed China to build major railway lines and highways across its northern border areas. Bhutan signed a border agreement last October that surrenders territory coveted by China, giving the Chinese an advantage in any future conflict with India. Most of India’s other South Asian neighbors have signed up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which India strenuously opposes.
China’s increasing influence over these countries undermines India’s diplomatic position in its own backyard. And to the east, the ruling junta in Myanmar has declared a “special kinship” with China, whereas its predecessor had come to see India as a valuable counterbalance to China.
In short, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has placed India in an unenviable position. Ideally, India would have liked to continue strengthening its partnerships with Western democracies, especially Australia, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the US, while maintaining its traditional closeness to Russia, in the hope of deterring China from further encroachment on India’s core security interests. Instead, India finds itself between a rock and a hard place. It could antagonize the West while still losing Russia to China’s embrace, even as Pakistan – with friendlier Afghan and Iranian neighbors – feels emboldened in Kashmir.
The conflict in Ukraine is posing a profound challenge to Indian grand strategy. Non-alignment is hardly an option for a country with antagonistic neighbors seeking to violate its borders. India’s traditional reluctance to choose sides on major international issues could prove highly costly in the not-too-distant future, when it wants other countries’ support. It will be either Hobson’s choice, or Modi’s.