India Undermines President Trump’s Peace Efforts on Ukraine
India Undermines President Trump’s Peace Efforts on Ukraine
India has firmly restated its commitment to keep importing oil to Russia as it cut a defiant yet strategic decision to spit in the face of U S President Donald Trump who had recently urged all the international community to unite and condemn Russia. Regardless of Trump threatening that nations which continued to conduct economic relations with Russia would come under severe consequences, officials in India have rejected such a statement and continue to strengthen their energy ties with the Kremlin. The action does not only complicate Trump’s quest to shun Russia outside diplomatic and economic isolation but also another problem that has emerged in the U.S.-India strategic relationship; one of imbalance existences between American expectations and Indian conducts.
The fact that India has continued to buy Russian oil despite Trump going on record to say so, shows that India is very willing to disregard the expectations of the United States when it is in its interest to do so. It is not necessarily the economic imperative; it is a strategic positioning. New Delhi is flexing its muscles and sending signals that American admonishments even by a president whose sway is still strong will not determine the course of its foreign policy. By preferring to avoid the sanctions regime to hold Russia accountable to its war in Ukraine, India reveals the emptiness of the presumed value based convergence with the West.
What is forming up is that of opportunistic nature of strategy
New Delhi is keen on acquiring the US defense technology, investments, and political patronage particularly at international platforms of the Indo Pacific Quad but continues to reject the alignment with the United States policy objectives on contentious geopolitical choices. India seeks the advantages associated with being recognized as a significant democratic partner despite all the effects of true policy convergence and sharing of burdens. This increasing setback is evidenced by its recent opposition to Trump on his position regarding the importation of Russian oil.
A Selected Liaison
The Trump camp has seen the Ukraine war as not only testing European will by serving as a test to the American allies globally. A united front was evoked by the request Trump made to get business as usual with Moscow over with. The maneuvering of India, in this regard, is not only merely a divergence on the policy front: it is a clear contest on the U S leadership. India by going against the stance made by Trump is telling all subsequent Administrations in U S, irrespective of their ideology, that they will have to do so at their peril unless their objectives as the Indian priorities are on Indian terms.
The history of India reveals that it has taken the grey zones more easily than making absolute decisions with the U S. It is in its policy towards Iran sanctions, its neutrality towards Israel Hamas conflict or its hedging towards China policy, New Delhi often finds itself walking down a self-interest path. In both instances, it gets goodwill and concessions out of Washington, and at the same time keeps freedom of action. Such a modus of premeditated ambivalence does not only interfere with the US foreign policy objectives but with the idea of a dependable strategic relationship as well.
It (India) has repeatedly taken America on an abscond and has banked on the fact that the huge market size and geostrategy and the supposed role of the new kid in the block, that it could afford to not be truly accountable. The tolerance that Washington is giving India regarding its inconsistencies, although logical in pragmatic respect, may put a dangerous precedent. It implies that the U S will continue to lavish diplomatic and material assistance to its partners whose dedication to agreed causes will only be partial.
The Indian handbook is lucid enough to reap dividends in Washington, to pose as an ally, and when money talks, to act in that direction, not that which talks the highest principles. The Russian oil case is symbolic. It is not only energy security but the ability to proclaim disregard of U S preferences without any real penalty. India has defied the U S on something it knows has been fundamental to national security (Ukraine) with no consequences, what then will prevent others to follow suit?
India, a true ally?
It is not really an oil issue but a precedent issue. India establishes its conditions even when it runs directly contrary to layered U S foreign policy objectives. That history undermines group action. It gives the message that international solidarity as seen in occasions like war in Ukraine is optional. Such states will be able to make empty gestures in proposing alliances even as they pursue their own different interests.
The action of New Delhi calls into question a basic issue: does India count as a likeminded partner or is it a strategic free rider? This is the crucial predicament of American policymakers. The fallacy of collaboration where all parties pay publicly with a common dream, and privately move in separate directions, is probably untenable. It is not that India may walk away. It is that it only stays close long enough to secure what it wants and that it goes its own way after the U S has delivered.
The cracks in European solidarity are not the only ones to be revealed by the Ukraine campaign launched by Trump but also the transactional relationship characterizing important partners such as India. The United States will have to face this unappetizing reality as it maps out its future in a more multipolar world: not every one of these partners can be considered a friend, and not every friend can be counted on to share the burden of global leadership. **
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are exclusively those of the author and do not reflect the official stance, policies, or perspectives of the Platform.
