Editorial: Pragmatism prevails
Pragmatism and national interest form the key pillars of diplomacy. When the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which actually translates into an East-West standoff, presented a major challenge to its diplomatic skills, India did well to navigate the turbulent weather and strike a fine balance. New Delhi’s response reflected pragmatic pursuit of national interest. The Russian equipment, especially […]
Pragmatism and national interest form the key pillars of diplomacy. When the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which actually translates into an East-West standoff, presented a major challenge to its diplomatic skills, India did well to navigate the turbulent weather and strike a fine balance. New Delhi’s response reflected pragmatic pursuit of national interest. The Russian equipment, especially missile and nuclear technologies, forms the bedrock of India’s defence while the economic partnership with the West, particularly the United States, and its support against an increasingly belligerent China, are key to India’s future. Given this geopolitical reality, the Western sanctions against Russia have presented a tough choice before India whose abstention from United Nations Security Council resolution may have angered the Western bloc. However, India’s decision must be seen as a balanced approach to explore the space for a diplomatic resolution of this crisis. The abstention is a clear indication that India does not want a second Cold War and explains why we prioritise the use of diplomacy to defuse the crisis. India has rightly called for restraint, respect for national aspirations of all countries and also about self-determination of peoples. In fact, New Delhi did convey to Moscow in clear terms that it needs to step back. Both at the UNSC and during the Modi-Putin phone call, India underlined the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations and immediate cessation of violence and hostilities. At the same time, India’s abstention showed its unwillingness to jump on the US bandwagon for a ‘strong collective response’ to the Russian invasion after witnessing the aftermath of previous such responses in Libya, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
It is also aware that the current geopolitical muddle is largely because Russia and the West view each other through a lens that is deeply coloured by decades of mutual toxicity. By abstaining from the UNSC resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, India has retained the option of reaching out to relevant sides in an effort to bridge the gap and find the middle ground. It must be pointed out that among the five permanent members of the Security Council— China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US —, Russia has been a steady supporter of India’s security concerns, particularly with regard to Jammu & Kashmir. Rather than toeing the US line to hit out at Russia, India has been advocating constructive diplomacy to resolve the imbroglio. The present crisis has its roots in post-Soviet union politics, the expansion of NATO and the dynamics between Russia and Europe. Ukraine is banking on NATO membership and stronger ties with the EU to stand up to its neighbour. Russian President Vladimir Putin wants Kyiv to recognise Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula that Moscow annexed after seizing it from Ukraine in 2014, drop its bid to join NATO and partially demilitarise.
Now you can get handpicked stories from Telangana Today on Telegram everyday. Click the link to subscribe.
Click to follow Telangana Today Facebook page and Twitter .
