30

Both India and China remain Russian allies, both countries account for similar amounts of Russia's crude exports, both have refused to condemn the Ukraine war, both countries joined Russia's Vostok military exercise in September 2022. Both India and China have been cracking down on democratic values e.g. freedom of press (albeit much harsher in China). Neither country has provided Russia with military aid.

However, there is widespread concern in the US and many countries in Europe (such as UK, Germany, Poland) over China's alliance with Russia. On the other hand, India's refusal to condemn Russia's invasion is seen more as an irritation that hasn't invited threat of sanctions, and many Western countries are in fact attempting to enhance cooperation with India, with countries like the US courting India as part of The Quad, UK recently releasing its collaborative roadmap to 2030, etc. What factors have resulted in this?

Timur Shtatland
  • 12,328
  • 2
  • 30
  • 80
Twilight Sparkle
  • 491
  • 4
  • 7
  • 7
    Generally, it might be helpful to cite the position of a couple western country rather than just The West. The issue being there are a lot of countries in the West, all of which have varying policy positions. – QuantumWalnut Apr 25 '23 at 16:47
  • It's pretty clear that -- barring perhaps France -- the West is generally deeply concerned with the China/Russia relationship. Nevertheless, I've added more examples. – Twilight Sparkle Apr 25 '23 at 16:53
  • 47
    China isn't "cracking down on democratic values"; it's one of the most authoritarian countries in the world. India is an increasingly flawed democracy, tied with Poland in the 2022 EIU Democracy Index. Acting like the two are the same is an appalling false equivalence. – Jack Aidley Apr 26 '23 at 09:52
  • 1
    I believe according to news about the discord intelligence leak, there is a strong suggestion if not confirmation that China is helping Russia with their war effort. So China may not be wholly 'neutral'. – Mark Rogers Apr 26 '23 at 18:07
  • 1
    @MarkRogers The lack of public knowledge of this is due to what pisses China off: lack of face. If there's no good reason to rile them up, there's just no point. China is not shy about applying pressures through its state-owned enterprises or even its citizen base. There's just no real advantage right now to piss them off unnecessarily. – Nelson Apr 27 '23 at 01:12
  • 3
    @JackAidley: You're not wrong but the question is not as severe in its claim. It's only pointing out the negative trend that both nations show in relation to democratic values, and it still points out that China leads India in this matter. I agree with everything your comment said but I don't particularly think this question argued anything to the contrary nor does it rely on a falsehood that needs to be clarified using a more granular definition of China's approach to political authority. – Flater Apr 27 '23 at 06:30
  • Who suggests India is trying to build a global hegemony? Who denies China is doing exactly that? Could anything else matter as much, if at all? – Robbie Goodwin Apr 30 '23 at 14:44

7 Answers7

54

Realpolitik wrt China likely motivates Western forbearance towards India.

Long term, Russia is not, really, an existential problem to the West in general (of course, Russia's aggression is a catastrophe to Ukraine).

China is, at least potentially, an existential threat to the West. It doesn't have to be, but between Western mistrust and Xi/CCP policies it is increasingly looking like the West will be pursuing a strategy of containment.

India is being courted as a result, to use as a regional counterweight to China. With a population soon to outstrip China it could end up being a very useful one.

China, besides threats to Taiwan, also has a history of not getting along with its neighbors. Witness the rather pointless recent mountain incidents in which it tried to bully India. India has responded to tensions by, among other things, banning Chinese apps like Tik Tok.

This is why India is being courted by AUKUS. It is also why the US is trying to sidle up to India for weapon sales.

On the India side of things, the war is changing some calculations:

  • Russian weapons, even domestic, non-export/throttled versions, are generally underperforming in most areas.

  • Russia is unlikely to prioritize export orders and is also struggling with sourcing Western electronics for their gear.

  • China is a huge customer of Russia for weapon sales - though slightly less than India - and Russia is likely to be pushed more into China's arms, as a junior partner. Cut off from the West, Russia will be dependent on Chinese high tech, while India won't be critical in that sense. There is an inherent risk in buying weapons from a supplier who also supplies your main rival, especially if that rival has closer ties (France somewhat helped the UK mitigate Exocet risks during Falklands War for example).

So, from a USA/NATO point of view, not squandering the opportunity to balance India against China is paramount.

I would also add that the Ukraine War is so far, a NATO-Ukraine-Russia affair. India, or China, don't have to "do as they are told" by the West, this war is mostly not their geostrategic concern, aside from considerations of human rights (which have never bothered China overmuch). China for one has a vested interest in instead seeing the West weakened (which hasn't happened much so far).

Neither country has in fact helped Russia all that much (though China is definitely the more supportive) so being overly testy about their lack of enthusiasm in condemning Russia might be counterproductive and instead drive them to align more openly with Russia (and China's role is an evolving thing).

In fact the question's premise that there has been significant pushback on either seems inaccurate: Western pressure on China, so far, seems to be more in the line of "you will be in big trouble if you arm Russia", rather than in actual actions against China. Which is probably wise, as making China "lose face" risks strengthening the hand of Chinese nationalistic/anti-Western actors. While right now, the risk to China is very much more "un-coupling" from its big paying customers, at a time its economy is looking a bit unsteady. Once a line is crossed to "punish" China, its restraint may loosen quite a bit, so I guess the West will deploy considerable flexibility to ignore/downplay minor Chinese support for Russia.

Ask yourself, if we get our way and India does not buy any more Russia oil (as alluded to in the question): where does India get its oil from then? From the same constrained supply Europe and the West is dipping into, thus driving up prices.

India buying Russian oil at a steep discount is probably about the best the world energy system can deliver at this time.

Last, for all Modi's numerous flaws, India is still a democracy. Making them inherently a more trustworthy partner for the West.

See also Is India “Shaky” on Ukraine? It's Complicated - War on the Rocks (podcast)

Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
  • 83,219
  • 11
  • 197
  • 338
  • "this war is mostly not their geostrategic concern" One could argue that breaking Budapest Memorandum and an invasion of nuclear country on non-nuclear neighbor accompanied with threats of using nuclear weapons may change whole-world attitude to Non-Proliferation Treaty which is a concern to almost everybody. – Tadeusz Kopec Apr 27 '23 at 11:42
  • The term "bully" is not neutral. It implies China is in the wrong and it is beating down a powerless opponent. India is not a powerless opponent. And it is a border dispute because of a border drawn by british colonists without consulting China, the native people of India, and the other countries involved. Both China and India are fighting for the territory because they are just doing what is best for their people and national defence.
    • – Faito Dayo Apr 27 '23 at 14:58
  • The West has practiced a containment strategy since the founding of the CPC government in 1949, it is only recently, during the 80s and 90s, that the policies are relaxed for commercial interests.
    • – Faito Dayo Apr 27 '23 at 15:00
  • 1
    @FaitoDayo The term "bully" is not neutral. It wasn't meant to be. it is a border dispute because of a border drawn by british colonists. With the nine-dash line, Tibet this seems too much of a pattern to blame entirely on the English. 20 years ago, many (non-US) Westerners were roughly positive about China and accepted a transition from US to Chinese hegemony as a natural, probable, not particularly worrisome, transition. Especially since Xi, that is not the case anymore. Racism then? Well, living in Vancouver, I have nothing against Chinese people. Just their CCP government. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Apr 27 '23 at 16:32
  • But aside from the Nine Dash Line, us Canadians also remember the Michaels, imprisoned under deplorable conditions. Back to the incident in the highlands, 20 odd Indian soldiers got beaten to death with roughly the equivalents of baseball bats (firearms are forbidden in the area). That is not a spontaneous incident, it is pretty stomach-churning and it is... bullying. A term used about 150 times on this site, a third in the sense that I am, intentionally, using it now : a government intimidating others. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Apr 27 '23 at 16:37
  • @TadeuszKopec India and China wouldn't need to be very concerned. Most of their anticipated opponents are all nuclear-capable (Pakistan, US/NATO, themselves) or shielded by a nuclear power (Taiwan, Japan, Philippines). Neither Pakistan nor India have signed the NPT anyway. India worries that Nepal and Bangladesh might become antagonistic against them but that would be part of a larger conflict with China. – gormadoc Apr 27 '23 at 17:08
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica highland clashes are treaty-bound to use non-firearms, and 4 PLA soldiers were also killed. Who dictates India got more claim to those areas? I used neutral terms to describe the conflict while you are spreading propaganda. And speaking of the Two Canadians being imprisoned in China, maybe you should also read the Washington Post leak that Meng's arrest is a completely political move (and an attack on Canada's judicial independence) aimed at forcing Huawei to its knees. Isn't that also a form of hostage-taking? – Faito Dayo Apr 27 '23 at 23:45
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Also, the 9-dash line is actually less than the original 11-dash line, made by the Republic of China. Not the PRC, but the government that the CCP gov chased to the island of TW and inherited its "mandate of heaven". The claim on the south china sea predates the existence of the PRC. And speak of intimidation, what do you think US carrier strike groups are most commonly used for? – Faito Dayo Apr 27 '23 at 23:51
  • I think calling China an existential threat is an exaggeration - it is not like Chinese want to conquer the US or the world. In fact, they extract huge benefit from trade with the US and Europe. Of course, China has nuclear weapons - but so does Russia. China is a significant threat/rival to the US interests worldwide (mainly economic interests) - this is certainly true, and perhaps this is what you really meant. – Roger V. Apr 28 '23 at 09:29
  • 1
    @RogerVadim Hence my use of the word potentially. It's also hard to extrapolate what China will be up to in the future. If China wants to be top dog - in the same sense that the US often sees that as it's natural right - and if the US resists being displaced, we have a strong potential for Thucydides Trap. With a system that is industrially and economically much more competent than post WW2 USSR ever was. And a system w questionable values. Flip side, all Russia has left are its nukes, it's otherwise fairly negligible, at global scale – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Apr 28 '23 at 16:38
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica I am not sure that Russia can be dismissed so easily. In its current state it is no match to the US or China - we could say that it is not a superpower (apart from the nukes), but compared to major powers like Britain, France or Germany it is not that weak... - it may suffer on economical and technological side, but not in terms of various kinds of resources that it can muster. E.g., commandeering a few hundred thousand people into a battle - the US hasn't done so since Vietnam. – Roger V. Apr 28 '23 at 16:44
  • Meh. Even without the US, it's hard to reconcile even pre-Ukraine Russia winning versus a unified Western Europe. They just don't have the manpower and industrial capacity. They could maul whoever they were facing for a few months and then Europe would gradually ramp up their industry and mobilize. Of course, they could pull a 1940 Guderian out of the hat, but that event seems a one-off critical fail on the die roll by UK+France. That analysis is based on pre-2022, competent-seeming RU, btw. Not our known 2023, half legacy tank force depleted, systematically incompetent and corrupt RU. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Apr 28 '23 at 16:53