Neutrality In Rhetoric, Alignment In Practice: India’s Quiet Alignment With Russia’s War Effort – OpEd
India’s claim of neutrality in the Russia–Ukraine war is increasingly difficult to sustain. While New Delhi continues to project itself as a responsible global actor committed to strategic autonomy and peaceful diplomacy, emerging evidence suggests a more complex and troubling reality. From economic engagement with Moscow to reports of Indian nationals fighting alongside Russian forces, India’s actions reveal a pattern of indirect yet consequential support for Russia’s war effort in Europe.
At a time when much of the international community has sought to isolate Russia through sanctions and diplomatic pressure, India has chosen a different path—one driven less by principles and more by geopolitical opportunism. This divergence is not merely symbolic; it carries tangible implications for global security, Western sanctions regimes, and the credibility of India’s foreign policy narrative.
India’s official position on the Ukraine conflict has been framed around “strategic autonomy,” a doctrine that allows New Delhi to maintain relations with competing power blocs. In theory, this approach reflects pragmatic diplomacy. In practice, however, it has translated into a steady expansion of economic and strategic ties with Moscow at a moment when Russia is engaged in a brutal military campaign against Ukraine. India has significantly increased its imports of discounted Russian oil, providing Moscow with crucial revenue at a time when Western sanctions were designed to cripple its war economy. Beyond energy, India has continued defense cooperation with Russia, ensuring the survival of key military-industrial linkages. These choices, while legally permissible, undermine the collective effort to deter aggression and hold Russia accountable for its actions.
Reports of Indian nationals being recruited into the Russian military have further complicated India’s neutrality narrative. Whether driven by economic desperation, deception by recruitment networks, or ideological motivations, the presence of Indians in Russia’s war apparatus is symbolically and morally significant.
While the Indian government has distanced itself from these developments, the broader issue cannot be ignored. The recruitment of foreign nationals into a belligerent army reflects systemic gaps in oversight and accountability. More importantly, it underscores how India’s permissive environment has allowed its citizens and private actors to become entangled in a conflict that has devastated Ukraine and destabilized Europe.
Even if unofficial, such participation weakens India’s moral standing and exposes contradictions in its diplomatic posture. Neutrality cannot coexist with tacit tolerance of activities that directly contribute to a war effort.
India’s engagement with Russia is not accidental; it is the product of calculated strategic thinking. By deepening ties with Moscow, New Delhi seeks to diversify its partnerships, hedge against Western pressure, and assert its autonomy in global affairs. However, this strategy carries significant risks. India’s willingness to bypass or dilute the impact of Western sanctions has made it a critical node in Russia’s economic survival. Indian companies, traders, and intermediaries have been accused of facilitating supply chains that sustain Russia’s military-industrial complex. Such activities expose the hollowness of India’s professed commitment to a rules-based international order.
One reason India has been able to pursue this dual-track policy with relative impunity is the West’s reluctance to confront it. Viewed as a counterweight to China, India has enjoyed a degree of strategic indulgence from Western capitals. This geopolitical calculus has limited the willingness of the United States and its allies to impose meaningful consequences on India’s actions.
India often frames its foreign policy as a principled pursuit of independence from great power politics. However, its conduct in the Ukraine conflict reveals a more opportunistic reality. Strategic autonomy, in this context, has become less a doctrine of balance and more a justification for selective alignment. By maintaining deep ties with Russia while simultaneously courting the West, India seeks to maximize benefits while minimizing costs. This approach may yield short-term gains, but it undermines trust and credibility in the long run. Allies may begin to question whether India is a reliable partner or merely a transactional actor.
India’s involvement in Russia’s war ecosystem—whether through economic engagement, private actors, or tacit tolerance of recruitment networks—reveals the limits of its neutrality. While New Delhi continues to speak the language of peace and strategic autonomy, its actions tell a different story: one of calculated alignment with Moscow’s war-driven ambitions.
In an era where global stability depends on collective responsibility, India’s double game raises serious ethical and strategic questions. Neutrality, if it is to be credible, must be reflected not only in words but in deeds. Until then, India’s role in the Ukraine conflict will remain a subject of scrutiny—not as a mediator, but as an enabler operating behind the façade of neutrality.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
