India's Stance on the Ukraine War
When the Russia-Ukraine war broke out in February 2022, much of the West viewed global responses through a binary lens, as usual—us versus them—defining countries as either supporters of Ukraine or allies of Russia. Western nations, particularly the United States and its European allies, presented this struggle in moralistic terms: democracy vs autocracy, good versus evil, the free world versus an expansionist dictatorships. Countries around the world were forced to choose sides. New Delhi was heavily pressured and repeatedly lectured that, being a democratic country, it should be on the “right side of history” and that China would take a lesson from this and might invade it. In the midst of this high-pressure geopolitical situation, New Delhi stood firm, measured, and rational.
From the very outset, New Delhi refused to be forced into this oversimplified dualism. It charted an independent course of action, based on strategic autonomy, national interests, and a firm commitment to global peace and security. New Delhi viewed this crisis in Europe in far more nuanced terms, a complex reality. While many in the West accused India of siding with Russia, New Delhi constantly maintained that the only sustainable solution to end this conflict lay in dialogue and negotiation, not in the battlefield. Moreover, New Delhi repeatedly reiterated its support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Now, more than two years into the war, with rapidly shifting geopolitical alignments and the U.S. itself recalibrating its stance after the return of Donald Trump to the White House, India’s position stands vindicated. What was once criticized as an ambiguous or self-serving position has proven to be the most rational and stabilizing course of action.
The West's Binary Mindset and India's Strategic Maturity
One of the most significant failings of Western diplomacy during this crisis has been its incapacity to see beyond binaries. For much of the West, neutrality was seen as complicity, and dialogue was mistaken for appeasement. The idea that a country like India could maintain relations with the Russia while simultaneously advocating for peace was simply beyond their black-and-white worldview. Though the West has been preaching for years the liberalism of Locke and Mill, its worldview has mostly remained illiberal one, viewing the international realities only through rigid binaries.
Moreover, moral absolutism is not the sole foundation of international relations. Pragmatism, history, geography, and national interest all play an important role. The West’s binary thinking has often limited its understanding of complex global issues, leaving little room to consider a third, balanced position. New Delhi, however, clearly recognized the flaws in the West’s strategy toward Russia, which relied heavily on a policy of isolationism and excessive sanctions. This policy was always counterproductive as it squeezed Russia and pushed it closer to China, towards a “dangerous 21st-century geopolitical alignment” that might now jeopardize global peace and security. Moreover, history is witness to the fact that when nations are cursed, dangerously squeezed, and cut off from global engagement, their leaders may resort to unpredictable, irrational, and disruptive behaviour, causing death and destruction to the whole world.
In this context, India’s engagement with Moscow played a crucial role; it moderated its behaviour to some extent by giving it options and also importantly helped prevent Moscow from completely falling into China’s strategic orbit. In doing so, India performed a subtle but critical role in maintaining a degree of balance and contributing to overall global stability. Interestingly, this approach is consistent with Donald Trump’s current strategy of reaching a peace deal with Russia in order to limit its “growing geopolitical alignment with Beijing” and subsequently redirect US strategic focus on countering China in the Indo-Pacific region. In this sense, India’s long-term vision not only helped secure peace but also anticipated the geopolitical recalibrations now unfolding on the global stage.
Economic Stability and the Global South
If New Delhi had broken its energy relations with Russia under Western pressure, the ramifications for the global economy, particularly the Global South, would have been disastrous. India’s purchases of Russian oil helped to stabilize international markets. By refining and re-exporting Russian crude, India ensured the continued flow of affordable energy to many other countries already grappling with inflation, food insecurity, and economic crises exacerbated by the war.
In the end, India’s energy policy benefited more than just its own people; it also served as an important buffer against global economic catastrophe. Meanwhile, the same Western countries that criticized India for purchasing Russian oil quietly purchased refined petroleum products from India, profiting indirectly from the transactions they publicly opposed.
Hypocrisy of The West
Throughout the war in Ukraine, European nations repeatedly lectured New Delhi on democratic standards, human rights, and the importance of being judged on the “right side of history.” However, their selective application of these standards has long been visible in their policies throughout Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The Ukrainian war was no exception. While the conflict was dressed up as a defense of democracy, in practice, it has become a geopolitical chess game between great powers, with Ukraine caught tragically in the middle.
Consequentially, what has happened is that Ukraine has suffered severe losses; instead of regaining the territory, it has now lost additional of it. Its sovereignty and territorial integrity both stand compromised now. Instead of achieving lasting security through its pursuit of NATO membership, Ukraine has now become a geopolitical pawn caught between the competing interests of the U.S. and Russia. See how the geopolitical landscape has changed now: the United States of America, which backed, supported, and financed it, under the new Trump administration, is focused on bleeding it further by demanding a mineral deal and, moreover, seeking compensation for its previous defense commitments, whereas Russia has consolidated control over large portions of Ukrainian territory.
Now, there is a possibility that both the U.S. and Russia may pursue a deal and together extract critical minerals from the Russian-occupied territory. This raises critical questions about the lofty liberal values and promises of unwavering support that the West once championed. In contrast, India’s position now stands vindicated. By choosing a balanced, flexible, and independent approach rooted in dialogue and diplomacy, India has maintained strong relations with all sides. Had India succumbed to external pressure and picked a side, it would not have brought an end to the war. Instead, it would have jeopardized its strategic interests and weakened its global partnerships, without contributing to peace.
Trump's Realignment and Europe’s Changing Tune
Now that Donald Trump has returned to the White House, his characteristic contempt for European allies and willingness to negotiate directly with Russia are reshaping the geopolitical landscape. NATO appears weaker and fearing abandonment by Washington, European countries are suddenly realizing the importance of India’s strategic autonomy. Those same countries that previously chastised New Delhi for its independent stance are now praising it and are desperate to deepen their partnerships with it across a wide range of economic, technological, and strategic domains.
India, for its part, during the course of this conflict, maintained close ties with all major powers—Russia, the United States, the European Union, and even Ukraine—while remaining staunchly committed to global peace. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s repeated remark that “this is not an era of war” resonated globally, especially with Vladimir Putin. Furthermore, India’s neutrality has never been passive. It played constructive roles in critical moments, like ensuring the safety of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, supporting the Black Sea Grain Initiative to prevent global food crises, and engaging in consistent dialogue with both Ukrainian and Russian leadership. Whether bilaterally by engaging with both countries or through multilateral platforms like the UN and G20, India has been an active advocate for peace.
Beyond Black and White
The problem with the West has often been its inability to see beyond two options. But India’s foreign policy offers a third way—one grounded not in choosing sides but in promoting dialogue, managing crises, and maintaining strategic flexibility. This multipolar, pragmatic approach is better suited to the complexities of the 21st century.
Today, New Delhi’s stance towards Ukraine crisis has vindicated a mature, responsible global power acting in the interest of both its own people and the broader international community. In standing by its principles of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family), the middle path approach, and the strategic autonomy framework grounded in pragmatism, New Delhi has shown that being on the “right side of history” is not about parroting slogans or succumbing to external pressure. It is about navigating complex realities with wisdom, balance, and foresight.
As the conflict persists and negotiations gain momentum, shifting geopolitical dynamics and new realignments are unfolding. The world is increasingly recognizing that India’s course was not only sensible but also necessary. Far from being an aberration, India has emerged as a key actor in contributing to a more secure and stable global order.
India, without compromising its principles or interests, has shown that it is possible to remain on the right side of history by promoting dialogue over division and peace over polarization.
Imran Khurshid is a Visiting Research Fellow at the International Centre for Peace Studies (ICPS), New Delhi. He specializes in India-US relations, the Indo-Pacific studies, and South Asian security issues.
