India's standings - Page 12

Originally posted by: S_H_Y

https://twitter.com/btarunr/status/1497426768831348739?t=1kSZ5YzjhuJw0X724OuMdw&s=19

https://twitter.com/Thesage_lord/status/1497449480232517633?t=lEVWwGrCJMdjp3JF2zsBUg&s=19

https://twitter.com/Iyervval/status/1497506827176603649?t=U27TmP8WtX3s5E0pvgtLsw&s=19

This is extremely serious if Indian students are being used as bait by Ukraine.

Originally posted by: Zeal17

We can't continue the discussion if you don't understand how the Russia-Ukraine equation differs from India-China/Pakistan/Bangladesh.

At best I can build a scenario for you.. lets say tomorrow Kashmir is made an independent country. India supports Kashmir in becoming independent and provides economic resources and also becomes its biggest business partner for year to come compared to any country in the world

However, if Pakistan or China try to entice Kashmir into joining a treaty and sending soldiers and ammunition with the intent of causing problems for India despite India from time to time telling peacefully to avoid such escalations. Even forming agreements of not messing up the years of relationship build up Kashmir carries on such activities India will be forced to respond in a similar manner to Russia.

I know what you're hinting at. However, I have repeatedly asked you about the provocations Russia has inflicted on Ukraine, such as recognising separatist regions such as Donetsk and Luhansk Republics. Also, what about its annexation of Crimea in 2014? You're completely avoiding those questions.

You're seriously hell-bent on painting Russia as the hapless victim here with no part to play in the conflict. Yes, US and NATO were pushing Ukraine to join the NATO. But Russia was no victim, please.

As for India, well, India hasn't done anything to Pakistan despite 20-something years of terrorism in Kashmir and thousands of civilian deaths. So it's laughable to think that India can ever do anything of this sort. 🐷

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

I know what you're hinting at. However, I have repeatedly asked you about the provocations Russia has inflicted on Ukraine, such as recognising separatist regions such as Donetsk and Luhansk Republics. Also, what about its annexation of Crimea in 2014? You're completely avoiding those questions.

You're seriously hell-bent on painting Russia as the hapless victim here with no part to play in the conflict. Yes, US and NATO were pushing Ukraine to join the NATO. But Russia was no victim, please.

As for India, well, India hasn't done anything to Pakistan despite 20-something years of terrorism in Kashmir and thousands of civilian deaths. So it's laughable to think that India can ever do anything of this sort. 🐷

Hinting? I outlined the entire scenario so that you could make a reasonable comparison. All of your previous posts incorrectly equated Russia and Ukraine with India and its neighboring states.

I've also tried to explain to you several times that the west baited Ukraine, provoking Russia to respond. Before this, Crimea had not even come up in our conversation, so there was no point in avoiding questions.

Whatever Russia is doing now should have been done in 2014, but Russia may not have had the resources to respond at the time. Between 2014 and today, a lot has happened. Russia, which was subjected to Western sanctions, learned to grow its economy on its own.

Build up relationships with other states, including Germany for Nordstream 2, which is the one that is hurting the most to US.

Originally posted by: Zeal17

Hinting? I outlined the entire scenario so that you could make a reasonable comparison. All of your previous posts incorrectly equated Russia and Ukraine with India and its neighboring states.

I've also tried to explain to you several times that the west baited Ukraine, provoking Russia to respond. Before this, Crimea had not even come up in our conversation, so there was no point in avoiding questions.

Whatever Russia is doing now should have been done in 2014, but Russia may not have had the resources to respond at the time. Between 2014 and today, a lot has happened. Russia, which was subjected to Western sanctions, learned to grow its economy on its own.

Build up relationships with other states, including Germany for Nordstream 2, which is the one that is hurting the most to US.

No, the Russian recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk was not the result of provocation. Russia is as responsible for escalating tensions in the region as the NATO is. Supporting separatist movements and annexing parts of a country is belligerence, not diplomacy.

And what you said is just a ruse, a lame justification for pre-emptive action. It can never be justified or every country in the world will start attacking neighbours who they feel threatened by (if they have the resources). Can you imagine the impact of the reasoning that you are offering here?

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

No, the Russian recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk was not the result of provocation. Russia is as responsible for escalating tensions in the region as the NATO is. Supporting separatist movements and annexing parts of a country is belligerence, not diplomacy.

And what you said is just a ruse, a lame justification for pre-emptive action. It can never be justified or every country in the world will start attacking neighbours who they feel threatened by (if they have the resources). Can you imagine the impact of the reasoning that you are offering here?

The world wasn't created the day Russia recognised Luhansk and Donetsk.. there is 100 years of history before it happened.. which you aren't ready to account or understand.

I believe you when you say all fault wouldn't be of Ukraine Government and Russia would have made mistakes as well. You seem to be pretty set against Russia so dont know what we can further discuss.

But I would only say that world events don't happen in isolation.. and without understanding historical context one can't and shouldn't form a legitimate opinion.

Originally posted by: Zeal17

The world wasn't created the day Russia recognised Luhansk and Donetsk.. there is 100 years of history before it happened.. which you aren't ready to account or understand.

I believe you when you say all fault wouldn't be of Ukraine Government and Russia would have made mistakes as well. You seem to be pretty set against Russia so dont know what we can further discuss.

But I would only say that world events don't happen in isolation.. and without understanding historical context one can't and shouldn't form a legitimate opinion.

I am well aware of the history of the Soviet Union-- Tsar-era, Bolshevik-era, Second World War and Cold War. So believe me when I say that I know what I'm talking about.

"100 years' history" does not justify imperialism or expansionism. It's a very simple thing. I'm 'set against Russia' the same way I was 'set against US or NATO' when they launched illegal wars.

What historical context are you talking about specifically? I can help you if you can point out what exactly you're talking about.

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

I am well aware of the history of the Soviet Union-- Tsar-era, Bolshevik-era, Second World War and Cold War. So believe me when I say that I know what I'm talking about.

"100 years' history" does not justify imperialism or expansionism. It's a very simple thing. I'm 'set against Russia' the same way I was 'set against US or NATO' when they launched illegal wars.

What historical context are you talking about specifically? I can help you if you can point out what exactly you're talking about.

That's great if you are aware of all history.

I'm saying if you are so dead set in your opinion against Russia there is no further discussion we can have on this topic.

Originally posted by: shiva02

What should be ideal approach for India in this Russia vs Ukraine situation?

Should we publicly condemn Russia or stay neutral because it may harm our relations with USA or EU somewhere.

To your first question, there is no right or wrong answer. There is no universally accepted definition of national interests and no agreed methodology by which the best interests of a nation can be tested. A nation may have primary interests, secondary interests, permanent interests etc., but some of these interests may actually conflict with one another. Also, national interests are usually driven by the government of the day. Governments change, the composition and diversity of people who elect these governments change, the nation's values change, and so do the nation's interests. And if there are no right or wrong answers, there are no right or wrong decisions either. If India as a nation takes a decision today, Indians (present and future) will learn to live with it. All we can hope is that our political leaders love our respective nations and want nothing but the well-being of our nations; but we also have to remember that the term well-being is very broad in scope. Even a well intentioned foreign policy can always go sideways and history is rife with examples. Sometimes isolationism may appear the best policy and at other times alliances and treaties. "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none" may sound good on paper but not always feasible.

Your second question is easier to answer: no, there is no need for India to condemn Russia.

Originally posted by: Zeal17

That's great if you are aware of all history.

I'm saying if you are so dead set in your opinion against Russia there is no further discussion we can have on this topic.

So the only argument you have here that I'm 'dead set' against Russia when I just explained in detail that wasn't the case. Fact is, none of your arguments here are credible to justify the invasion of a sovereign country and force a regime change.

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

So the only argument you have here that I'm 'dead set' against Russia when I just explained in detail that wasn't the case. Fact is, none of your arguments here are credible to justify the invasion of a sovereign country and force a regime change.

Sure ok! You are the only person whose arguments are credible. I get it.