Putin thanks India for its stand on Ukraine

[Gandhi G in da house]

To be precise, he said there are ''Russian and other'' interests involved, and that we hope everything will be resolved soon. It's the diplomats' way of saying ''You guys figure things out among yourselves, we want to have nothing to do with it.''

I believe that is the right way to go about it. At least we acknowledged the Russian interests in Ukraine. Nothing more needed to be said.

 

[dbc]

LOL. India does not operate like the US. The NSA guy is not a figurehead. He is the guy who forms the foreign policy. In India it is the politicians who are the figurehead .....the kind that can be thrown under the bus.

The NSA 'guy' is the 'head' of a powerful set of bureaucrats who form the IFS, the real policy makers in India. (of which Deviyanai is also a part of). These are career bureaucrats....politicians come and go, these are the people who stay on forever, who build India's foreign policy and guide it. The politicians only rubber stamp it.



Of course India is staying on the fence. That has been our policy for the last 60 odd years. Ever heard about the Non Aligned Movement ?

India NEVER goes out on a limb for anyone. It is everybody's friend and nobody's enemy. With China building up to be the new power and Russia China axis gaining strength, NATO IS a cold war relic.

Russia was NOT asking for anyone's support. It went out and did what was required to be done. It was the US who was seeking support. So who was denied support ?

If US wants to have influence over the other side of the world, it needs to have allies on the other side of the world. Not in Europe. (Now don't bring in Japan, SK and AUs)

Wrong as usual the National Security Adviser is appointed by the Prime Minister of India and is expendable.
As for Russia not needing support why do you think Putin called the Indian Prime Minister?

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Wrong as usual the National Security Adviser is appointed by the Prime Minister of India and is expendable.
As for Russia not needing support why do you think Putin called the Indian Prime Minister?

How is the West likely to take the Indian stand on this issue ?

 

[janon]

How is the West likely to take the Indian stand on this issue ?

Like she said or implied earlier, our stand hardly matters to them, one way or another. It doesn't make any difference.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Like she said or implied earlier, our stand hardly matters to them, one way or another. It doesn't make any difference.

If you look at it that way then actually the entire issue does not make any difference to the West except for ego issues may be

 

[Secularpakistani]

I would also like to say thanks to india for supporting russia on this issue.
Putin you are the man

 

[janon]

If you look at it that way then actually the entire issue does not make any difference to the West except for ego issues may be

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. It doesn't directly impact USA or Western Europe, but it is not simply about ego either. If Russia annexes part of a country that wanted to align with the west, and was on the verge of becoming a NATO member, and who's security was a matter of interest and responsibility for the west, they have reasons to be wary as well as upset. And of course, the fact that they can do nothing to prevent it makes it all the more frustrating.

In any case, India's stance/non-stance doesn't really change anything for anybody.

@Death.By.Chocolate : What is your opinion, why do you think USA/NATO should be bothered about Crimea at all? Is it only for prestige, or does the issue have any real effect for Americans and NATO states?

 

[dbc]

How is the West likely to take the Indian stand on this issue ?

No reaction, its business as usual. India has her own compulsions that is well understood and appreciated.

 

[Secularpakistani]

dont know why im starting to like this man Putin

wish we could have leaders like him in Pak

Man before 2000 russian economy and russians were in a miserable state but this putin put russia back to her glory days .See where russian economy stands today and i can tell you russia is getting stronger again and the worst nightmare for americans have already started.

 

[jaiind]

India and Russia are true friends since decades,both of them knows what they want and need from each others. One thing i appreciate nehru was, he made a good trust friend for India.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. It doesn't directly impact USA or Western Europe, but it is not simply about ego either. If Russia annexes part of a country that wanted to align with the west, and was on the verge of becoming a NATO member, and who's security was a matter of interest and responsibility for the west, they have reasons to be wary as well as upset. And of course, the fact that they can do nothing to prevent it makes it all the more frustrating.

In any case, India's stance/non-stance doesn't really change anything for anybody.

@Death.By.Chocolate : What is your opinion, why do you think USA/NATO should be bothered about Crimea at all? Is it only for prestige, or does the issue have any real effect for Americans and NATO states?

This incident is likely to push Ukraine closer to the West. It will probably speed the process of Ukraine joining EU and NATO. That way I believe this is a favourable scenario for the West.

Developoreo in fact stated that there is a possibility that there is an implied understanding between Russia and West on this. Ukraine firmly joins the West and Crimea is the tax paid to the Russians for this. Seems possible.

 

[janon]

This incident is likely to push Ukraine closer to the West. It will probably speed the process of Ukraine joining EU and NATO. That way I believe this is a favourable scenario for the West.

Developoreo in fact stated that there is a possibility that there is an implied understanding between Russia and West on this. Ukraine firmly joins the West and Crimea is the tax paid to the Russians for this. Seems possible.

While it is possible that it was pre-arranged between Russia and the west, to call it a ''tax'' seems misleading, because the tax looks more valuable than the aquisition. None of the western countries are ''getting'' Ukraine territorially, but merely getting them as a strong ally, and maybe as a NATO partner. OTOH, Russia is not merely getting Crimea as an ally - she is getting Crimea itself, hook line and sinker. The territory, the people and the tax/revenue base. Giving half a country to get the other half to be firm friends with you doesn't really sound like a good deal, but then I suppose that's the best that the west could hope to extract out of the situation.

@Developereo

 

[dbc]

@Death.By.Chocolate : What is your opinion, why do you think USA/NATO should be bothered about Crimea at all? Is it only for prestige, or does the issue have any real effect for Americans and NATO states?

The US will extract a price for Crimea from the Russians just as the Russians did in Vietnam and Korea.
Although it will not be as steep as the one Russia paid for Afghanistan. No one should be able to re-draw international borders without consequences.

 

[Developereo]

While it is possible that it was pre-arranged between Russia and the west, to call it a ''tax'' seems misleading, because the tax looks more valuable than the aquisition. None of the western countries are ''getting'' Ukraine territorially, but merely getting them as a strong ally, and maybe as a NATO partner. OTOH, Russia is not merely getting Crimea as an ally - she is getting Crimea itself, hook line and sinker. The territory, the people and the tax/revenue base. Giving half a country to get the other half to be firm friends with you doesn't really sound like a good deal, but then I suppose that's the best that the west could hope to extract out of the situation.

@Developereo

Firstly, we have to accept that the West had a central role in fomenting and promoting the Ukrainian revolution.

Secondly. given Putin's reaction to the proposed missile defence shield in Poland, it was a foregone conclusion that he would react very strongly to losing Ukraine.

I am sure the West had drawn up a number of scenarios on how Putin would react and, given Crimea's history, demographics and the Russian navy base, its annexation to Russia was highly probable. As @vostok wrote, maybe some regions of eastern Ukraine might also go.

However, it is still a win for the US. Remember, the US doesn't give a damn about Ukraine; it only wants to squeeze Russia into a corner, and establishing a pro-West, anti-Russia regime right next to Russia's borders is a win for the US.

Putin, for his part, can also claim a victory. He also saw the writing on the wall about Ukraine long ago, but he managed to get Crimea back and the warm water navy base facing Europe is now in Russia proper, not in a foreign country. This is a significant win for Russia.

As for repercussions, there will be none. Everyone, especially Putin, knows that the West is just blowing hot smoke -- mostly for propaganda purposes. Already, the European reaction is in disarray, with each country showing a different degree of "outrage". The Western leaders have to go through the motions to satisfy their own public, as well as any allies.

So, in the end, both the US and Russia gained something from this, and Ukraine lost. C'est la vie.

 

[janon]

The US will extract a price for Crimea from the Russians just as the Russians did in Vietnam and Korea.
Although it will not be as steep as the one Russia paid for Afghanistan. No one should be able to re-draw international borders without consequences.

Are you suggesting that there will be a protracted armed resistance in Crimea against Russia? If not, what other price are you implying?

Also, my question was what interest US and the west have in this incident, is it simply a matter of prestige, or are there real consequences for NATO and the west?