India’s refusal to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine challenges the norms of principled foreign policy. Ankita Mukherjee shows how, while claiming to defend sovereignty, India has deepened ties with Moscow and capitalised on discounted Russian oil. She argues this delicate balancing act signals a shift from Cold War non-alignment to pragmatic multi-alignment in a multipolar world
Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, India has abstained on nearly every resolution across international forums condemning Moscow’s actions. Out of 21 resolutions introduced in the United Nations Security Council, General Assembly, Human Rights Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency, India abstained on all but one. The sole exception occurred in August 2022, when it voted in favour of a Security Council resolution permitting President Zelenskyy to participate virtually in both the Security Council and the General Assembly.
Furthermore, in September 2022, India signalled indirect criticism of the Russian invasion at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation leaders’ summit in Samarkand. Prime Minister Modi told President Putin that 'today’s era is not of war' and emphasised that Moscow and Kyiv should seek to resolve the crisis through diplomacy and negotiations.
Despite Prime Minister Modi telling President Putin that 'today's era is not of war' in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, India has opted for strategic neutrality over moral principle
India’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reveals a sovereignty paradox: a nation that respects the sanctity of territorial integrity has opted for strategic neutrality over moral principle.
This paradox can only be understood in the context of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which positioned India as a moral leader of the postcolonial world, championing sovereignty, non-interference, and peaceful coexistence. Rooted in former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s Cold War-era vision, NAM allowed India to navigate great power rivalries while safeguarding strategic autonomy — the principle that it must never rely on a single power. Nehru’s doctrine provided flexibility between Cold War blocs. However, it also cemented India’s image as a consistent defender of international law and sovereign equality.
Over the decades, New Delhi’s record has been mixed. It condemned violations of sovereignty when doing so aligned with its broader economic interests, as evident in its denunciation of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Yet it remained silent when such interests were at stake, as evident in its inaction during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
By invoking the language of sovereignty while selectively applying it, India has cultivated a reputation as a sovereignty hawk — principled in rhetoric but pragmatic in practice
India has consistently invoked the language of sovereignty while selectively applying it. In doing so, it has cultivated a reputation as a sovereignty hawk — principled in rhetoric but pragmatic in practice. India's ostensibly neutral stance on Ukraine, then, is less an aberration than an extension of this pattern. However, given the global ramifications of the war, such neutrality can scarcely remain shielded from international scrutiny.
Before Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, India imported a negligible 0.2% of its crude oil from Russia. By 2024, Russia had overtaken Iraq and Saudi Arabia to become India’s largest oil supplier, accounting for over 40% of imports, some of which even ended up on Western markets. This dramatic shift reflects India’s strategic pivot towards discounted Russian oil amid global supply disruptions and Western sanctions. While economically advantageous in the short term, this dependency exposes India to geopolitical risks. These include potential sanctions from Western nations and challenges in balancing relations with both Russia and the US.
India’s neutrality has not been without costs. Doubtless, the inflow of discounted Russian oil, coal, and other fossil fuels has eased inflationary pressures and shored up energy security. However, these very gains have deepened India’s exposure to the perils of sanctions. The US has already signalled displeasure. In 2024, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on an Indian firm trading Russian crude oil. This move made it clear how energy ties with Moscow could complicate India’s access to Western markets, finance, and technology. What appears economically advantageous in the short term therefore carries long-term vulnerabilities for India’s growth and global partnerships.
The Trump administration has already imposed sanctions on an Indian firm trading Russian crude oil, thus demonstrating how energy ties with Moscow could complicate India’s access to Western markets
The pressure is intensifying. Trump announced plans to impose a further 25% penalty on Indian imports starting 27 August 2025, effectively doubling the existing tariffs to 50%. Key sectors, including leather exports, are in the crosshairs. This has prompted Indian businesses to consider workarounds such as rebranding products as 'Made in Europe' to blunt the impact.
New Delhi’s response has been to insist on its right to set priorities, denouncing US actions as 'unfair' and 'unjustified'. India’s envoy to Moscow, Vinay Kumar, told Russian news agency TASS that the country would keep buying oil 'from wherever it gets the best deal'. Seemingly, even as US tariffs bite, India intends to defend its energy choices as a matter of sovereign right.
Such escalating trade tensions lay bare the delicate balancing act India faces: preserving strategic autonomy while managing fraught economic relations with the world’s major powers.
In July 2024, on the same day a Russian missile struck Kyiv’s most prominent children’s hospital, Modi met with Putin near Moscow to discuss strengthening trade and energy ties. Weeks later, he met with President Zelenskyy in Kyiv, pledging humanitarian assistance and framing India’s position not as neutrality, but as a commitment to peace.
In courting both Russia and the West, India is pursuing a careful multi-alignment strategy aimed at maximising autonomy. But the approach is not without risks. Energy dependencies, sanctions, and reputational costs highlight that strategic non-alignment comes at a price. For citizens and global observers alike, India’s diplomacy underscores that in a multipolar world, sovereignty is never simple. Every choice — or refusal to choose — carries consequences far beyond the halls of government.
