[TurboOnTarmac]

Just heard the tragic news of Indian student killed in the conflict. so disturbing and deeply sad. I have been fearing about this and much worse after hearing news about non-cooperative ukrainian authorities in some pockets. While we do acknowledge that vast majority of ukranian authorities allowed our citizens to reach border and cross it. But still a huge number of our citizens, mostly students, are still stuck. I am deeply anguished and praying that these innocents be not used for geo-political games by Ukranians or Russians or any other country. I dont want to even think in the direction of the chilling speculations and rumors or conspiracy theories that are afloat. Our blood boils and at the same time feels deep sorrow to even think of anything other than getting all of them back home safely.

World should stand up and pressure the counties in war to alow a safe passage to all Indians (every single one) and other nationals caught in between.

[Amrik Singh]

Originally Posted by TurboOnTarmac

World should stand up and pressure the counties in war to alow a safe passage to all Indians (every single one) and other nationals caught in between.

Quite right. But what would happen if the host country start using them as Human Shield ? There are unconfirmed reports of second grade treatment meted out to Indian Students by locals because India has not openly supported Ukraine and condemned Russia. There is news by Africans that they were pushed out of Train leaving for international borders.
Truly said - Everything is fair in Love and War. It is only the poor ones who are caught in between, who know the suffering.

[AjinkyaP]

Originally Posted by DIY410

Now the Indian citizen getting killed could be because he was forced to stay there or forced into battle or used as human shields.

It is highly insensitive to speculate on the cause of death of a victim without knowing a thing about his/her circumstances.
Can we just wait till the official statement from the family is out ?

[Theyota]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Thank you for your point of view. I agree the countries and regions you have quoted all enjoyed economic growth since 1945 and all were strongly aligned with USA militarily and politically. But from that I would hesitate to conclude that aligning with USA = economic prosperity. The following countries too aligned with USA fully in the 1945 onwards period but fared rather differently - Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, pre-Saddam Iraq, Thailand, Egypt, Philippines to name some. But you are right that some countries that aligned themselves to USA and had other major factors working in their favour like a good work ethic, liberal economic policies, a sound education culture etc did do well.

I cannot speak for other members but …….

Sir, I was expecting someone to contest my post with your above point of view. Let me first start by saying that I am no where near as eloquent as you or many others here to convey my field of thought. But I will try.

Which country in the world has actually sent a full pledged military multiple times and lost thousands of its own men and women for supporting countries or people who supported its beliefs? Only the US comes to my mind. Be it Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and the whole of World War 2. Yes, it is true that some of these events ended up being disasters for itself and for the people the US thought it was protecting. But at least it has always shown that it has what it takes to stand up at the forefront of what it believed in. US has spent it’s own trillions to provide security to Western Europe, Japan, Korea and others for over half a century while these countries could focus their resources on their own rebuilding and economic development. Now let’s look at the Russian side. Has Russia ever sent it’s men to die for another country or to stand up for its beliefs? It has mostly armed and financed crooks from other countries to fight for themselves or given fiddly discounts on crappy arms to countries like India. When Russia actually sent its military to another country it was mostly to invade and take over those countries.

I will not disagree with the fact that US played horribly bad geopolitics or failed miserably in countries like Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and others in trying to push its agenda. It failed to understand these cultures and in it’s ability to change these countries.

People who do not have the guts to take a stand claim to be non aligned and that’s what I sometimes feel India has become since it’s independence. Now even if we want to take a side, it will take decades for us to get out of our dependence on Russian weapons.

All I want to say is, while I understand certain part of Russia’s reasons for this tragedy, America does not deserve the hate shown by many in this thread.

[SKC-auto]

I do not understand why Nato and US not attacking the weaker Belarus, remove the government over their, the belarusians will be happy to see Lukashenko out. Russia may gain in Ukraine where US does not want a direct fight but pick Belarus where Russia could lose. I understand the risks of starting a WW3.

It's heartening to see even Belarus attacking Ukraine.

[aim120]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

His graceful performance at RIAT 2017. Sadly, in his final moments, he would have been maneuvering hard like this, in an attempt to the defeat the SAM fired by a Russian S-400. Heartbreaking!!![

.

That su27 was at the kyiv city center. Russian S400 systems haven't entered Ukraine yet. Russia while they do say they have hit number of Ukrainen aircraft on the ground parked.

They said they did not shoot at the su27. It was during the first or second night of the russian offensive and they didn't yet have air blockade. Nor air defenses capable of hitting thar far at that time.

What was still operating in the Kyiv city was a unknown number of S300, strela-s and Buk air defense systems of Ukraine.

We already have see Ukrainen military shooting at fellow Ukrainen in friendly fire both against aircraft, ground troops and vehicles.

Even that supposed strela-S which ran over a car that was portrayed by western media as russian was infact a Ukrainen strela S AA, it was first shot at by a Ukrainen armored vehicle and but the driver of the strela S panicked on seeing more street fighting between civilians and unknown uniformed men, leading him to crash into the civilian car.

That video of that entire strela S and street fighting is to graphic to share here.

[AjinkyaP]

Originally Posted by Theyota

People who do not have the guts to take a stand claim to be non aligned and that’s what I sometimes feel India has become since it’s independence. Now even if we want to take a side, it will take decades for us to get out of our dependence on Russian weapons. .

+1.
I am no expert on Geopolitics but i do follow and try to learn from few who are. So fellow BHPians, please give your views.

"This war is an attack against all the values of a rules-based international order.
This war is an attack against peaceful human coexistence.
And it is a war that necessitates the revision of the very tenets of our foreign policy."
This was the statement from Annalena Baerbock.
Foreign Minister of a country which was about to become a biggest beneficiary/stakeholder of Nord stream , a natural gas pipeline project to Europe from Russia.

a country known for a dictator, who was a disgrace to humanity and comitted worst possible atrocities to human beings in the history.
Isn't it amazing the same country is taking a stand against this invasion without caring for its own financial benefits ?

Non alignment policy which India is using currently was introduced by Nehru based on circumstances at that time in history , not necessarily relevant today.
Today i think India has no value in the internatinal diplomacy , we are just a 'Market' for others.

[JJ1991]

https://youtu.be/If61baWF4GE

A good watch and this one comes up with few strong points about the attack. One is the water conflict in Crimea another is about the oil reserves recently discovered in many parts of ukraine and crimea and lastly the widely discussed one,the expansion of russian empire.

[condor]

Russian forces strike the at a TV tower in Kyiv. Next will be mobile towers.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Theyota

Sir, I was expecting someone to contest my post with your above point of view. Let me first start by saying that I am no where near as eloquent as you or many others here to convey my field of thought. But I will try.

Thank you for expressing your views. They are somewhat differently aligned from my own and I fully respect your right to your perspective. I have thanked your post not because I agree on all counts but because I respect a man who has the courage to write against the trend on a thread. Allow me to share more on my perspective. Some of what you say is right some we will agree to disagree. So here goes.

All I want to say is, while I understand certain part of Russia’s reasons for this tragedy, America does not deserve the hate shown by many in this thread.

+1 I agree that at this time anger on this forum and amongst India's educated class is against USA and not Russia. USA does not deserve all this ire and Russia is not as innocent as we may want to believe. After this our perspectives and the facts as we know them start to diverge.

Which country in the world has actually sent a full pledged military multiple times and lost thousands of its own men and women for supporting countries or people who supported its beliefs? Only the US comes to my mind. Be it Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and the whole of World War 2.

Korea and Kuwait I grant USA and their coalition full marks. Those were wars fought to protect and rehabilitate and in Korea they succeeded partially and in Kuwait fully. Vietnam and Iraq were wars motivated by the deep conceit and arrogance that it is their divine right, as the most powerful nation, to conquer, destroy, and lay countries to ruin to suit their vision of right and wrong. They went into Vietnam to prop up the flailing French and to help them retain their colonial territories after the Japanese had beaten them. They stayed on when in 1954 it was clear that the very election (free and fair) that they the Americans had agreed to in writing would be won hands down by Ho Chi Minh. I could write a tome on American duplicity, cheating, lying and cruelty in Vietnam right down to the fact that they dropped more bombs on that mid-sized country than was dropped all over the world in the 7 years of World War-II. Sir, respectfully it baffles me how you are defending the American involvement in Vietnam. That war left 3.35 million Vietnamese dead on both sides against 58,000 odd Americans. 7.75 million tonnes of bombs were dropped by the Americans. This was a little over twice the ordnance dropped by all sides through all of WW-II. I cannot fathom what beliefs and cherished values you may be referring to. Without American interference Ho Chi Minh would have united Vietnam in 1954 set up a communist Govt and saved an entire generation from devastation and grief.

Iraq on the other hand did not even have the fig leaf of communism so they invented the WMD lie to lay waste a large country. And it lies in waste even today. Please list out the principles and cherished beliefs you are referring to. Hint: please think carefully before you respond. On Team BHP I have learnt that on almost any topic under the sun there will be a dozen members with some very, very deep knowledge.

If as a nation you have beliefs and values that require you to plunder and obliterate other nations that are not even at war with you then it says something about your values. I don't need to elaborate further. You may be aware that in Vietnam it was a common policy of the Americans that in order to save a South Vietnamese village they needed to burn it to the ground. Cherished beliefs.

US has spent it’s own trillions to provide security to Western Europe, Japan, Korea and others for over half a century while these countries could focus their resources on their own rebuilding and economic development.

+1 Yes it spent large amounts to help rebuild Japan & Western Europe. It was an act of altruism, humane values and shrewd commerce. It was also need to establish their hold over these regions and prevent communism from rolling in. Real Politik. All in all the right thing to do. At exactly the same time {1945-47} they vigorously helped the French and the Dutch reoccupy their old colonies in Asia after having been thrown out (Dutch) or subjugated (French) by Nippon. Sadly their largesse and values did not extend to those in Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia fighting to throw off the colonial yoke. Real Politik again.

Now let’s look at the Russian side. Has Russia ever sent it’s men to die for another country or to stand up for its beliefs?

Russia and earlier the USSR, or China or India or Brazil do not believe it is their remit to police the world in their own image. That hat is a self worn one by the US not because it is needed or desired by others but to protect US interests and military hegemony across the seven seas. It is disguised as protecting the free world.

It has mostly armed and financed crooks from other countries to fight for themselves

Yes it has. Much the same as USA. The US in fact has the worse record of subverting elected Govt's, over throwing stable regimes, undermining the world's largest democracy when it suits them. The Soviets were no saints - East Germany 1948, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1979.

or given fiddly discounts on crappy arms to countries like India.

Ouch. This is my area. The arms were rarely if ever crappy. This statement tells me you believe US propaganda, paraded as news, a little too much. On this topic I might know more than GTO does about cars. So either lay out facts or refrain from angry emotional statements.

When Russia actually sent its military to another country it was mostly to invade and take over those countries.

Yes 4 times as mentioned above.

People who do not have the guts to take a stand claim to be non aligned and that’s what I sometimes feel India has become since it’s independence. Now even if we want to take a side, it will take decades for us to get out of our dependence on Russian weapons.

In 1956 when Nehru, Tito & Nasser enunciated the doctrine of non-alignment it required vision and courage to do so. And it was the right thing to do at that time. The debate on this would go far beyond the scope of this thread. If you believe non-alignment was the way of the cowardly then lets agree to disagree. We clearly read different books.

[CarNerd]

Originally Posted by Theyota

Which country in the world has actually sent a full fledged military multiple times and lost thousands of its own men and women for supporting countries or people who supported its beliefs? Only the US comes to my mind. Be it Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and the whole of World War 2.

Originally Posted by Theyota

Now let’s look at the Russian side. Has Russia ever sent it’s men to die for another country or to stand up for its beliefs?

Sorry for busting the myth of US but the Soviet Union, especially Russia has the Highest number of World War 2 casualties:





Link: https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ies-by-countryhttps:l://worldpopulationreview.com/...ies-by-country

In fact, the total number of US Military Casualties right from American Revolutionary War (1775 - 1783) till Afghanistan War (2001-2021) is far lesser than Russian Casualties of World War 2 alone.

Originally Posted by Theyota

But at least it has always shown that it has what it takes to stand up at the forefront of what it believed in.

It has always done what it thought was right for it. Why does It have Saudi Arabia as an ally but not Iran even though most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? Is it because Oil is more important than values? It has invaded Iraq under the pretext of WMDs but has kept quiet about North Korea. Isn't this hypocrisy? How can it scream about Ukraine but silently supply weapons to Saudi/UAE and watch them kill innocent Yemenis. How can it have different values for different countries?

Originally Posted by Theyota

All I want to say is, while I understand certain part of Russia’s reasons for this tragedy, America does not deserve the hate shown by many in this thread.

Americans don't deserve the hate but the policies of their governments surely do.

[Fuldagap]

Originally Posted by Theyota

Sir, I was expecting someone to contest my post with your above point of view.
…

People who do not have the guts to take a stand claim to be non aligned and that’s what I sometimes feel India has become since it’s independence. Now even if we want to take a side, it will take decades for us to get out of our dependence on Russian weapons.

All I want to say is, while I understand certain part of Russia’s reasons for this tragedy, America does not deserve the hate shown by many in this thread.

Sir with total respect to your sentiments and point of view, here are my two cents.

India's non alignment is a sign of brilliant diplomacy and vision rather than lack of guts. We had a huge nation to feed and grow rather than give in to the pressure and join a certain side. India earned a name for itself being non aligned. USA helped Pakistan a lot during wars even then we came out brilliantly. We are a hefty nuclear power since Indira Gandhi's time. There is no room for being gutless. Our policies have always been to avoid confrontation and war situations. It is very easy to go to war and occupy say POK. The repercussions are what senior policy makers take care of. Avoiding war is indeed a behemoth task. As Alvin Toffler famously used to say "you may not be interested in war but war is interested in you".

Not only is India capable of doing what other war mongering nations do to other geographies or other individuals, it is brilliantly capale to do so. However, everytime good sense prevailed and we kept ourselves from indulging in what those nations do.

USA is not only a war mongering nation, it actively helped terrorism become a giant evil. You name one dictator and USA and Britain were behind making the individual what he was. Saddam? Osama? Gaddafi? You can go on naming such tyrrants and organisations. Daesh is at the helm of such organisations, who made it?

USA actively helped Pakistan against India but still India showed guts and kicked ass not once but several times and the thing is still continuing at our LOC.

It is not the guts that make USA go to war, it is their nation's interests and along with they take most NATO members. They are a giant economy which has grown mostly based on wars. It is a legitimised plunderer if you may. Being party to such a plunder for a nation as great as India would not only be shameful in the current scenario, it will be shameful for the designers of the country who we now refer to as freedom fighters of the Independence Struggle. I will reiterate, it is easier to go to war or take sides than to stand alone and preach or practice peach. That does not mean safeguarding our borders or our interests.

People are making mockery of Zelensky being a stand up comedian and what not. Come on, a stand up comedian who is absolutely new into politics, leading from the front against Putin. Gotta give him the due. He would have fled by now if were a coward or a plain puppet.

Ukraine and Zelensky might be helpless now but they are just pawns in the Great Game.

The worst of war crimes come to mind after Hitler, the napalms in Vietnam, the nukes in Japan, killing of innocent civilians by beer popping so called drone operators of the US army in the middle east, in the name of killing terrorists.

If India had become party to say NATO, we would be seeing bases all around our own land and we be treated like cattle class in our own land. Thank your forefathers, that hasn't happened yet. Also, we don't have as many enemies or as much interests that we want war mongering to take place. To take care of our neighbouring enemies, we have enough guts militarily and diplomatically.

During Manmohan's time, Chinese incursion had taken place exactly like the one that took place during Modi's time. At that time they had 'invaded' 16 Kms into our lands. Not a shot was fired from any side, not a single violent action was reported. Three days later the Chinese had to retreat every single inch of those 16 Kms. Wisdom should tell us whether that was better than engaging the Chinese in say a skirmish or not.

Despite Russia being an ardent supporter of India since decades we haven't openly supported Russia in anything that we feel is not right. That is diplomacy, not gutlessness.

European nations believed in their own beliefs and plundered the world, made whole nations slaves. India was ruled for more than 200 years. Beliefs are a tricky thing. India doesn't believe in making things worse for the world. We are not China or Hitler's Germany. We are big country, seen as a clourful country that spreads peace and cultural harmony.

Our armed forces and related agencies are as powerful as they should be, that doesn't mean they want to go to war to show 'guts'.

To remind you, it was Russia that failed Hitler and stopped the Blitzkrieg. Had Putin not been cornered in the current fiasco of Ukraine joining NATO despite arduous attempts from Russian side to talk, the current invasion would not have taken place.

Russian arms are not crappy. They are some of the finest weapons that are produced. Be it small arms, marine equipments/vessels, sub marines, missile systems or aircrafts, the Russian ones are state of the art. Kalasnikovs/Dragunovs still give their western counterparts a run for their money. Try holding a SVD Dragunov if you can ever get your hands on and you won't ever want to let it go. Couldn't be said for any other American rifle. American weapons are tools, Russian ones are majorly an extension of the soldier's body. Their weapon systems be it a small rifle are not made as a community project rather they are built for the intended purpose with zero tolerance to show off. The same can't be said for any other weapon in their category yet. Marine vessels/submarines, compare theirs to western ones, no room for bullshit in the Russian ones. The reliability is superior to any other system across categories. Board a submarine or any other marine vessel, you can clearly see a huge difference between Russian and American equipment and that is, Russian vessels have room for equipment and the purpose, the American equipment gives way to human comfort.

The Russians gave us the Mig-25 Foxbat, that says volumes about how they helped us among many other tech and equipment that was built to last and did not come with inbuilt bugs like with western equipment.

I was about to write a short para on our armed forcesas well, including the coast guard but it will not suffice and is not relevant here.

Anyone who thinks it is gutlessness that makes India not take sides has a lot to learn about India. Small politicians may have hampered the image but the greatness of the country has room for everyone. Don't know why people don't understand that and that too here. This is a platform of petrolheads, arguably the most level headed people.

Moreover, the Indian economy has taken leaps and bounds to reach the top. In terms of PPP we attained the no. 3 position in 2011.

It could be an unending writeup so am ending this post with one quote (this does not even remotely signify any hatred towards USA in the current scenario or otherwise)

“America is a mistake, a giant mistake.”

― Sigmund Freud

[digitalnirvana]

Originally Posted by m8002?

Many a time, these guys create the crisis so that they can usurp more power. Nothing works like telling your people "they" are out to get you and this autocrat is the only person who can save you from "them".

Its good to see that there are protests in Russia against this.

In the case of Russia though, "they" were out to get them which is why 2014 happened.
By they I mean the western oil & natural gas cabal.

Russia is extremely dependent on hydrocarbons exports to keep their economy running. They are mainland Europe's only supplier.

So what happens when Ukraine finds large deposits of natural gas offshore in the Black Sea around Crimea, and in the east - that would overnight make it Europe's second largest hydrocarbons producer? And what if Ukraine and Russia cannot agree on pricing? And what if Russia is solely dependent on Ukraine's pipelines to funnel gas from Siberia and elsewhere to central and western Europe? And what if Ukraine now can fulfill all of Europe's gas demands almost entirely on its own?
That is an existential threat to Russia as an economy.

And what happens when Shell and Chevron get invited to drill and exploit? Crimea gets annexed and Donetsk and Luhansk get puppet republics. Russia builds pipelines to circumvent Ukraine and supply most of Europe directly. Exploration in Ukraine stops and Russia becomes the only natural gas supplier again.

It's realpolitik.

Originally Posted by Amrik Singh

There are unconfirmed reports

Ukraine's ambassador in the UNSC says, in a somewhat ominous tone, that India should have voted against the war in order to keep her citizens in Ukraine safe.

A video is readily available, and it's published not by a conspiracy theorist, but from official sources.

A quick glance on reddit shows videos of Indian girls being beaten up and kicked by the Ukrainian border guards. Some might debate the authenticity of the videos but just relaying what was posted - guys were heard saying in the background in Hindi "look how they're beating up even the girls" (dekho kaise maar rahe hai ladkiyo ko)

It could be a case of rogue operators. It could also be retribution for not voting for them. Also a very dicey topic but look up on the Azov Battalion who are a set of avowed neo Nazis and are inducted into the military forces in Ukraine. Perhaps there is a strong element of racism in that country.

Goes to show that there very few morally clean societies, if any at all.

[thanixravindran]

Originally Posted by Theyota

Which country in the world has actually sent a full pledged military multiple times and lost thousands of its own men and women for supporting countries or people who supported its beliefs? Only the US comes to my mind. Be it Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and the whole of World War 2

I think there are more detailed replies on this topic. From the historical perspective, I just want to point out only one item that you have added - World War 2 in the list. USA, before WW2 practiced isolationism to a larger extent and in fact was drawn to the war due to the circumstances more than the beliefs. In fact, FDR was not keen on joining the war and gave a famous quarantining speech to protect USA. Also, USA has a geographical advantage and mostly insulated from other big powers.

Unfortunately, after the WW2, Truman has redefined the US foreign policy from isolationism to internationalism and was riding the confidence of the wonder bomb called 'atomic bomb'. This made it easy for Americans to provide the so called 'beliefs' as a reason to combat communism. There is research available that if FDR survived it would have been a more balanced foreign policy as well that Truman modeled his views based on Churchill's world view (More hawkish in UK with complete disdain to 'colonies').

Truman doctrine has become the default foreign policy for USA since then and it was improved on further in the middle east by Eisenhower to combat 'Arab Nationalism' as response to Nasser's meteoric rise in Arab world.

PS: I believe you forgot to mention about Cuba and American involvement in that tiny country.

[joe1980]

I have the feeling that the Ukrainian president is dragging this into a 3rd world war. What is the need for this guy at this moment to sign a deal to join the EU? He should rather focus his efforts on saving his people by whatever means he could to stop the war by talking to the Russians. Many see him as a hero, which he is, but I'm starting to believe that his statements are directed towards the other countries that would put them at the front line with Russia. It is rather just a clash between Ukraine and Russia which should be solved by these two nations.