India’s foreign policy, often described as a delicate balancing act between competing interests, has been put to the test in recent years, particularly in its relations with Russia and Ukraine. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visits to both countries in 2023 highlighted this complex diplomatic maneuver. While the reception he received in Russia underscored the deep historical ties between the two nations, his visit to Ukraine signaled India’s willingness to engage directly with a country embroiled in a conflict with one of its closest allies.
Modi’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow was marked by lavish hospitality, culminating in the award of the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle, Russia’s highest civilian honor. This gesture was seen as a reaffirmation of the strong bilateral relationship between the two countries. However, the timing of the award, coinciding with a Russian attack on a children’s hospital in Kyiv, drew widespread criticism. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed disappointment, questioning India’s moral stance. In India, however, the visit was hailed as a demonstration of “strategic autonomy.”
India’s “strategic autonomy” is often portrayed as a careful balancing act between global powers, allowing the country to pursue its national interests independently. Modi’s reception of the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle was seen as a symbolic affirmation of this autonomy. However, critics argue that India’s foreign policy is more accurately described as strategic ambiguity. The country’s close ties with Russia, which is increasingly isolated due to its actions in Ukraine, raise questions about the consistency and moral clarity of India’s stance. Is India truly autonomous in its decision-making, or is it merely playing both sides to maximize its interests?
Modi’s visit to Russia produced tangible outcomes, with nine agreements signed, focusing primarily on trade and investment promotion. A significant agreement involved the return of 35 Indian citizens who had been deceived into fighting for the Russian army in Ukraine. However, the expected signing of the Reciprocal Exchange of Logistics Agreement (RELOS) did not materialize. This agreement, which would have facilitated logistical support for military operations, was anticipated to last five years with an automatic renewal clause. Its absence was particularly notable given the strong defense ties between India and Russia. International observers were puzzled by India’s decision not to move forward with RELOS, especially since India had signed a similar agreement with the United States in 2016.
Amid its deepening ties with Russia, India has also taken steps to engage with Ukraine, a move illustrating the tightrope Modi’s government is walking. In a calculated diplomatic maneuver, Modi made a surprise visit to Kyiv, signaling India’s willingness to engage directly with Ukraine despite its historically close relationship with Russia. For Ukraine, the visit was an opportunity to strengthen ties with a global power that has maintained a neutral stance throughout the conflict. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy welcomed Modi warmly, hoping to draw India closer and secure its support both diplomatically and economically. Discussions during the visit included humanitarian assistance, economic aid, and post-war reconstruction, with India pledging support for rebuilding critical infrastructure damaged during the conflict.
While the optics of the visit were positive, Modi’s rhetoric in Kyiv emphasized the importance of dialogue and diplomacy, reflecting India’s consistent call for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. He stopped short of directly criticizing Russia, mindful of the strategic and economic ties that India shares with Moscow. The visit was as much about optics as substance, aimed at appeasing Western allies and Ukraine without alienating Russia. Russia, meanwhile, monitored Modi’s visit to Ukraine closely. While there was no overt criticism from the Kremlin, the underlying message was clear: India’s actions are being watched, and any shift in its neutral stance could have repercussions on its partnership with Russia. For Russia, India remains a key ally in a world where many of its traditional partners have distanced themselves. Thus, the visit underscored the precarious balancing act Modi must maintain, navigating the fine line between supporting Ukraine and maintaining Russia’s favor.
India’s long-standing partnership with Russia in the field of nuclear energy is another critical aspect of their relationship. Together, they have built reactors at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu, with two currently operational and discussions ongoing to build six more advanced units at a new site. This partnership likely includes a long-term uranium supply pact for the existing plant, ensuring India’s energy security for years to come. This cooperation in civilian nuclear energy stands in stark contrast to India’s apparent support for Ukraine. While India has publicly expressed concern over the conflict and called for a peaceful resolution, its actions suggest a more nuanced approach. The continued collaboration with Russia in such a critical area raises questions about the sincerity of India’s stance on the Ukraine crisis.
India’s economic ties with Russia extend beyond nuclear energy. Despite reservations from the United States and other Western allies, India continues to purchase significant amounts of oil from Russia, essential for India’s energy needs but undermining Western efforts to isolate Russia economically. Additionally, India has acquired the S-400 missile system from Russia, a move that has drawn criticism from the United States. Reports suggest that India has even provided some form of assistance to Ukraine, further complicating its position. This balancing act, where India maintains strong ties with Russia while ostensibly supporting Ukraine, reflects the broader duality of its foreign policy.
At the heart of this duality is Prime Minister Modi’s approach to international relations, which many see as opportunistic. By maintaining close ties with Russia, Modi ensures that India continues to receive reliable weapons, diplomatic support, and civilian nuclear technology. Simultaneously, he seeks to appease the West by expressing concern over the situation in Ukraine and calling for a peaceful resolution. However, this strategy may prove short-sighted. While it allows India to navigate the complexities of global politics in the short term, it raises serious questions about the long-term viability of its foreign policy. Can India continue to play both sides without eventually alienating one or the other? And if forced to choose, where will India’s loyalties ultimately lie?
Modi’s recent visits to Russia and Ukraine have unmasked the dual face of India’s foreign policy. On one hand, India presents itself as a nation committed to strategic autonomy, capable of engaging with multiple global powers on its own terms. On the other hand, its close ties with Russia, even as it expresses support for Ukraine, suggest a more opportunistic approach driven by immediate interests rather than long-term principles. As India continues to navigate the complex landscape of international relations, it will need to reconcile these competing impulses. The question remains whether Modi’s policy of strategic ambiguity can be sustained in an increasingly polarized world, or whether India will eventually be forced to take a clearer stance. For now, the dual face of India’s foreign policy remains both its greatest strength and its most significant vulnerability.