r/worldnews
•
u/GlaxoJohnSmith
•
Feb 24 '23
•
1
1
1
India abstains as UN calls for Russia to leave Ukraine Russia/Ukraine
https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/national/india-abstains-as-un-calls-for-russia-to-leave-ukraine-1194305.html10.1k
Feb 24 '23
There’s no chance Russia leaves as a result of this vote no matter how it goes, but I guess everyone will see where everyone else stands on this.
5.2k
u/Law-of-Poe Feb 24 '23
Reddit has been telling me how India just wants cheap oil. And yet their vote shows us they’re more in alignment with Russia than many here would like to believe
→ More replies3.2k
u/corgi-king Feb 24 '23
You have to know India don’t have the best human rights record. They are heavily dependent on Russian weapons and oil.
→ More replies429
u/hamiwin Feb 24 '23
Yes, people in the future can just and choose which country to favor. Choices have consequences, at least I hope so.
→ More replies→ More replies107
u/XenOmega Feb 24 '23
The goal isn't to make them leave, that isn't within UN power.
The goal is most likely to show them who are with them, against them and/or neutral.
Maybe it'll influence some people, maybe it won't. I won't pretend to know.
→ More replies
3.7k
u/Godslayer5658 Feb 24 '23
India’s in a weird position. It likes Russia but hates China.
1.6k
u/_damppapertowel_ Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
The U.S. if far more concerned with China that it is with Russia. China poses an actual threat, while Russia only has nuclear weapons
Edit - I used the word only because it’s the only major threat that Russia is able to produce against the U.S. Not as a way to diminish the severity of that threat.
→ More replies843
u/Inside-Line Feb 24 '23
A collapsed Russia is probably a greater threat to the world than pre-2021 Russia. It probably would not be as stable as the collapse of the Soviet Union and there are a loooot of nukes to be lost.
315
u/MadRaymer Feb 24 '23
Yes, but if Russia collapses then the command and control structure required to launch the nukes likely goes with it. Don't get me wrong - it would still be very bad. Even without launch codes, if terrorist groups got ahold of them they could convert them into dirty bombs. But I think the most dangerous time would be right before a potential Russian collapse, as that is when the current power structure might feel like they have nothing left to lose and issue launch orders while they still can.
242
u/Mechasteel Feb 24 '23
when the current power structure might feel like they have nothing left to lose and issue launch orders while they still can.
Why run off to a tropical paradise with suitcases full of cash, when you could instead launch nukes and die a horrible death?
→ More replies72
u/Wildercard Feb 24 '23
Spite?
→ More replies120
Feb 24 '23 edited May 06 '23
[deleted]
49
u/DumbCro Feb 24 '23
Even an extremely corrupt country like Russia will have the leader, which in this case Putin, a hard time to do that. He's just alone and weak if it comes to that point. There are a lot of Russians and Russian officials both in their government and military that wants to live for the next day.
How could they enjoy the stash of paper money, splurging in some hidden vacation getaway? Can they bang a hooter in the post-era of nuclear war? Can they enjoy the power play if anarchy grips the society? No one wants that much drastic change and even the most loyal dog will likely bite you in the ass.
→ More replies63
u/Pedalos Feb 24 '23
A lot of people still has to go along with the order. And if this happened while everything is collapsing it will probably be hard to get them to do it.
→ More replies14
u/spaceforcerecruit Feb 24 '23
You’d be surprised what nationalism, military discipline, and decades of propaganda can do to a mind. And he doesn’t need the entire country behind him. He just needs, at most, a hundred loyal men. I can guarantee you he has that.
→ More replies94
u/Inside-Line Feb 24 '23
I wasn't referring to warlords launching nuclear missiles. More just warheads getting sold, dismantled, rebuilt, and put on a container and getting detonated wherever. Imagine a Beirut-level explosion, or much bigger, in a major port somewhere in the world.
→ More replies→ More replies229
u/TheLewdGod Feb 24 '23
I don't think russia has the economic power to have been able to maintain those nuclear weapons. It is EXTREMELY expensive to maintain them.
→ More replies246
u/Inside-Line Feb 24 '23
The nuclear arsenal was one thing the Russians did value, but they are likely in disrepair. Then again, you don't really need working ICBMs for a warhead to be dangerous. Even losing track of 10% of the warheads they claim they have would be a nightmare.
151
u/The-Jesus_Christ Feb 24 '23
Even 5% of the arsenal working is still ~320 warheads, the same as China's arsenal, and still enough to fuck up the world.
54
u/GiveMeChoko Feb 24 '23
The day a single nuke drops on foreign soil is the day a new chapter is added to a future history book, if it ever makes it to publication.
→ More replies→ More replies18
u/atetuna Feb 24 '23
If the retaliatory strike launches while the first wave is still in the air, then take a fraction of that 5% because most of the arsenal will never get out of storage & maintenance facilities. Even if you drop all the safeguards, you can't escape the physics of transportation. That said, it's still a bad day even if every launched nuke fails and all the rest are secured.
→ More replies→ More replies32
u/Noughmad Feb 24 '23
Warheads expire too, tritium decays pretty quickly and had to be replenished. Nukes are high maintenance.
→ More replies106
u/Pantherist Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23 •
Like is a strong word. India doesn't have a lot in common with Russia at all, from the weather and culture to the geopolitical relationships. The only thing that kept us going was the military deals with them.
This stance is a combination of India's traditional Non-Alignment (you can look that up) during the Cold War, as well as a prioritisation of national interests. India is also geographically nowhere close to Europe and can't afford to take on additional challenges (beyond its existing ones) for the purposes of virtue signaling to the West.
Similarly, hate is a strong word. Like the rest of the world, India has to grudgingly rely on Chinese goods (especially electronics) that have significantly improved lives for the middle class. India and China are similar in that they have huge amounts of manual labour and are focused on development (for better or for worse). Tensions with China would be things like Belt and Road, closeness to Pakistan and influence in Sri Lanka and most importantly, border incursions in the North East.
→ More replies
185
u/smoothtrip Feb 24 '23
Why are we calling out India when Pakistan did too?
Second question, why are calling out India when many countries abstained, and others voted against?
→ More replies132
u/PepsiBrandAmbassador Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
This post is a clickbait & seems like a propaganda. China, Pakistan, South Africa other significant countries that abstained but no one’s mentioning them.
→ More replies
508
u/Drakula01 Feb 24 '23
Geopolitics is 'You scratch my back and I scratch yours'. Russia has helped India immensly in 60s and 70s when US was interfering with other countries like they owned the world. Ukrain has consistently spoken against India on the Kashmir dispute. This does not mean what Russia is doing is right or anything like that but that's how geopolitics work.
→ More replies70
u/Secure_Examination_5 Feb 24 '23
This is also why South Africa abstained.
5
u/Still_counts_as_one Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
None of these are shocking, what is shocking is Serbia voting them to get out.
639
Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 25 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
166
u/wulfschtagg_1 Feb 24 '23
I'm glad that most of the top comments here are stating facts and helping people understand the nuances of the situation. I had a friend get harassed in New York over India's neutrality on the issue. You can condemn Russia's actions while also recognizing why India won't publicly condemn them. That's difficult to explain to someone shouting at you on public transport, but I hope at least some people leave this thread learning about the absolute clusterfuck that would arise in South Asia if India were to publicly go against Russia.
8
u/PsychologicalCod3712 Feb 24 '23
Asking and harassing an individual to be responsible for stuff they have zero control over is the way to go for many dumbasses everywhere.
8
u/The--Morning--Star Feb 24 '23
People seem to forget that India has no obligation to interfere in Western affairs. Of course the Ukrainian invasion is terrible, but remember India is it’s own country with its own problems and own rights to do what they feel is best for them.
36
u/UncertainLangur Feb 24 '23
Nah. We buy oil from Russia, process it, and sell it to Western nations. They are happy as Russia got shafted by low prices. We are happy to profit from sanctions. Russians are happy as their supply gets cleared. Not sure what the poor Ukranian gains from this equation.
First time India is profiteering from war.
→ More replies→ More replies90
u/Blaze___27 Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
India would have gone against Russia if we were in a strong position like US but as a developing nation any small fuck up could lead to major setbacks. But people here just want to hear what pleases them, even 1% of them don't understand geo politics but still make comments on how bad India is and how bad the Indian government is, fucking racist bunch.
→ More replies
915
u/eboo360 Feb 24 '23
Real 1927 vibes
→ More replies563
u/BKlounge93 Feb 24 '23
We didn’t even get the roaring part 😡
→ More replies297
u/notmy2ndacct Feb 24 '23
I've spent that last few years screaming internally. Close enough?
→ More replies44
131
u/abstractengineer2000 Feb 24 '23
So giving aid and F-16s to Pakistan did not help to gain their vote
Gotta rethink who u give aid
→ More replies
142
u/aboynamedbluetoo Feb 24 '23
“In the Explanation of Vote after the resolution was adopted, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj said that as the General Assembly marks a year of the Ukrainian conflict, “it is important that we ask ourselves a few pertinent questions.“Are we anywhere near a possible solution acceptable to both sides? Can any process that does not involve either of the two sides, ever lead to a credible and meaningful solution? Has the UN system, and particularly its principal organ, the UN Security Council, based on a 1945-world construct, not been rendered ineffective to address contemporary challenges to global peace and security?” Kamboj said.”
“Reiterating that India remains steadfastly committed to multilateralism and upholds the principles of the UN Charter, Kamboj stressed “we will always call for dialogue and diplomacy as the only viable way out. While we take note of the stated objectives of today’s Resolution, given its inherent limitations in reaching our desired goal of securing lasting peace, we are constrained to abstain.”
→ More replies
2.3k
u/hedonist_kid
Feb 24 '23
•
After what happened in 1971 there is no way India votes against Russia, some would even say a neutral stance is more than anyone could ask for. The existence of this nation is due to Russia’s allegiance in 1971, despite having said that India condemns the violence and attacks, it will never vote against.
521
u/disco-inferno_ Feb 24 '23
What happened in 1971?
→ More replies1.8k
u/National-Art3488 Feb 24 '23 •
In 1971 India intervined in then east Pakistan because Pakistan was committing genocide (3 million deaths and countless raped). This led to a further war between India and Pakistan and I'm pretty sure was the biggest. The United states at the time seeing Pakistan as an ally to deter communism in Asia and India adopting a few soviet policies backed Pakistan and condemned indias intervention, even sending in a fleet to the bay of bengal. The soviets backed India, giving it military aid and sent a soviet nuclear sub to deter the fleet, allowing India to liberate Pakistan
1.1k
u/thebellfrombelem Feb 24 '23
- Liberate Bangladesh ( East Pakistan]
190
u/reyayayah Feb 24 '23
Ig thats why even Bangladesh abstained
31
u/zefiax Feb 25 '23
That and they are building a nuclear power plant in Bangladesh that is almost done. You can't just almost finish a nuclear plant and then replace it with a western alternative. So likely we will be abstaining every vote until it gets completed.
→ More replies119
170
u/VastCryptographer980 Feb 24 '23
US sent the 74th task force a carier task force with nukes on board while from UK sent it's in Arabian sea to pinzer India in the sea
286
u/OneTrueKingOfOOO Feb 24 '23
Pakistan was committing genocide
United States […] backed Pakistan
Why am I not surprised that my US history classes never mentioned a word about this?
212
u/CoachKoranGodwin Feb 24 '23
Because it’s basically Kissinger’s biggest fuck up and it’s the entire reason why India isn’t already fully aligned with the West and why they decided to develop nuclear arms.
135
u/boobledooble1234 Feb 24 '23
t’s the entire reason why India isn’t already fully aligned with the West
I mean there's also centuries of exploitation, slavery, and rape by the British.
23
u/jeremy1gray Feb 25 '23
I mean there's also centuries of exploitation, slavery, and rape by the British.
Surprisingly, there is little anti-British sentiment in India today, but far more anti-Chinese, anti-Pakistani sentiment.
→ More replies71
u/Minimum-Elevator-491 Feb 24 '23
The west just kinda wants to forget everything before the world wars apparently
→ More replies129
u/OstentatiousBear Feb 24 '23
Because it was embarrassing for the US on the world stage, and arguably one of its worst blunders in foreign affairs.
→ More replies→ More replies626
u/MisterTwo_O Feb 24 '23
To add, The US considered dropping a nuke in India in 1971. US's biggest warship at the time was ready to deploy in Bay of Bengal, and UK's warship entered the Arabian sea. It was only Russia which intervened last minute and sent their own warship to Indian waters which ended up deterring US and UK.
162
u/focusrandom Feb 24 '23
Can you please share a source about US considering nuking India?
→ More replies223
u/Shtune Feb 24 '23
They probably mean there was a CIA "plan" to drop a nuke. There was also a "plan" to immediately nuke Moscow post WWII. The CIA makes contingency plans for everything.
→ More replies113
u/shamen_uk Feb 24 '23
The fact there was a plan to drop a nuke on a country that was trying to stop a genocidal campaign by a US supported leader at all, is pretty interesting. Seeing as none of this affected any US territory whatsoever.
I don't think we can write off the fact that the CIA made active plans to nuke India as unimportant - even as an outlandish contingency plan. Instead, Americans who constantly moan about modern Indian geopolitical behaviour should use it to understand why maybe, just maybe, India is not going to just abandon Russia and do whatever the USA says.
→ More replies9
u/Shtune Feb 24 '23
Yeah, the CIA is shady as all hell. Nobody will argue that, nor dismiss a nuclear plan that was targeted at India. I would have to believe the cheap Russian oil is doing more to have them lean towards Russia than an obscure US contingency plan, though.
→ More replies→ More replies271
→ More replies275
u/lordregulas Feb 24 '23
Not to mention most of the world doesn't even recognise Bangladesh genocide in 1971 or contribution of millions of Indian soldiers that participated in ww2.
→ More replies86
u/TheAsianTroll Feb 24 '23
I didn't even know about the genocide or any of that.
Go figure, American education system won't teach about that.
→ More replies14
u/zefiax Feb 25 '23
It's sad really. 3 million of my people died including members of my family yet most of the west doesn't even mention it.
443
Feb 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies214
u/os_2342 Feb 24 '23
All this india hate lacks any historical understanding. The USA basically chose Pakistan and that left India to turn to Russia. Whilst I don't like India's position in the Russia / ukraine war, it's hard to see it as anything other than them being pragmatic and looking out for themselves.
→ More replies
862
u/Keetanu
Feb 24 '23
•
Fun Fact : India as a matter of principal will always abstain from any country specific UN resolutions. If you want to see real intentions of India, check which way Bhutan went. Bhutan is a protected state of India, where India handles Bhutan's defence and foreign affairs. India literally dictates Bhutan's UN votes.
116
u/steeplchase Feb 24 '23
What's the reasoning behind that principle?
317
u/zaplinaki Feb 24 '23
Our first Prime Minister was literally one of the founders of the Non Aligned Movement
→ More replies228
u/perrinlighteyes Feb 24 '23
India being a historically poor country with a large population ravaged by colonialism came to a conclusion that we cannot afford to be allies or enemies of any great power.
From their the concept of strategic autonomy came to being. With the belief that we don't want to be drawn into great power competition and we don't want to be pulled into other countries war.
That translates into a strong sense of sovereign autonomy. India doesn't comment on any country's domestic issues. Unless that issue has a direct impact on Indian security.
So India will not make a statment on Black lives matter or the treatment of uyghers in China.
On the flip side, we also do not appreciate other countries commenting on our domestic affairs.
→ More replies251
u/Snoo-31074 Feb 24 '23
Historically poor? No. India was wealthy. It was unfortunately robbed and plundered by the British for a few hundred years.
→ More replies124
403
u/Milleuros Feb 24 '23
check which way Bhutan went
Since I had to Google it: Bhutan voted in Favour of the resolution
→ More replies19
478
53
u/Gnik_Baj72 Feb 24 '23
I hate how much the world is seeming like a Civilization 5 game.
→ More replies
2.3k
u/m_right Feb 24 '23
A total of 184 countries on Wednesday voted in favour of a resolution to demand the end of the US economic blockade on Cuba, for the 29th year in a row, with the United States and Israel voting against.
33
u/BadAtNameslmao Feb 24 '23
These resolutions are useless, US and China can literally just do whatever they want, it’s not like there’s any country that can do anything to stop them.
846
234
u/ThriftStoreDildo Feb 24 '23
why do we still blockade them? i forgot
→ More replies946
u/culhanetyl Feb 24 '23 •
embargo , blockade would mean we keep other countries from doing business with them via pew pews and floaty boats. the reason was they stopped playing baseball and started playing soccer. oh and they tried to be a host for russian nukes , and then we spent like 40 years trying to kill their leader, also some US businessmen lost money when the uprising happened so we probably will just never forgive them. we were actually doing better under obama (we allowed travel, families to exchange money,business transactions via 3 party countries) and then we got a new dad and they said fuck that shit no cookies for you. now new wrinkly dad hasn't really done much of anything nor do i really expect him to .
244
u/itchy_bitchy_spider Feb 24 '23
You should make YouTube videos narrating history in that style
→ More replies40
u/SuperOliverTwist Feb 24 '23
Oversimplified sort of has that style of history videos
→ More replies11
→ More replies20
u/Ugion Feb 24 '23
Doesn't the US ban ships recently docked in Cuba from docking in the US, and also allow citizens claiming to rightfully own Cuban property to sue foreign companies for using property owned by the Cuban government? It's not a military blockade but it goes beyond just not letting Americans do business with Cuba.
11
u/UpTheMightyReds Feb 24 '23
I went there on holiday and therefore no longer qualify for an esta. Meaning I won’t be visiting America for the next 10 years as I can’t be bothered going the embassy for a full visa. Silly rule
→ More replies→ More replies365
292
u/Waste-Worth-1047 Feb 24 '23
Wow. It's almost like they look out for their own interests when it comes to geopolitics.
188
Feb 24 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies84
u/anshumanansu Feb 24 '23
And weapons and tech and the support in the UN. Let's not forget India is also sending aid to Ukraine
593
u/magnetichira Feb 24 '23
"Europe needs to grow out the mentality that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems" - India's external minister
→ More replies
72
u/Former_Ad_7720 Feb 24 '23
Imagine if the vote was "Every country remove troops from every other country", you'd have a lot less votes if countries weren't allowed to be hypocrites.
→ More replies
622
u/JungleJones4124 Feb 24 '23
Why would India go on record against Russia? It doesn't benefit them. They may be against it is almost every way, but when it comes to the financials they don't care. They're walking a line just like many other countries walking a line.
4
u/areyouhungryforapple Feb 24 '23
Geo-politics is wayyy too much for the average Joe to truly give serious thought
→ More replies390
u/Riddob Feb 24 '23
Hey, this is Reddit. No reasonable thoughts allowed, now hand over your brain.
→ More replies
36
Feb 24 '23
What about the countries that voted against it? Who are these 7 countries? And what are the 32 countries that abstained. Why is only India being highlighted?
→ More replies
38
Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/aboynamedbluetoo Feb 24 '23
That seems incorrect. India abstained. And so did China.
→ More replies
161
u/space_wiener Feb 24 '23
So there were 32 abstentions. Why is okay India called out? Even about the againsts. Maybe some history between the two?
→ More replies171
u/the_lastone_left Feb 24 '23
Because the media wants to make it seem like the Indians are the enemies as well.
→ More replies
176
u/Kaionacho Feb 24 '23
So like pretty much everything that doesn't directly involve India? This seemed pretty predictable tbh
242
u/IdleIdly Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
So did Pakistan. Not gonna get clicks with that huh?
Edit : For context Pakistan just sold weapons to Ukraine to ease their economic issues.
→ More replies
89
u/Crimson_W0lf Feb 24 '23
What exactly did the UN think this was going to accomplish?
→ More replies56
363
u/idotdot Feb 24 '23
I see a lot of “fuck India” comments. What value does that add ? Looks like a bunch of 8 year olds commenting without understanding anything about geopolitics and history.
28
u/iphone4Suser Feb 24 '23
8 year olds in their 6K population "city" who has never even crossed their County lines.
113
u/maltesemania Feb 24 '23
The top comment says 37 countries abstained and 7 countries voted against. I'm surprised no one cares about these other 43 countries, just India. Am I missing something?
→ More replies20
Feb 24 '23
Or cares about the 7.
Now my country abstained even though our ruling party are in bed with Russia and love them. While on the ground a huge amount of us want Russia to leave Ukraine. Of course there are people in my country that think Russia is right to bomb children. But you know. People are stupid.
→ More replies→ More replies15
u/noonewantstoreadthat Feb 24 '23
Let it go, man. This comment section is just educated people explaining India's positions and others going yeah I am not going to read that but you should totally read how you are wrong. It isn't worth the effort.
16
u/sarthakism Feb 24 '23
India should never leave Russia especially for the US, US can't be trusted and Russia is a time tested partner of India.
→ More replies
7.6k
u/dating_derp Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
Against Votes
Edit: /u/musr has the abstained list here.