Modi’s Ukraine Visit: Unveiling India’s Strategy – OpEd

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Ukraine on August 23-24 has brought to light the dual-faced nature of India’s foreign policy. While the visit was presented as a show of support for Ukraine amidst its ongoing conflict with Russia, a closer examination reveals a strategy that is far more self-serving and deeply rooted in India’s long-standing ties with Russia. Modi’s actions during this visit, and the broader context of India’s geopolitical moves, have exposed a contradictory approach that raises questions about the sincerity and effectiveness of India’s foreign policy.

The official narrative surrounding Modi’s visit to Ukraine emphasizes India’s commitment to peace and stability in the region. However, this narrative rings hollow in light of India’s continued deep ties with Russia, a key aggressor in the Ukraine conflict. Modi’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, held shortly before his Ukraine visit, is a case in point. During this summit, Modi was awarded Russia’s highest honor, the Order of St Andrew the Apostle, a gesture that was met with fierce criticism due to its timing. The award ceremony coincided with a Russian attack on a children’s hospital in Kyiv, an event that drew widespread condemnation from the international community. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed deep disappointment over Modi’s actions, viewing them as a betrayal at a time when Ukraine needed global support. In contrast, within India, the visit was celebrated as a demonstration of “strategic autonomy,” a term that has become synonymous with India’s attempt to balance its relationships with conflicting global powers. This dual-faced strategy, however, has not gone unnoticed, with many accusing India of playing both sides to its advantage.

One significant outcome was the agreement to return 35 Indian citizens who had been deceived into fighting for the Russian army in Ukraine. This move, while necessary from a humanitarian perspective, also served to reinforce India’s image as a protector of its citizens, a narrative that Modi has consistently used to bolster his domestic support. However, the anticipated signing of the Reciprocal Exchange of Logistics Agreement (RELOS) did not occur. RELOS, which would have facilitated logistical support for military operations, was expected to last five years with an automatic renewal. The failure to sign this agreement raises questions about India’s commitment to its defense partnership with Ukraine, especially in light of its strong defense ties with Russia. This omission is particularly telling, as it suggests that India is unwilling to fully align itself with Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.

India’s continued purchase of significant amounts of oil from Russia, despite reservations from the United States, further underscores the depth of this relationship. Additionally, India’s acquisition of the S-400 missile system from Russia highlights the enduring strength of their defense ties. These actions, combined with reports that India has extended support to Ukraine in certain areas, paint a picture of a nation that is attempting to have its cake and eat it too. India’s decision to maintain close ties with Russia while ostensibly supporting Ukraine raises serious questions about the sincerity of its foreign policy. Critics argue that India’s actions are driven more by opportunism than by a genuine commitment to global peace and stability. This dual-faced strategy, while advantageous in the short term, risks alienating key global partners and undermining India’s credibility on the world stage.

Modi’s approach to foreign policy, particularly in the context of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, has been characterized by a rhetoric of “strategic autonomy.” This term has been used to justify India’s attempts to maintain strong ties with both Russia and the West, even when those relationships are seemingly at odds. However, this strategy is increasingly being viewed as a facade that masks a more cynical approach to global politics. By maintaining close ties with Russia while engaging with Ukraine, India is attempting to position itself as a key player on the global stage. However, this approach is fraught with risks. The failure to fully commit to Ukraine’s cause, coupled with India’s ongoing collaboration with Russia, suggests that Modi’s visit to Ukraine was more about appeasing Western powers than about making a genuine contribution to resolving the conflict.

In conclusion, Modi’s visit to Ukraine on August 23-24 has unveiled the dual-faced nature of India’s foreign policy. While the visit was presented as a show of support for Ukraine, the broader context reveals a strategy that is more about self-interest than solidarity. India’s enduring alliance with Russia, particularly in the areas of defense and energy, continues to shape its foreign policy decisions, even as it seeks to maintain a balanced relationship with Ukraine. This dual-faced strategy, while allowing India to engage with multiple global powers, also exposes the contradictions at the heart of its foreign policy. As India navigates the complex dynamics of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, it must reckon with the growing perception that its actions are driven more by opportunism than by a genuine commitment to global peace and stability. The facade of strategic autonomy can only hold for so long before the underlying contradictions begin to unravel, potentially damaging India’s standing on the global stage.