UK (Social Media)
International News: A controversial article by Tom Sharpe, a former British Navy officer, branded India as Europe’s ‘enemy’ due to its ongoing military and oil ties with Russia. Sharpe accused India of fueling the Ukraine war by continuing trade with Moscow. He insisted India must choose between the West and Russia. His remarks triggered strong criticism from global strategists. Analysts argue India has consistently advocated for peace in Ukraine. They say the accusation ignores India’s diplomatic efforts and independent stance. The article was published in The Telegraph and soon drew massive online heat.
Renowned geopolitical analyst Chris Blackburn hit back strongly at Sharpe’s claims. He wrote in Firstpost that such shallow understanding of India’s foreign policy is dangerous. He pointed out that India’s ties with Russia are based on strategic compulsions, not emotional loyalty. Decades of historical, regional, and defense calculations have shaped the India-Russia bond. He reminded us that India gets around 20% of its Navy assets and major air defense systems like the S-400 from Russia. These are part of older deals, not a new alignment with Moscow.
Blackburn emphasized that Russia (then USSR) was India’s strongest backer in the 1971 war with Pakistan. At a time when the US supported Islamabad, Moscow stood with Delhi. This bond expanded over time—from diplomatic support to deep military ties. During the 1980s and 1990s, India’s defense backbone was almost entirely Soviet-made. In 2018, India inked a $5.43 billion S-400 missile deal with Russia. Even US threats under CAATSA sanctions didn’t deter India. This shows the relationship isn’t just strategic—it’s built on time-tested trust.
Blackburn argued that India’s relationship with Russia is rooted in its security environment. Unlike Europe, India doesn’t share a border or military rivalry with Russia. Instead, India’s security concerns lie with China and Pakistan. Moscow offers reliable arms without political conditions—something Washington rarely does. Framing India’s Russia ties as ‘disloyal’ misses this regional context. Comparing India’s decisions with Europe’s compulsions reflects geopolitical insensitivity, he wrote. India sits 4000 km away from the Ukrainian front—not within its direct sphere of conflict.
India’s diplomacy is multilateral—not pro-Russia, not anti-West. It’s part of QUAD with the US, and also BRICS and SCO with Russia and China. This isn’t hypocrisy—it’s national interest at work. India’s foreign choices stem from pragmatism, not flattery or fear. It acts with strategic autonomy, maintaining relationships on multiple fronts. Sharpe’s suggestion of “choosing sides” ignores India’s democratic sovereignty. Nations like Britain do what suits their needs—India does the same, Blackburn stated. Criticism must come with historical context and regional logic.
Blackburn warned that articles like Sharpe’s could backfire on Western diplomacy. US and UK have so far tolerated India’s neutrality, especially to counter China. But domestic pressures in Washington and London may change that. Proposed sanctions like Graham’s Tariff threaten this careful balance. Branding India as an enemy risks alienating a vital Indo-Pacific partner. The West must engage, not isolate, India. Dismissing India’s perspective could drive it away at a critical geopolitical moment. Respecting India’s choices is the wiser strategy.
India can be a democratic anchor in Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific if treated with respect. It believes in global peace but guards its sovereign decisions. Seeing India as a problem narrows vision. Seeing it as a bridge opens possibility. If the West listens to India’s concerns and respects its path, it gains a trustworthy partner. Blackburn’s piece urges leaders to rethink their tone and timing. India isn’t standing against the West—it’s standing on its own feet. That’s not defiance—it’s dignity.
Copyright © 2025 Top Indian News
