对印度在美国于联合国安理会发起的以“最强烈的措辞”谴责俄罗斯对乌克兰“侵略”决议上投弃权票一事，西方媒体可谓视而不见或未给予应有的报导。
取而代之的关注于，除了报导俄罗斯预期的否决权之外，不出所料——就是对中国弃权的报导。这可从路透社于2月26日的报导中看出：其新闻标题是，俄罗斯否决联合国谴责俄入侵乌克兰议案，中国投弃权票。路透社这项报导对中国立场的强调，似乎是为了进一步妖魔化中国，煽动西方世界反华情绪。
在俄乌课题上，不只印度立场消失于西方媒体报导中，俄罗斯驻印度新德里代表在推特上，对印度在联合国表决上持有的“独立和平衡”立场深表“高度赞赏”一事，也没有获得报导。
印度长期以来一直被西方国家视为民主的典范，这是因为印度接受以西方为基础的民主制度，以及其压迫性的国内和外交政策不太为人所知。这种对印度的有利看法与针对中国等“不民主”和“专制”国家的负面看法和意见，形成鲜明对比。
然而，在这个全球政治的关键时刻，印度加入了中国和阿联酋的行列，在世界上负责国际和平与安全的最重要机构，于国际危机和危险问题上投下弃权票。
印度也顶住了来自美国、英国、澳洲和欧盟国家的压力，不加入对普京和俄罗斯进行的贸易、金融和其他领域的制裁。
除了拜登和其他西方领导人在幕后游说印度领导人外，乌克兰总统泽连斯基也在该国外交部长库莱巴寻求印度外长支持联合国安理会决议后第二天，向印度总理莫迪施压。
印度无动于衷
随后，乌克兰驻印度大使伊戈尔波利哈博士也通过印度亚洲国际新闻通讯社（ANI）做出慷慨激昂公开呼吁：
“当下，我们请求、恳求印度给予支持。在极权主义政权侵略民主国家的情况下，印度应该充分承担其全球角色。而莫迪是世界上最有权势和最受尊敬的领导人之一”
伊戈尔博士诉求被置若罔闻。
那么，在俄罗斯入侵乌克兰课题上，我们能从西方的民主典型代表和全球地缘政治中最受欢迎的盟友──印度那里得到什么期待呢？
印度的立场可以从前印度外交部秘书长坎瓦尔·西巴尔（Kanwal Sibal）的一篇评论文章中推断出来。坎瓦尔是一名职业外交官，在印度外交部门服务了50多年，在2004年至2007年期间曾担任印度驻俄罗斯大使。他在评估印度对乌克兰未来的立场以及印度外交政策方向时，没有诉诸于外交辞令或掩饰。
他在题为《印度和其他国家不参与联合国安理会道德游行》一文中指出：
“印度处于一个困难的境地，因为考虑到我们与美国和俄罗斯关系中的利害关系，选边站不是一个选项。我们的平衡立场不会损害美国或俄罗斯的利益，也不会影响他们的选择，因为局势的动态不受我们控制。印度和其他国家并没有在联合国安理会中进行道德游行。侵犯乌克兰主权的问题不是决定性的问题，因为西方国家出于自己的原因侵犯了许多国家的主权──南斯拉夫、塞尔维亚、伊拉克、利比亚、叙利亚。美国、欧洲或俄罗斯今天都没有在我们的核心安全问题上采取任何有利于我们的决定性立场。印度并没有‘骑墙观望’。到目前为止，印度在联合国安理会关于乌克兰的辩论中采取了正确的立场。”
印俄战略关系
这篇评论清楚地表明，无论对所谓西方民主价值观的承诺是什么，决定任何国家外交政策的都是国家的本身利益。在这方面，有必要指出，印度与俄罗斯有著特殊的战略关系，这种关系可以追溯到苏联成立初期。同时，俄罗斯也是印度最重要的武器供应商，印度军事技术知识和援助的主要来源，这种对俄罗斯的依赖，也加强了两国的战略关系，。
根据斯德哥尔摩国际和平研究所的数据，俄罗斯是目前印度最大的武器供应国，2011年至2015年期间占印度进口的70%，2015年至2020年期间，则约占一半。
新德里的现役和退役军官以及国防分析人士警告说，对俄罗斯的制裁将对印度军队带来影响，除了会削弱印度军队力量之外，印度军队还将面临军供上的中断和拖延。
印度需从乌克兰战争中吸取另一个教训。就是在这样的战争中没有人是赢家。将这一原则应用到印度─太平洋地区，印度应该认识到，其参与旨在遏制中国，由美日印澳组成的“四边安全对话”（QUAD）组织，是无助于本区域的和平。反之，这将使印度陷入贫困，加剧军备竞赛，只会使带来战争和死亡的军火商人受益。
林德宜《俄乌之战：印度立场》原文：India’s Position in Ukraine Battle
In a move which western media turned a blind eye to or failed to report adequately, India abstained from voting on a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution sponsored by the United States that deplored in the "strongest terms" Russian "aggression" against Ukraine.
Instead western media focus, quite apart from reporting the expected veto by Russia - unsurprisingly - was on China’s abstention. This can be seen from the Reuter report on 26 February headlined, Russia vetoes UN Security action on Ukraine, China abstains. The emphasis on China’s position in the Reuter report appears geared towards further demonization of China and to fan anti-China sentiments in the western world.
Also missing from western media reporting on India’s position is the response of Russia with the country’s mission in Delhi tweeting that it was "highly appreciative" of India's "independent and balanced" position at the UN.
India has long been regarded by western nations as a model of democracy due to its embrace of a western-based democratic system, despite its less publicised oppressive domestic and foreign policies. This favourable view of India is in contrast with the negative views and opinions directed at ‘undemocratic’ and ‘authoritarian’ countries such as China.
However, in this critical period in global politics, India joined China and the UAE in voting to abstain in the world’s most important body responsible for international peace and security on an issue of international crisis and danger.
India also resisted pressure from the US, Britain, Australia and European Union nations to join in the trade, financial and other sanctions imposed on Putin and Russia.
Besides behind the scene lobbying by Biden and other western leaders targeted at India’s leaders, strong pressure had come from the Ukrainian President Zelensky who spoke with Prime Minister Modi a day after Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba spoke to his Indian counterpart for India's support to the UN Security Council resolution.
Following this, Dr Igor Polikha, Ambassador of Ukraine to India made an impassioned public appeal over Indian news agency, ANI in the following terms:
“At the present moment, we're asking, pleading for support of India. In case of aggression of a totalitarian regime against democratic state, India should fully assume its global role. Modi ji is one of the most powerful & respected leaders in the world”
Dr Igor’s appeal fell on deaf ears.
So what can we expect from the West’s democracy poster child and favourite ally in global geo-politics as Russia’s advance into Ukraine continues and the end game approaches.
The Indian position can be deduced from an opinion piece by Kanwal Sibal, former Indian foreign secretary. Kanwai, a career diplomat who served his country’s foreign service for over 50 years was also Indian ambassador to Russia from 2004 to 2007. He did not resort to diplomatic niceties or pretence in his assessment of India’s position on the future of Ukraine and the direction of his nation’s foreign policy.
In his opinion piece, India and Others Not In a Morality Parade in UNSC he noted that India is in a difficult situation as choosing sides is not an option, given the stakes we have in our ties with both the US and Russia. Our balanced position does no harm to US or Russian interests or influences their choices one way or another, as the dynamics of the situation are not under our control. India and others are not in a morality parade in the UNSC. The issue of violation of Ukrainian sovereignty is not the decisive issue as the West has violated the sovereignty of many countries - Yugoslavia, Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria - for its own reasons.
US, Europe or Russia today have not taken any decisive position in our favour on our core security issues. India is not "sitting on the fence". It has taken the right position so far in the UNSC debates on Ukraine. (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-and-others-not-in-a-morality-parade-in-unsc/articleshow/89820803.cms)
This commentary makes clear that it is national self interest that determines any national foreign policy whatever the commitment to so-called western democratic values is made out to be. In this regard it is necessary to note that India has a special and strategic relationship with Russia which goes back to the earliest days of the Soviet Union. This relationship has been reinforced by India’s dependence on Russia as its most prominent weapons supplier as well as its main source of military technical knowhow and assistance.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Russia is by far India’s largest arms supplier, accounting for 70 percent of India’s imports between 2011 and 2015 and roughly half between 2015 and 2020.
Serving and retired service officers and defence analysts in New Delhi have warned that sanctions on Russia spell trouble for India’s military which will face interrupted and interminably delays besides being weakened.
There is another lesson that India needs to take away from the battle for Ukraine. This is that no one is a winner in such wars. Applying this development to the Indo Pacific region, India should recognize that its participation in the QUAD grouping aimed at containing China does not serve the cause of peace. It will impoverish India and precipitate an intensification of the arms race that can only benefit the merchants of war and death.
