This has been quietly going on for some time, at least since the West imposed limits and price caps on Russia's exportation due to the Ukrainian war.
Now, I just don't understand why nobody has said anything yet. The delta is just way too big and oil far too valuable a resource for stuff like this to go unnoticed for as long as it has.
Granted, I understand that India is kind of on its own geopolitically and part of their strategic interests might be securing a closer tie with Russia (for whatever reason), and this might be a bribe-in-kind of some sort, but still, I am quite confused as to how this has gone under the radar for as long as it has.
Cos people don't want to talk about it because it would mean admitting these sanctions don't really work as intended.
Within another 3 months we might have mainstream media finally admit that Azerbaijan and/or Turkey are reexporting large quantities of Russian gas for the foreseeable future.
Would writing a check to Ukraine for military drone hardware count [1] [2]? I feel like jumping out of a plane is a very simple, inefficient idea of a path to success here, especially considering what qualifies as force projection today. Not asking for anyone's boots on the ground if that was what your question referred to. Also not an armchair warmonger, just exhausting watching the unnecessary suffering continue [3] [4] due to an aging megalomaniac.
You (the USA) already did that by destroying the Nordstream pipelines. By doing so, you are responsible for the destruction of a huge amount of wealth in Europe, especially Germany. The US will have to pay for this, I'm certain! Funny, haven't you realized yet that the US has already lost the proxy war against Russia? If you're easy with conducting 'military strikes on infrastructure' of another country, then 'military strikes' against your country's infrastructure should also be conducted in return. And please don't complain, it is after all a legitimate means of foreign policy in your (US-centric) view.
It's not clear who actually destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines. There is significant circumstantial evidence of Ukrainian involvement. But we may never know for sure.
In any case, why would the US have to pay? It's not like anyone else has the power to extract a payment. In fact, for now the US is the country getting paid in the form of increased natural gas exports.
Do you really think that Ukraine destroys the pipelines without US-approval? Ukraine basically runs a 100% on US taxpayer money, additionally Germany is one of the most important providers of military aid to Ukraine, why the hell would they risk everything for little to no gain at all? This doesn't make sense. On the other side, POTUS openly said: "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2.".
The US will have to pay twofolds, financially and morally. As Larry Johnson said: 'What has happened in Ukraine in the last 19 months — over 500,000 dead Ukrainians. What we’re talking about is something that is off the charts. There’s going to be blood on American hands. If there is such a thing as Karma, the US will have a terrible bill to pay."
Who knows? If the pipelines were destroyed by Ukrainians that doesn't necessarily imply that it was an official government sanctioned operation. Early in the war there were a variety of independent militia groups who kind of did their own thing and didn't always follow orders. We're all just speculating based on incomplete and unreliable evidence.
If you threaten to kill someone and he later turns up dead then the police will investigate you as a suspect. But the victim might have had other enemies who got him first.
As for the moral culpability, let's remember that Russia is the aggressor here. The USA hasn't killed any Ukrainians. And it's up to the Ukrainians to decide what price they're willing to pay.
Indian firms are importing Russian crude oil at a discount, mixing it with crude from unsanctioned places, refining the mix and selling it for full price on the open market as unsanctioned oil.
New Delhi is confident the US is so desperate for an alliance against China, it can't afford to do anything about it.
That's also why it expects no serious repercussions for assassinating a Canadian citizen in Canada.
This was a diplomat joking about the claims from Canada that had no evidence. Canada said "We have credible evidence about India involvement murder of a Canadian citizen". The diplomat meme'd with "We have heard credible rumours of cocaine being on Trudeau's plane".
Then the joke got misrepresented either accidentally or purposefully for clicks.
> Former Indian ambassador to Sudan Deepak Vohra said on Monday there were “credible rumours” that “sniffer dogs found cocaine on his plane”, and that Trudeau “didn’t come out of his room for two days”.
I feel like there's a lot of holes here; wouldn't people notice Trudeau's 2 day absence from his 3 day visit to India?
Pretty sure India's ambassadors are as trustworthy as when Russia's said UK [2] bombed Nord Stream 2.
(you maths is out a little but you have the right idea, India pays 30% over the $60 price cap - paying them $80 then sells on at market price to everyone else for ~$90)
The US gets most of its oil domestically, but since oil is traded globally, even if it isn't actually getting oil from Russia, maybe parent post thinks it is still complicit by letting India use the oil itself?
> no US army in India, as opposed to Germany and other EU countries
Washington wants New Delhi for countering China. That’s a longer-term threat than Russia. If the U.S. Navy wanted to cripple India, it would do so by blockade. This energy insecurity is a well-known weakness of India’s; it’s not a coincidence that China has naval ports in Lahore and Sri Lanka. (It’s also why you don’t see Washington lighting up about India’s coal. A coal-burning India is less sensitive to e.g. the PLA Navy disrupting its seaborne crude imports.)
For a cleaner illustration of this trade-off, see Washington twiddling its thumbs while gazing into the distance while Ottawa and New Delhi duke it out.
> what is the geopolitical benefit they are getting by engaging in this?
It is an open, yet officially unstated, policy of the Indian government since the 1950s that the USSR/Russia must never be put in a position wherein it fully tilts towards China.
India, China and Russia are the three powers on the Asian continent. A 2v1 situation would be catastrophic for India. Sensible people in power in the West may not agree with the India, but they understand this. Arm chair generals on social media and those writing for Western media outlets do not.
Fascinating, and thanks for the response! I did not know that, but it makes a lot of sense. India would be in a tough spot if China and Russia had a much closer relationship, especially as China and India don't really get along that well. So India needs to strengthen its relationship with Russia by any means necessary in order to have Russia in their corner as opposed to Russia being in China's corner.
> India needs to strengthen its relationship with Russia by any means necessary in order to have Russia in their corner as opposed to Russia being in China's corner
India is also a massive importer of energy. 30% above the price cap is still cheaper than market.
On dividing Beijing and Moscow, I think the ship has sailed. Russia is increasingly dependent on China. The leadership in Moscow is beholden to Xi in a way that has no historic comparison. If China initiated military action against India, Russia is no longer in a position to say no.
It gets even more confusing: the USA is traditionally more allied with Pakistan, India's biggest enemy, and we know American jet fighters perform better than Russian ones given the wars the two countries have had (Pakistan has lots of F16s, India has lots of migs). Pakistan is also a fairly strong ally of China...so...lots of nuanced geopolitics going on.
The war in Afghanistan is over, the US doesn't need a Pakistan who's in bed with China anymore. They'll safely ignore India's dealings with Russian oil while doing exercises with Quad states to countner China-Russia "no-limits" partnership along with their puppet, the DPRK.
Yeah, good luck campaigning on that. Mysteriously, all your political opponents (who were at one another's throats 3 seconds ago) will consolidate, and their campaign coffers will suddenly swell with donations from the "National Endowment for Democracy" and friends. If you are really "lucky", you may even get strangely well-trained and well-armed militias opposing you!
Those bases are a great source of income for the local economy.
There's a reason despite the US military routinely asking congress to close down local bases and consolidate buildings to decrease costs that congress never lets them. That's money their district no longer gets!
And yet none of that happened when the Philippines evicted the US military back in 1992. There were armed militia groups opposing the central government but those had been around before and the US government never supported them.
Now the Philippines are inviting the US military back to deter Chinese aggression.
This is a convincing take but in reality, when Trump threatened to pull out troops from many of those nations, these nations weren't excited the slightest about it.
That's a bit of a ridiculously cynical take. The majority of democratic US allies that harbor US bases have a population that supports the presence of the troops. And those in power there aren't so because of the US military power, they were elected.
For dysfunctional or undemocratic nations, it's different.
Now, I just don't understand why nobody has said anything yet. The delta is just way too big and oil far too valuable a resource for stuff like this to go unnoticed for as long as it has.
Granted, I understand that India is kind of on its own geopolitically and part of their strategic interests might be securing a closer tie with Russia (for whatever reason), and this might be a bribe-in-kind of some sort, but still, I am quite confused as to how this has gone under the radar for as long as it has.