to react and punish russia over its invasion of ukraine in violation of the un charter. but if the un secretary general was convinced that moscow had violated international law, why when joe biden arguably watered down the condemnation of russia for so called chapter 6, the violation seeking peace did not just china and the u. e, with the world so called biggest democracy, india failed to support washington. joining me now as americans, professor of strategic studies and new delhi sense of a policy research, rama celine. thank you so much for visiting me for coming on. what have you made? if putins violation of the you had chartered, why have you said india will not be able to escape the largest or the larger strategic ramifications of the ukraine war? well 1st, what's happening is a water shift moment in international relations. this mock that went of a new law whose family occasions will extend to every corner of the world, the russian invasion of ukraine and the sanction center reprisals of deal with. and

it's eyes are compounding the national crisis because the politics was already quite lucky in for the russian ambition. but things have become tragic and all the time since a nation began. and the cutting prices have the making of a grown out and dangerous confrontation between russia and the west, particularly nato. and as we all know, the crisis is already affecting the global economy. with high energy prices and supply chain destructions said to fuel inflation and slowing nomic growth and india cannot skip these medications. and of course the, the larger issue is that the rest is snapping. its post war war dies with moscow, despite the risk of meeting strategic instability globally. in

fact, it was live response appeals in that affecting regime change in moscow eventually. so this is a critical moment in the national relations, and i think they have been miscalculations both by president colton and also by the western block. well, i think a native countries would surely say, miscalculations would be made in delhi. why? when albania in the united states had the chapter 7 motion water down to chapter 6, did the prime minister moody say he wouldn't support it? why did they not supported when there's a time of war? and certainly here the view is that any refusal to vote with washington and nato prolongs the misery of ordinary ukrainians. what would be achieved by condemning russia and damming a country for the sake of condemning it doesn't want our policy interest

yet never. and even in the boss, condemn united states for meaning, iraq or libya or any other country. condemnation is strong part of indian diplomacy . in any case, russia and the united states are both close friends of india to walk into medic tightrope. that's to do a balancing act which was coming with me. this is called given the fact that what they see is that been of a nuclear war that's going to seriously compound in this strict and it challenges also affect it's close. defense stays with moscow. for example, given the financial tension said, the west as imposing in russia. how will it be with the weapons at bias from russia? that's just one or many things. it is also investing in russian oil and gas

sector. it plans to invest in the russian far east, all of these plans truck defy, given these mounting sanctions against russia. so for india, this is, the crisis really is complicating it's diplomacy. and also it's pursuit of long comes credited interest complicating it, or speeding up the adoption by india, of alternative methods of financing, as opposed to say, the brussels based swift system and others. now, india can use new methods of financing, often discussed in bricks meetings, shang i cooperation, organization meetings, non align, move would meetings, so many trans national meetings that have occurred over the past. what

50 years? 70 since world war 2. you asking? right. and i think by eliminating the system or weaponized thing, an energy pipeline. and by cutting rochelle off from western lead institution is the us is actually undermining those wedding institutions. because countries will be forced to choose alternatives are given up alternative. so russia example will have to trade in rebel and ruby as it did bring the solid times. so any guidance situation well, have to be met with innovative methods. so i don't expect

the russia and the relationship to snap because of the financial fractions, require a lot of work, both in utility and must go to maintain in relationship that as to why, for so many decades. in fact, it has, it has solidified, despite the profound changes in the world, in the past century, that relationship has been seen in new delhi as a relationship with a cry didn't test a trend. but at the same time. and i says, has also become increasingly important in so how does india balance 2 important relationships in a new horn war? that's going to be a huge challenge for policy makers in new delhi. well, some would say it's very easy and you're hesitancy is because as you know, her, he well, because you see china is a big adversary,

that it may necessitate closer ties between your foe. he across the valley between pakistan and india and china. and that's why you're hesitant about this closer relationship with russia without the u. s. and nato countries evolve because it will necessitate closer relationships with china. that's your problem. and surely, and to the blink and the former west exec consultant who's now secretary of state that the learn, jake sullivan realized full well that there are dangers of moving russia closer to currencies other than the dollar. and his thought on par made the calculation bennet from the dollar. well you, you brought in china, which is so important. look at the international crisis that was created even before fortran launched the invasion of ukraine. yet how many people in the world know that for the past 22 months, india has faced it,

chinese aggression, it trannies aggression and roaming up to 200000 chinese troops. that invasion, aggression. what do we call? it began in april 2020. when try these forces furtively encroach on several key border areas in the northern was the indian region of the dock. since then the military build ups have only escalated, creating the danger of a full scale wall. well, we, we invite the chinese ambassador to the un united nation, but basically, what, so your point and the point of many in the leads in india is they don't want the us to abandon its relationship with russia because they weren't russia alongside them in their attack. on china,

russia and india had fairly similar views on stability in asia or, or ratio. and that bilateral relationship has stood the test of time. chinese kelly, an important factor in this relationship. even in this present military crisis, based with the russians have been so helpful. especially in helping get to fortify it offenses. so that really underscores the importance of russia for india. i don't think you can afford to see that relationship degrade in any manner. but i wrote it clea, the pakistani prime minister iran guy was in moscow at the time that we put in was clearly planning sending the troops into ukraine. brazil is not being that

supportive of nato countries in washington bricks never been stronger than that. now, given that brazil india and india is perceived enemy nuclear fellow enemy of august sun, since they all seem to be against the nato and the u. s. line india isn't the unique position of having to nuclear armed at groceries. china and pakistan that actually close alliance. so it's a strategic triangle in which means to try 9 and pakistan and given that star reality and given the fact that greg increasingly has come under the chinese shadow, india has to be very cautious in relying on

pricks as a institution. the bricks has value, but pricks is currently not a credible alternative to other international institutions, but very much investment rates. but so there are to exaggerate the bottom so bricks the factors that a country like india given this security predicament, has to deal with the realities that it faces. what, what is, what do you expect the u. s. and nato to do to india because of its lack of support, arguably for the civilians dying in the streets of ukraine. what has the american president spoken, even though word on the chinese important information against india? has any western head of government supported india in the current military crisis

that in that conference? usually chinese aggression answer is no. so why should be out and supporting the western stands against russia, and he doesn't have a dog in the fight against nothing, from taking a position that could undermine its relationship with moscow. in the same time, india has done not t jo undercarriage. we bought relationship with washington and they are people in the state department to help set on set off the record to the media and the understanding the as gallano and the dynamite as to why it abstained from the water in the un security council. i don't, you don't see how the universe, artists, and eyes are going to take revenge on india. just because in the abs thing from,

from a lot the un security council for has a barometer lady. i'll stop you there more from the national security specialist and america's professor of strategic studies at new daily's center policy research after this break. ah, ah ah

ah, with welcome back. i'm still here with professor brown much laney, international security specialists, and americans professor of strategic studies and new delhi center for policy research. so india attacks, shine, aruba, perceived you and violations you and resolute violations, but refuses to attack russia. after the secretary general of the united nation set, it violated international law. well, in yet another attack, china over y any un resolutions can criticize china for violating bilateral agreements, binding bilateral agreements, of course. then you violate violating while it bilateral agreement to violate an actual law because bilateral agreements are bottom parcel of international law.

yeah. not even un resolutions. and yet with russia, you won't vote with international law or against moscow. well, if you look at the history of this century alone, they have been so many multiple foreign, military and nations of sovereign states in this century alone. the 2000 and began with the us invasion of afghanistan then followed an invasion which was monday by a un resolution. while the, the us has become increased marginalized in human capital, approval on anything mean little humans camera pro can come even ran a country flow to international law. for example,

the us invasion of iraq and occupational the country using the protects, that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq had the human stamp of approval . but that'll make a legitimate international law s b, c. it is powerful against the policy and policy a case, the powerful that's the harsh reality might makes right, is still very much intact. and when it was century example today, the western block talks about upholding the rules based order. what, what already, zach? the fact is that those look at in order others make the routes for the world have a trade or weapon ising energy weapon being served is certainly not upholding

. enrolled space stronger? well, one can mention syria canister on iraq, livia and so on. but then what the view of prime minister moody is 2 wrongs make a right therefore don't vote with the us of the security council. and i mention it never, never fits in adjustment on any countries, aggression, a case in the country has never condemned any military nation. sorry and condemns packers for it. condensed by august on the use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy against india, against his time because india, victim of that kind of use of terrorism. but certainly, india has demonstrated moral judgment on the military actions of any bar

that's never been part of indian diplomacy. do you think the united states for saw what was going on as it pulled out of afghanistan after it's longest war and his defeat in afghanistan? that that's why it was boring weapons in the ukraine ahead of what putin says is a provoke provocation. and what nato in the u. n says, was his illegal invasion and the garnish tons defeated humiliation states was a watershed moment. and thirdly, but by on the defensive and he tried to die with intention. he made some important strategic miscalculations just the

way couldn't have made some sort of different calculations. fast calculation on the part of binding was that he could use the tradeoff sanctions to deter russia from in reading ukraine problem. in fact, the us true will use of sanctions as blanket instrumental sanctions by repeatedly slapping sanctions on russia for the past 8 years or so. so the object of preventing ratio from in meeting ukraine and failed miserably. and that miscalculation was not to take warden's tread often an invasion serious me by giving him the security short answer. thank demanded security or trans than the us. and they don't want to turn ukraine into a, a front line launch by the russia, by, by deploying offensive weapons on new created inside almost 3 months or so,

trying to guarantee it is wanting to ignored repeatedly. and there was also a bottomless confirmation on the, on, on the part of putting in international relations. you can, by mounting a credible liquid credit achieve an objective without the need to actually execute the correct. where do you put a long scrimmage military build up against your trade? will compel the us to abandon its policy of native creek to russia borders. he woke up the world, the dangers of nato expansion ism com. and even in the us, we can ask where the expanding nato russia borders, and thereby prompted russia to re militarize was an american interest. in fact, as you know, the military build up on nuclear waters kept the us on the ropes with bite and

wanting for diesel in the nation was coming. it's sort of sustaining that threat, put in, decided to execute that even though controlling outcome of their warm one second launch is literally impossible. so i think he could have achieved more sustaining. that's right. this is sort of actually launching the nation. obviously, moscow appears to believe that the cause of actions are the right ones and risking all is the way forward in the united states thinks that the united states thinks that there must be, even if it's perhaps risks. nuclear war. the ability for ukraine to join nato, that's where the urban union also firmly believes. so. i mean, the point here is the rights of ukraine to be able to join nato at all costs. few

believe you would believe that you crave, shouldn't be admitted to me. it's too intimately divided, highly corrupt. there's functional state in the eyes of many nato and there was a chance of, of ukraine being admitted to natal instead of is sort of a sweetie rush, has security concerns. and those concerns could have been addressed to the war after all, russia is not being mobile challenger, the challenger is china, which is seeking to supplant the us as the global. and as, as the us already said, sorry to interrupt them, but obviously the largest on $850000.00 soldiers in the russian army, but european union nations, including germany ascending in masses of weapons now into ukraine. do you think

they think in washington and major headquarters in brussels at b, a u parliament in brussels and in strasburg, that ukraine can beat the red army as they pour in these weapons? if not, why would they pour in the weapons? the strategy is very clear now that they persuade not only containment to point all case russia, they also crank to enter their conduct on to point all against russia, just the way they in sneered russian inventing poses. and i've gone on in a ministry quagmire, in the 1980s, by launching the biggest corporation in history. now, in addition to the high sanctions that have been post on russia,

they are looked in at least seeking to and and trap fresh air. it's similar electric light, my in ukraine, by for rain. huge for you to sources by arming the resistance, the insurgency, the a want of bleed russia that to strategy, or whether they succeeded mark when he tangled girl. but the strategies very clear . in fact, biden, as asked congress for an additional $6400000000.00 for a wide arms and either military aid ukrainian forces, whether they are armed forces, the resistance forces, insurgents that says, carrying amount of money that biden is willing to warranty ukraine. those are certainly the figures being thrown around hell in capitol hill when it

comes to the budget then. so apart from all these countries in the global south using turning away from the dollar to get round the sanctions and so on. why do you think politicians in the russian duma wanted their boots in to support the recognition of don yet skimmed her hands and pushed putin, whoever's, he wanted it as well to act in this way. if you believe it, sir, you appear to believe it's a catastrophic geopolitical mistake, that alone it's illegality under international law. well, recognizing that to break away a republics could have been seen as botto mounting, credible threat that could have posed the un and nato who concede what russia was asking back to actually

launch an invasion. it was something completely different. the tragic and what i'll moment of to they could get worse without caution and prudence on both sides. but why with such a mistake? is this a low cost strategy? but it's very clear for this what the military objectives oh put in are in relation to ukraine. what do you think the chief, because, as you can see from the blind from attacks that need 3 lines of attack that russia has mounted in ukraine, it starts thinking to occupy the entire country. what are the military objectives or is something difficult to guess? he's certainly not keen to an extra whole of ukraine lease in terms of the military

operation so far. but my biggest concern is this. as a history of basinski alone illustrates, foreign military invasions have decent life sovereign states, and as iraq, syria, him and on demonstrate such innovations have triggered an ending while and, and bloodshed and russia invasion, and the u. s. plan to om ukrainians to bleep russia. threatened to turn your credit into assyria on libya. this one have made implications both for russian security as, as well as well, europe and security. that's it for one of your favorite shows this season, the team and i will be back soon with a brand new look. but until then you can keep in touch my role as social media, if it's available in your country. and remember, you can continue to watch all going underground episodes on odyssey and they'll come see very soon

ah said he never came, spoke with me, with an interest in both, both of those. you need to do both. nelson with a, a funny guy. nobody, a lot of them bought your own floyd them box with

i'm says audio visual with the personal number. yeah. we're middle with ah ah

ah, pakistan's prime minister says the opposition threats to his leadership have been orchestrated by western powers after he refused to allow a u. s. based on pakistani territory and declined to comment on to condemn russia. ukraine comes with human rights watch accuses ukraine of using dangerous tactics in violation of international law as the army allegedly hides among civilians with ukrainians. saying that they are being used as human shields. they came to our bomb shelters with badges say to lease, and demanded the keys to all the apartments and said that if we refused, they would blow up the doors. the prominent u. s. policy adviser, the rand corporation issues a report about how to cripple russia without engaging in battle.