Europe’s Selective Outrage

EVER SINCE the war in Ukraine started in 2022, not a day passes when the Western press does not report some ‘progress’ on the part of Ukraine. It is interesting to compare the extent of financial and military aid dished out to Ukraine by the US and European countries—in ef­fect, NATO—and the extent of territorial losses suffered by Kiev in these years. The correlation is positive: even after €270.7 billion worth of aid by the US and Europe, large parts of Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts have been lost to Russia for good. The latter is now nibbling away at parts of Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv oblasts.

It would, of course, be perverse to say that Western aid—financial and military—is leading to ter­ritorial losses in Ukraine. But it is safe to say that it has not helped Kiev’s war aims either.

That, however, has not prevented an ‘expansion’ of the conflict zone. European leaders have for many years blamed India for support­ing Russia by buying fuel offered by it. It is another matter that a large volume of Russian crude oil is refined and shipped to Europe from India. Even now, years after the conflict began, Europe continues to purchase natu­ral gas from Russia.

This hypocrisy took another turn on July 16 when NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte said: “My en­couragement to these three countries, particularly is, if you live now in Beijing, or in Delhi, or you are the presi­dent of Brazil, you might want to take a look into this, because this might hit you very hard.”

He added: “So please make the phone call to Vladimir Putin and tell him that he has to get serious about peace talks, because otherwise this will slam back on Brazil, on India and on China in a massive way.”

It is another matter that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the first leader to tell President Vladimir Putin that “this is not an era of war,” when he met him in Uzbekistan in 2022. That, however, cuts no ice in the West.

Lindsey Graham, a US Senator, has plans to bring in what he describes as an “economic bunker buster” Bill against Russia, India and China. Graham is just another in a series of Western politicians to harbour anti- India sentiments.

In Rutte’s case but also to an extent with Graham, the grouse is not just about India ‘aiding’ Russia, but frustra­tion as well. The tightest sanctions against Moscow have not produced the desired results even as India continues to flourish. This is in stark contrast to Europe — including Rutte’s own country, the Netherlands —which has experienced persistent inflation in a num­ber of commodities. How can Indian consumers get cheap oil when Europeans can’t get it? In another age, this would come close to being classed as racism. And Indians are hard­ly getting ‘cheap’ oil; in a low per capita income country, even the smallest increase in prices hurts consumers. That obvious fact eludes Rutte, let alone an obdurate politician like Graham.

This is a good occasion to tell Rutte about war and morality. Back in July 1995, Dutch peacekeepers watched quietly as the Serbian warlord Ratko Mladic rounded up 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in the besieged enclave of Srebren­ica in Bosnia-Herzegovina. These Muslim men were butchered by Mladic and his cohorts and there was not a wimp of protest by the armed Dutch ‘peacekeepers’. Rutte served as prime minister in better times but it won’t be amiss to remind him of the Dutch notion of morality. India, at least, told Russia that this is not an era of war.

Mark RutteNarendra ModiNATORussia-Ukraine conflictVladimir Putin