The United States and its allies have been critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent Moscow visit as the West has been at war with Russia through its proxy Ukraine for more than two years now.

The US and the Western world continue to use the Russian energy resources to keep their economies running even as they are telling New Delhi to keep a distance from Moscow. Ironically they are getting these energy resources through India  and yet they show their discomfort on India-Russia relations! According to a CNN report titled ‘The Kremlin has never been richer(19 Feb, 2024)”, The analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) estimated the US was the biggest buyer of refined products from India made from Russian crude last year, worth $1.3 billion between early December 2022, when the price cap was introduced, and the end of 2023. The organization’s estimates are based on publicly available shipping and energy data.

“The value of these oil product exports rises significantly once US allies that are also enforcing sanctions against Russia are included. The CREA estimated that $9.1 billion worth of oil products made from Russian crude was imported by these nations in 2023, a 44% increase from the year before” the report adds

Thus, a bigger question is that whether the United States has the moral right to teach other nations and especially India about their foreign policy and how they should deal with Russia. The past record of US speaks for itself.

The United States backed Pakistan in the 1971 war against India while Russia (then USSR) stood by India.   It is important to note that the 1971 war was an outcome of the genocide of Bengalis in east Pakistan by the Pakistani military.  The self-styled biggest votary of the human rights i.e. the US didn’t  flinch at the macabre killings, rapes, brutalities  committed by its ally Pakistan on hapless Bengalis. And it doesn’t flinch even now at what is happening in Balochistan, Sindh or Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan.

The rise of Islamic radicalisation that has become the biggest challenge for the present day world owes its origin to the US support to jehadis. Its closest ally Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia exported Wahhabismacross the world including India in the 1970s through petro-dollars.

‘Wiki Cables suggested that Saudi Arabia is uncomfortable with the rising Shia influence in India and Tehran’s overtures. So, in order to counter that Saudis are pumping in money to promote Wahhabism in India. According to a report attributed to Intelligence Bureau (IB), from 2011 through 2013, 25,000 Wahhabis visited India, conducted seminars in several states of the country. For these activities $17 billion were spent.’ (Radicalisation in India: An exploration by Abhinav Pandya; Pentagon Press, 2019; Pp46)

In the 1970s, the US led by Henry Kissinger’s ‘China Policy’ mainstreamed China in the global community. Thanks to Kissinger and many like him in the US, the world is today suffering an aggressive, imperialist and brazen China.

In the 1970s, the US joined hands with Pakistan military, its deep state and Islamic radicals to counter the Russian intervention in Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars were pumped to set up first Mujahideen and then Taliban in Afghanistan by the United States. The emergence of Osama Bin Laden and terror groups like Al-Qaida are an outcome of the US foreign policy which backed Islamic radicals for years. Haqqani network, which is considered to be the fountainhead of Islamic radicalisation and Islamic terrorism was nurtured by the US throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The US held back-channel talks with the Taliban several times even as its military was hunting for them after 9/11.  Steve Coll and several other scholars who were on ground in Afghanistan during America’s so- called war against terror after 9/11 have written extensively on how certain sections of the US deep state were protecting many Islamic radical leaders.

The US and its allies have been least bothered about the impact of this Islamic extremism on the rest of the world. The US also closed its eyes towards Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence’s spread of terrorism in India through the Khalistan movement in 1980s and 1990s. The role played by Pakistan in harbouring, nurturing and promoting terror groups to spread terrorism in Kashmir is well documented. And all this has been happening under the nose of the US, the biggest ally of Pakistan.

Benjamin Abelow has explained the US’ double speak aptly in his ‘How the West brought war to Ukraine(July 2022; Siland Press), “For almost 200 years, starting with the framing of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the United States has asserted security claims over virtually the whole Western hemisphere. Any foreign power that places military forces near US territory knows it is crossing a red line. US policy thus embodies a conviction that where a potential opponent places its forces is crucially important. In fact, this conviction is the cornerstone of American foreign and military policy, and its violation is considered a reason for war.

Yet when it comes to Russia, the United States and its NATO allies have acted for decades in disregard of this same principle. They have progressively advanced the placement of their military forces toward Russia, even to its borders. They have done this with inadequate attention to, and sometimes blithe disregard for, how Russian leaders might perceive this advance. Had Russia taken equivalent actions with respect to US territory—say, placing its military forces in Canada or Mexico—Washington would have gone to war and justified that war as a defensive response to the military encroachment of a foreign power.”

‘When viewed through this lens, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is seen not as the unbridled expansionism of a malevolent Russian leader but as a violent and destructive reaction to misguided Western policies: an attempt to reestablish a zone around Russia’s western border that is free of offensive threats from the United States and its allies. Having misunderstood why Russia invaded Ukraine, the West is now basing existential decisions on false premises.’ In doing so, it is deepening the crisis and may be sleepwalking toward nuclear war, adds Abelow.

Abelow says, “In the months since Russia invaded Ukraine, the explanation offered for America’s involvement has changed. What had been pitched as a limited, humanitarian effort to help Ukraine defend itself has morphed to include an additional aim: to degrade Russia’s capacity to fight another war in the future.”

(The writer is a senior journalist and has authored two books on Taliban and Islamic Radicalisation)