By Global Affairs Correspondent | August 2025
As the world grows increasingly polarized in the aftermath of prolonged conflicts, shifting alliances, and great-power rivalries, India finds itself in a precarious yet powerful position. Once considered a developing nation punching above its weight, India in 2025 is the fifth-largest economy, a nuclear power, a space-faring nation, and—most crucially—a diplomatic swing state in the evolving global order.
But with Russia’s war in Ukraine dragging into its fourth year and the West tightening its demands on “democratic alignment,” India’s policy of strategic autonomy is being stress-tested like never before. The question now is: Can India remain neutral between Russia and the West without alienating both?
The Legacy of Non-Alignment
India’s diplomatic neutrality isn’t new. From the days of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) during the Cold War, India has charted its own course, avoiding military alliances while engaging with both East and West. The principle of “strategic autonomy” became a foundational pillar of Indian foreign policy—one that balanced ideological ideals with pragmatic interests.
In the 21st century, that autonomy has translated into diverse partnerships: deep defense cooperation with Russia, massive trade with the United States, energy ties with the Gulf, and emerging tech alliances with the EU and Japan. But this balancing act is growing harder as the geopolitical climate becomes more polarized.
The Russia Equation
India and Russia share a long-standing defense partnership, dating back to the Soviet era. Over 60% of India’s military hardware still originates from Russia. In recent years, joint ventures like the BrahMos missile and nuclear submarine leasing deals have cemented this relationship.
Crucially, Russia remains a key oil supplier. Since 2022, India has significantly increased its purchase of discounted Russian crude, helping stabilize its energy costs while circumventing volatile global prices.
Yet this trade comes at a diplomatic cost. Washington and Brussels have repeatedly voiced concern over India’s “failure to condemn” Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. The latest round of U.S. tariffs on Indian goods—announced in August 2025—explicitly cited India’s continued engagement with Russian oil as a provocation.
Still, Indian officials remain unmoved. “Our foreign policy is guided by our national interests, not pressure from any bloc,” External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar stated at a recent G20 press briefing. “We will buy oil wherever it is affordable, and we will talk to all parties.”
The Western Pull
India’s relationship with the West, particularly the United States, has strengthened significantly over the last decade. Bilateral trade between India and the U.S. is projected to cross $200 billion in 2025. The U.S. is also a major investor in India’s IT, fintech, and pharmaceutical sectors.
On the strategic front, India is a key member of the Quad alliance alongside the U.S., Japan, and Australia—a grouping increasingly viewed as a counterweight to China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific.
India has also signed defense pacts with France and the U.K., cooperated with NATO on maritime security, and engaged with the European Union on climate diplomacy and data protection frameworks.
But the relationship is not without friction. The U.S. has criticized India’s internet freedom record, religious rights policies, and its abstentions at the UN. And now, the recent tariff war is threatening to derail years of careful economic diplomacy.
Walking the Tightrope
For now, India continues to walk the tightrope. It sends humanitarian aid to Ukraine, maintains regular dialogue with European leaders, and continues to participate in Western-led summits—all while buying Russian oil, conducting military drills with Moscow, and refusing to sanction Russia.
This duality has drawn both admiration and criticism.
“India’s foreign policy is an exercise in advanced tightrope walking,” says Dr. Lila Banerjee, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “It is refusing to be pushed into a corner, and in doing so, it’s crafting a new model for middle powers.”
Critics, however, warn that India risks losing credibility by trying to have it both ways. “You cannot be a partner in Quad on Monday and trade in Russian oil on Tuesday without consequences,” argued one unnamed EU diplomat.
The Global South’s Spokesperson?
Interestingly, India’s position resonates strongly with the Global South. At the BRICS+ Summit in Johannesburg earlier this year, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasized the need for a “multipolar world rooted in equitable development,” positioning India as a voice for developing nations.
This sentiment is echoed in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, where many governments resent Western pressure to “choose sides.” India’s refusal to become a proxy in great-power games is earning it diplomatic capital across the non-aligned world.
“India is not sitting on the fence—it is building a new fence,” said Professor Samir D’Souza of the University of Cape Town. “And many are watching with interest.”
Can Neutrality Survive?
Neutrality in the classical sense may be harder to maintain in today’s world, where economic interdependence and information warfare blur the lines between war and peace. Yet India’s evolving policy of “multi-alignment”—cooperating with diverse partners without getting trapped in binary choices—offers a pragmatic alternative to Cold War-era blocs.
The key will lie in consistency, transparency, and agility. India must clearly articulate its red lines, invest in strategic self-reliance, and diplomatically manage flashpoints—such as the ongoing U.S. tariffs—before they escalate into confrontations.
Conclusion: The Middle Path Forward
As tensions between the West and Russia show no signs of abating, India’s geopolitical balancing act is becoming more crucial—and more difficult. But in a divided world, the ability to speak to all sides may well be the most powerful diplomacy of all.
Neutrality, in 2025, is not about passivity. For India, it is about navigating complexity, asserting sovereignty, and leading a new form of non-alignment—fit for a multipolar century.
Leave a Reply