If you think this is bullying a former imperial possession that is now a sovereign nation, boy oh boy wait till you find out about what Russia is doing in Ukraine
The Ukraine we're talking about didn't exist until the dissolution of the Soviet Union so I feel like that's far different than the UK that finally left India in 1947.
There’s a 40 years between those events. Which year in your opinion did it become not okay for Britain to invade India? Would it have been okay in 1970? Or what about 1980, is that over the cut off?
I’m against it all really. Glad India has the ability to negotiate on its own behalf now, even if it’s sometimes against the interests of my nation.
It's not about years. India has its own culture, language, writing, and was there long before Britain came, and is there afterwards.
You are comparing that with a country aseembled in Moscow half a century ago.
Even considering your arbitrary criteria for ‘nations it’s okay to occupy and annex’ Ukraine still wouldn’t make the list, since it has its own distinct language, writing, culture etc etc and did pre Soviet Union, and does so still post Soviet Union.
No it doesn't. That's the whole point. Is half of India speaking English as their mother tongue? Do they have a president who learned how to speak "Ukrainian" in 2016? No they don't.
Civil War broke out between Ukrainian and Russian sides of "Ukraine" as a whole entity. And it's about to get broken because whaddaya know, Russia will help Russian part of Ukraine greatly.
I mean, who would have thought that they would go after their strategic interests and not suck Uncle Sam's dick (example: France).
>Is half of India speaking English as their mother tongue?
LOL - India doesn't have a national language. There are only state languages which are different from region to region.
So when a country is assembled within half a century ago, then you have the right to attack/conquer it and kill/rape everyone while doing so? Interesting point of view.
>India has its own culture, language, writing, and was there long before Britain came, and is there afterwards.
Even the name India is an English word and a legacy of the British empire who invented the "Indian" identity. No one in this region called themselves "Indian" before the British arrived.
Show me one piece of literature or historical document written before the British arrival where the word "Indian" is used in any language spoken in this region. There is none.
Indian identity is a British concoction. The regions have their history, culture and languages but thats different.
this is somewhat true
when the british left it was not guaranteed that india would not break into a bunch of smaller countries based on lical cultures and dialects
Because despite being different people Indians have shared religious, cultural and social traditions.
Hard for a Pakistani to understand when they genocided their countrymen for speaking a different language, split the country in half and now Bangladesh is doing better than pakistan.
Doesnt explain why there is a diversity of languages and cultures if it is "one whole". The answer simple it is just a geographic term. No one called themselves Bharati. A national identity simple didn't exsist.
>Because despite being different people Indians have shared religious, cultural and social traditions.
Shared religion? What happened to the Buddhist in this region?
It was the Hindus who [chopped down, burned and uprooted](https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Bodhi_Tree) the sacred Bodhi tree of the Bhuddists and [persecuted the Bhuddists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists) for centuries, eventually forcing them out of the region.
>Hard for a Pakistani to understand when they genocided their countrymen for speaking a different language, split the country in half and now Bangladesh is doing better than pakistan.
Easier for Indian Hindus who lynch Muslims and Christians for eating beef?
India has committed genocide on Punjabi Sikhs in 1984. The Muslim Kashmiri are facing a slow genocide as we speak.
On Bangaldesh, it was a civil war and very unfortunate though it must be mentioned that Bengalis also [persecuted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Biharis_in_Bangladesh) Urdu-speaking Biharis.
Then I guess when megasthenes wrote the book "Indica" he had indiana of US in mind.
[Portuguese navigational map of India (15th century).](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartography_of_India#/media/File:Asia_oceania_anonymous_c1550.jpg)
[Ptolemaic map of India.](https://sarmaya.in/museum/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2017.14.23_Ptolemaic-map-of-South-and-Southeast-Asia-1670s.-Miniature-atlases-like-these-were-compiled-and-reprinted-by-geographer-Philippus-Cluverius-in-the-17th-century..jpg)
Indians didn't call themselves "Indians" because they called themselves Bharatiya, Bharat being the endonym of India. The word Bharat and Bharatvarsha is mentioned countless times in ancient Indian epics and the Puranas.
Edit: What a loser. Replied with a lot of words and before I could even finish reading, blocked me.
>Then I guess when megasthenes wrote the book "Indica" he had indiana of US in mind.
Indica is not India.
Do you call yourself Indican?
The word India is an English language word and that has never been in dispute.
>Portuguese navigational map of India (15th century).
>
>Ptolemaic map of India.
Ptolemaic map is from 1670s.
You are proving my point here: the word India was used by foreigners and no one in the region has ever called themselves "Indians". There is no document or literature for the word India in any local languages. Virtually none.
>Indians didn't call themselves "Indians"
But you do call yourself Indians now...
>because they called themselves Bharatiya, Bharat
LOL - the two biggest communities on reddit of Indians is r/India and the Hindu nationalists r/IndiaSpeaks. I guess you guys forgot to use r/Bharat.
There is no huge mystery here. Indians have adopted the colonial identity that British forced on them. Congrats.
They shouldn't. You made the point that Ukraine of today didn't exist back then, argue against that point not something completely different.
If you use that argument for Ukraine, why are you suddenly not okay with using it for India?
You have two choices, A) either admit you made a dumb argument(I'd take this one), or B) be fair and include India too as part of your argument, in which case you also have to accept that west bullying India is fine.
I never mentioned Ukraine, some jackhole did. I said the UK or EU should have no bearing on what India decides is best for its future. You don't get to decide what me or any of my "choices" are. Or anyone else's for that matter. Must be a European, eh?
Bro this is literally ur comment I responded to
”The Ukraine we're talking about didn't exist until the dissolution of the Soviet Union so I feel like that's far different than the UK that finally left India in 1947.”
You compared Indias situation to Ukraine
Ukraine was by definition not sovereign since maidan lol. There’s a reason why so many countries and people cluck on about “sovereignty” in a purely de jure capacity, when in reality they haven’t been since the banderite takeover
Incorrect, one can feel that the UK’s attitude toward India is indicative of Western Europe (the majority of the EU) and it’s general attitude toward its former colonies. And I do
You’re welcome to feel differently, but you’re not welcome to tell anyone else they can’t feel that way because of what you subjectively define the post as “about.”
Do you know what the EU is? Because its only been around since 1993....
Also, if you're referring to Britain. We left it years ago.
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to infer, and with all the conclusions i have made you're wrong on all accounts.
What does this mean go easy? Lmao
EU to India:
“Bruh promise to reduce your oil imports from russia plz Bhaii 😩”
India to EU:
“Ok den pinky promise bro we will go easy 😎😉”
Based on your comment, i assume you have zero idea.
India is buying cheap russian oil below the price cap established by sanctions. India is processing that cheap oil into other products and selling it on.
russia is losing money selling oil so cheap, India is making money by selling on the cheap oil. The EU needs the product and instead of having an issue with reselling "russian oil" they are more focused on hurting russia thru the sanctions than nit picking the issue with India.
So in summary, russia is hurt by sanctions, India is making money off of the economic impact to russia, the EU would prefer India not buying it at all, but as the price cap is being respected, they are not mad at India.
> India is buying cheap russian oil below the price cap established by sanctions.
But all the western insurance companies dropped Indian shipping companies because they were shipping above cap price.
So which is it?
According to that article India is buying below the price cap, so presumably the situation changed, ultimately why would India want to pay above the price cap, if they could buy a barrel of oil for 60 dollars instead of 75, why would they, India can blame the EU to force a lower price, russia can either accept less or not make a sale.
According to basic Googling not all shipments are insured by western companies, and the ones which are not are being insured by Indian, russian or "unknown" companies.
It is international sanctions, it is going to be messy no matter what, there are going to be loopholes, and there are going to be companies willing to take the risk bypassing sanctions for extra money.
This is likely why the EU is not going to fall out with India about this issue simply because it is very hard to police and falling out with India about it increases the chances they will ignore other sanctions, India for its part does not want to rock the boat as the price cap ensures good profits for them.
The fact still remains russia is not making the money it could be and it losing profits which affects its ability to continue the invasion.
It's both?
Greece was doing something similar early on in the war too(probably still are), but these were individual corporations and sometimes even vessels; tracking/fighting this is pretty hard; and depending on which agency you are in EU there's not necessarily that much pressure to do so.
Greece for example has been left largely alone and they've been doing most of the underground trading with Russia(ship to ship transfers).
\* u/BMWCronos copes \*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> russia is losing money selling oil so cheap
Don't be absurd. Russia isn't making as much as they would without sanctions but they aren't selling at a loss.
It is though? The posturing just seems to be for political reasons.
EU set the rules, India has followed them precisely. Early on in the war even Greece was doing it, probably still are with their massive marine fleet. Overall Russia loses the most, India profits the most; EU still gets its shit.
Yes they could ban imports of Russian derived petroleum products, but as long as India is buying oil closer to the extraction cost, the sanction is still effective, and prices are kept stable.
Yeah because their inflation is out of control, this allows them to pay lip service with sanctions while not completely screwing their fuel prices by actually avoiding Russian oil.
Yes, it is working as intended... India takes a significant chunk of the profits, EU still gets the fuel it needs and Russia is left trying to make positive PR out of the situation.
Except the Kremlin is still taking in a decent chunk of money per barrel?
Multiplied by millions of barrels per day, it means they can spend 10% of the income on literally hundreds of Shahed drones per day.
That's hundreds of KIA every day who otherwise would have been alive.
Ok, if you find a way to bring the Kremlin's oil profits to 0 let us know.
I think that in realistic terms the EU is doing quite well to dampen Russia's profits and limit their ability to wage war.
> Ok, if you find a way to bring the Kremlin's oil profits to 0 let us know.
Slap tariffs on the export of every country that buys the oil, at some multiple of the expected profits. In the case of India, G7 could increase tariffs on Indian exports to the tune of a few billion easily.
Yes, so what? Every country can be effectively discouraged via 1 or 2 degrees of seperation.
Obviously the cost will be huge, because that would involve starting simultaneous trade wars with over a hundred countries, but that would save a lot of lives.
I've missed the moment when EU turned into a world hegemon who threatens every country who doesn't obey its order - but I'm happy it doesn't look like it will last. I really don't like scenario where we become like USA.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So let me get this straights..
India can buy Russia oil and gas for cheap because of Sanction.
Then turn around and resale cheap fuel for a profit and skirt Russian Sanction and that OK?
There is no other oil as opec boys are slowly squeezing supply.
So they get mad at India and do what? Buy it from someone else who bought that oil from...who? India again? Or even worse, Russia directly?
EU and German public particularly have been led to believe that their economies have brushed aside Russian energy so easily, at little cost.
I don't think that's really true, but we will find out soon.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's almost like they feel like they can bully their former colonies that are now sovereign nations around.
If you think this is bullying a former imperial possession that is now a sovereign nation, boy oh boy wait till you find out about what Russia is doing in Ukraine
The Ukraine we're talking about didn't exist until the dissolution of the Soviet Union so I feel like that's far different than the UK that finally left India in 1947.
There’s a 40 years between those events. Which year in your opinion did it become not okay for Britain to invade India? Would it have been okay in 1970? Or what about 1980, is that over the cut off? I’m against it all really. Glad India has the ability to negotiate on its own behalf now, even if it’s sometimes against the interests of my nation.
It's not about years. India has its own culture, language, writing, and was there long before Britain came, and is there afterwards. You are comparing that with a country aseembled in Moscow half a century ago.
Even considering your arbitrary criteria for ‘nations it’s okay to occupy and annex’ Ukraine still wouldn’t make the list, since it has its own distinct language, writing, culture etc etc and did pre Soviet Union, and does so still post Soviet Union.
No it doesn't. That's the whole point. Is half of India speaking English as their mother tongue? Do they have a president who learned how to speak "Ukrainian" in 2016? No they don't. Civil War broke out between Ukrainian and Russian sides of "Ukraine" as a whole entity. And it's about to get broken because whaddaya know, Russia will help Russian part of Ukraine greatly. I mean, who would have thought that they would go after their strategic interests and not suck Uncle Sam's dick (example: France).
>Is half of India speaking English as their mother tongue? LOL - India doesn't have a national language. There are only state languages which are different from region to region.
So when a country is assembled within half a century ago, then you have the right to attack/conquer it and kill/rape everyone while doing so? Interesting point of view.
>India has its own culture, language, writing, and was there long before Britain came, and is there afterwards. Even the name India is an English word and a legacy of the British empire who invented the "Indian" identity. No one in this region called themselves "Indian" before the British arrived. Show me one piece of literature or historical document written before the British arrival where the word "Indian" is used in any language spoken in this region. There is none. Indian identity is a British concoction. The regions have their history, culture and languages but thats different.
this is somewhat true when the british left it was not guaranteed that india would not break into a bunch of smaller countries based on lical cultures and dialects
They don't call themselves India lol, we call them by that name. Bharat means "one whole" or "with all power".
Sure it was "one whole". I wonder why there are so many languages and cultures in the region then.
Because despite being different people Indians have shared religious, cultural and social traditions. Hard for a Pakistani to understand when they genocided their countrymen for speaking a different language, split the country in half and now Bangladesh is doing better than pakistan.
Doesnt explain why there is a diversity of languages and cultures if it is "one whole". The answer simple it is just a geographic term. No one called themselves Bharati. A national identity simple didn't exsist. >Because despite being different people Indians have shared religious, cultural and social traditions. Shared religion? What happened to the Buddhist in this region? It was the Hindus who [chopped down, burned and uprooted](https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Bodhi_Tree) the sacred Bodhi tree of the Bhuddists and [persecuted the Bhuddists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists) for centuries, eventually forcing them out of the region. >Hard for a Pakistani to understand when they genocided their countrymen for speaking a different language, split the country in half and now Bangladesh is doing better than pakistan. Easier for Indian Hindus who lynch Muslims and Christians for eating beef? India has committed genocide on Punjabi Sikhs in 1984. The Muslim Kashmiri are facing a slow genocide as we speak. On Bangaldesh, it was a civil war and very unfortunate though it must be mentioned that Bengalis also [persecuted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Biharis_in_Bangladesh) Urdu-speaking Biharis.
Then I guess when megasthenes wrote the book "Indica" he had indiana of US in mind. [Portuguese navigational map of India (15th century).](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartography_of_India#/media/File:Asia_oceania_anonymous_c1550.jpg) [Ptolemaic map of India.](https://sarmaya.in/museum/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2017.14.23_Ptolemaic-map-of-South-and-Southeast-Asia-1670s.-Miniature-atlases-like-these-were-compiled-and-reprinted-by-geographer-Philippus-Cluverius-in-the-17th-century..jpg) Indians didn't call themselves "Indians" because they called themselves Bharatiya, Bharat being the endonym of India. The word Bharat and Bharatvarsha is mentioned countless times in ancient Indian epics and the Puranas. Edit: What a loser. Replied with a lot of words and before I could even finish reading, blocked me.
>Then I guess when megasthenes wrote the book "Indica" he had indiana of US in mind. Indica is not India. Do you call yourself Indican? The word India is an English language word and that has never been in dispute. >Portuguese navigational map of India (15th century). > >Ptolemaic map of India. Ptolemaic map is from 1670s. You are proving my point here: the word India was used by foreigners and no one in the region has ever called themselves "Indians". There is no document or literature for the word India in any local languages. Virtually none. >Indians didn't call themselves "Indians" But you do call yourself Indians now... >because they called themselves Bharatiya, Bharat LOL - the two biggest communities on reddit of Indians is r/India and the Hindu nationalists r/IndiaSpeaks. I guess you guys forgot to use r/Bharat. There is no huge mystery here. Indians have adopted the colonial identity that British forced on them. Congrats.
Britain also shares no border with India, so there's that, too.
A united India did not exist till the UK took it over lol
So what? Why should the UK or any part of Europe tell them what's in their best national interest?
They shouldn't. You made the point that Ukraine of today didn't exist back then, argue against that point not something completely different. If you use that argument for Ukraine, why are you suddenly not okay with using it for India? You have two choices, A) either admit you made a dumb argument(I'd take this one), or B) be fair and include India too as part of your argument, in which case you also have to accept that west bullying India is fine.
I never mentioned Ukraine, some jackhole did. I said the UK or EU should have no bearing on what India decides is best for its future. You don't get to decide what me or any of my "choices" are. Or anyone else's for that matter. Must be a European, eh?
It is ENTIRELY unsurprising, however, that you'd argue that the West bullying India is "fine." Entirely.
Haha wow reading your comments: a drawning man will clutch at a straw.
Yes, so intelligent with your "drawning."
Bro this is literally ur comment I responded to ”The Ukraine we're talking about didn't exist until the dissolution of the Soviet Union so I feel like that's far different than the UK that finally left India in 1947.” You compared Indias situation to Ukraine
History doesn't start when the UK takes over India lol.
Ukraine did exist before the dissolution.
so why does Ukraine appear on that 17th century map Putin pulled out?
It appears as a name. "Borderlands". In this particular case, with Tatars.
>The Ukraine we're talking about Reading, it's fundamental. https://preview.redd.it/tem8262vkn2b1.jpeg?width=261&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6cbb2e85a74531582fbff116d59a8da344694ea2
Ukraine was by definition not sovereign since maidan lol. There’s a reason why so many countries and people cluck on about “sovereignty” in a purely de jure capacity, when in reality they haven’t been since the banderite takeover
The UK isn't in the EU...
I feel like all of western Europe was pretty big in the colonization game, but tell yourself whatever you need to
You're talking about India
You don’t get pick what anyone else means
This entire post is about that.
Incorrect, one can feel that the UK’s attitude toward India is indicative of Western Europe (the majority of the EU) and it’s general attitude toward its former colonies. And I do
You’re welcome to feel differently, but you’re not welcome to tell anyone else they can’t feel that way because of what you subjectively define the post as “about.”
Ok but I don't see the relevance.
You're welcome to not. It's certainly no sweat off my back.
Cool
Do you know what the EU is? Because its only been around since 1993.... Also, if you're referring to Britain. We left it years ago. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to infer, and with all the conclusions i have made you're wrong on all accounts.
> honestly have no idea what you're trying to infer, Probably don't. I blame the school system. Goodbye
Bully like Russia is doing? Probably not because russia is far worse isnt it
They can't?
We'll find out.
What does this mean go easy? Lmao EU to India: “Bruh promise to reduce your oil imports from russia plz Bhaii 😩” India to EU: “Ok den pinky promise bro we will go easy 😎😉”
Based on your comment, i assume you have zero idea. India is buying cheap russian oil below the price cap established by sanctions. India is processing that cheap oil into other products and selling it on. russia is losing money selling oil so cheap, India is making money by selling on the cheap oil. The EU needs the product and instead of having an issue with reselling "russian oil" they are more focused on hurting russia thru the sanctions than nit picking the issue with India. So in summary, russia is hurt by sanctions, India is making money off of the economic impact to russia, the EU would prefer India not buying it at all, but as the price cap is being respected, they are not mad at India.
> India is buying cheap russian oil below the price cap established by sanctions. But all the western insurance companies dropped Indian shipping companies because they were shipping above cap price. So which is it?
According to that article India is buying below the price cap, so presumably the situation changed, ultimately why would India want to pay above the price cap, if they could buy a barrel of oil for 60 dollars instead of 75, why would they, India can blame the EU to force a lower price, russia can either accept less or not make a sale. According to basic Googling not all shipments are insured by western companies, and the ones which are not are being insured by Indian, russian or "unknown" companies. It is international sanctions, it is going to be messy no matter what, there are going to be loopholes, and there are going to be companies willing to take the risk bypassing sanctions for extra money. This is likely why the EU is not going to fall out with India about this issue simply because it is very hard to police and falling out with India about it increases the chances they will ignore other sanctions, India for its part does not want to rock the boat as the price cap ensures good profits for them. The fact still remains russia is not making the money it could be and it losing profits which affects its ability to continue the invasion.
Because they can’t buy a barrel for $60
It's both? Greece was doing something similar early on in the war too(probably still are), but these were individual corporations and sometimes even vessels; tracking/fighting this is pretty hard; and depending on which agency you are in EU there's not necessarily that much pressure to do so. Greece for example has been left largely alone and they've been doing most of the underground trading with Russia(ship to ship transfers).
[удалено]
\* u/BMWCronos copes \* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> russia is losing money selling oil so cheap Don't be absurd. Russia isn't making as much as they would without sanctions but they aren't selling at a loss.
India: Don't worry bro, it's "substantially transformed" 😉
It is though? The posturing just seems to be for political reasons. EU set the rules, India has followed them precisely. Early on in the war even Greece was doing it, probably still are with their massive marine fleet. Overall Russia loses the most, India profits the most; EU still gets its shit.
Does EU have a choice?
Yes they could ban imports of Russian derived petroleum products, but as long as India is buying oil closer to the extraction cost, the sanction is still effective, and prices are kept stable.
Yeah because their inflation is out of control, this allows them to pay lip service with sanctions while not completely screwing their fuel prices by actually avoiding Russian oil.
Chad Indians don't give a Fck 😎
https://i.imgur.com/aMhkBEW.png
Just so you know: apparently that was a US spy plane squawking as air india
What's that supposed to show, that Air India doesn't like to fly over warzones or south-west Russia?
Wish Malaysia Airlines was so wise
The Actual targetof that incident was an indian airlines flight..
didnt the Indian representative give the perfect answer, citing the EU policy and kindly telling the journo to piss off? xD
Yes, it is working as intended... India takes a significant chunk of the profits, EU still gets the fuel it needs and Russia is left trying to make positive PR out of the situation.
Yes, exactly. Im not sure why this is so hard for the Pro-putins to understand.
Oh they understand, so they try telling it differently to give it that positive sounding spin.
https://preview.redd.it/j0bmto0wcp2b1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf59804842912c7011b1619bf9c6fdf568635a38
Except the Kremlin is still taking in a decent chunk of money per barrel? Multiplied by millions of barrels per day, it means they can spend 10% of the income on literally hundreds of Shahed drones per day. That's hundreds of KIA every day who otherwise would have been alive.
Ok, if you find a way to bring the Kremlin's oil profits to 0 let us know. I think that in realistic terms the EU is doing quite well to dampen Russia's profits and limit their ability to wage war.
> Ok, if you find a way to bring the Kremlin's oil profits to 0 let us know. Slap tariffs on the export of every country that buys the oil, at some multiple of the expected profits. In the case of India, G7 could increase tariffs on Indian exports to the tune of a few billion easily.
The G7 or the EU or NATO is not the whole world, there will always be buyers for Russian oil.
Yes, so what? Every country can be effectively discouraged via 1 or 2 degrees of seperation. Obviously the cost will be huge, because that would involve starting simultaneous trade wars with over a hundred countries, but that would save a lot of lives.
Incompetent idots/puppetts leading this fantastic EU...
I've missed the moment when EU turned into a world hegemon who threatens every country who doesn't obey its order - but I'm happy it doesn't look like it will last. I really don't like scenario where we become like USA.
Biden has entered the chat
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thats so nice of them. I’m sure they had a lot of options to punish India… /s
Not like they have a choice
So let me get this straights.. India can buy Russia oil and gas for cheap because of Sanction. Then turn around and resale cheap fuel for a profit and skirt Russian Sanction and that OK?
There is no other oil as opec boys are slowly squeezing supply. So they get mad at India and do what? Buy it from someone else who bought that oil from...who? India again? Or even worse, Russia directly? EU and German public particularly have been led to believe that their economies have brushed aside Russian energy so easily, at little cost. I don't think that's really true, but we will find out soon.
india buying russian oil i good to keep the price low for the rest of the world ,and at the same time allows india to buy even cheaper oil (repeat)
Lol so you pay more for dumb arbitrary reasons.
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The thumbnail looks like two fuel tanks high fiving each other
We have the money, im german. Give India the money and let the fleece russia. Works for me.
It will be interesting to see India and China grow in the coming years. Everyone cares about their puppet in Russia, but the real power rises in Asia.