Just days before Russian President Vladimir Putin’s state visit to India, the ambassadors of the UK, France, and Germany jointly published an article in an Indian daily sharply criticizing Russia over the Ukraine conflict. The piece, widely circulated, seemed less a gesture of diplomacy and more an attempt to publicly signal Europe’s displeasure with New Delhi’s Russia policy. Yet, the exercise was unnecessary and diplomatically uncalled for.
For years, India has faced repeated pressure from both the US and European powers to recalibrate its ties with Moscow following Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. Delhi has been urged to condemn Russia at the UN, reduce defense collaboration, and stop buying Russian crude. Under former US President Donald Trump, such pressures intensified, with India being accused of indirectly financing Russia’s military campaign and even penalized through tariffs on exports. European leaders, from Ursula von der Leyen to Boris Johnson, have similarly pressed India to reconsider its historical relationship with Moscow.
This European critique is not new. Indian officials, including External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, have routinely faced questions on Ukraine at international security forums such as the Munich Security Dialogue and G7 meetings. India’s stance focused on dialogue, diplomacy, and strategic autonomy has been well understood globally. Publishing a last-minute op-ed aimed at influencing public opinion ahead of Putin’s visit achieved nothing beyond creating a symbolic statement.
In essence, the ambassadors bypassed the traditional channels of diplomacy, going directly to the public rather than communicating concerns through official government-to-government engagement. This move, while perhaps intended to highlight European frustration with India’s independent foreign policy, crossed a line in professional diplomatic conduct. Accredited diplomats are expected to respect the host country’s sovereignty in shaping its relations with third parties. Public criticism risks undermining trust and professional effectiveness.
Europe’s frustration, however, should not be conflated with Indian responsibility. The Ukraine conflict stems from complex historical and security dynamics in Europe failures to establish a robust European security architecture post-1945 and lingering geopolitical tensions after the Cold War. India’s relationship with Russia, cultivated over decades for defense, energy, and strategic reasons, is neither the cause nor the solution to Europe’s internal problems. To blame India for Europe’s missteps or for Russia’s actions is both unfair and illogical.
India’s response to the ambassadors’ op-ed has been measured, calling their intervention unusual and diplomatically inappropriate. By choosing not to escalate the matter, New Delhi has signaled a commitment to maintaining strong bilateral ties with Europe while asserting its sovereign right to independently manage relations with third countries. Meanwhile, Germany’s foreign ministry’s attempt to defend the op-ed as merely presenting “Germany’s position” does little to excuse the breach of norms; the timing and medium were clearly provocative.
Ultimately, Europe must recognize that India’s engagement with Russia is strategic, historical, and autonomous, not a reflection of Europe’s failures or a challenge to Western authority. If European powers wish to influence India’s foreign policy, they must do so through proper diplomatic channels and respectful dialogue not through public op-eds timed to coincide with state visits. India’s stance is firm: it will navigate its foreign relations in accordance with its national interests, independent of external moralizing or pressure.