Why Isn't the US Turning the Screws More on India for its bottom feeder purchases of RU oil?

[Torie]

The US in fact seems quite relaxed about it. From an economic standpoint, why is that? Is there no good path for the US vis a vis India to take further action to defund Russia's ability to finance its invasion of Ukraine?

I thought I would this here, because my question is economics focused, and I want to pose this question far from the madding crowd, and his place is like a library where you can hear a pin drop.

And yes, my googling on the subject has not come up with much that is illuminating on the subject. The press does not do well with economics in general. It's all just too abstract for the poli sci and journalism majors methinks.

[oldtimer]

The 4 reasons why India is doing what it does:

India has more than a billion people but no oil.
Geography makes it more isolated from other great land powers.
Pakistan is an american ally.
Democrats come off as pro-islam.

So it's natural for India to gravitate in that direction.

But India is too large, a Democracy, and has lots of minorities in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. , you can't go against them.

To make it simple: More Indian voters than Ukrainian ones living in america.

[jaichind]

I think it has less to do with economics and instead it has to do with strategic reasons.   With the future being PRC-Russia bloc vs collective West, India becomes the biggest swing Great Power.  The USA clearly does not want to burn any bridges with India in the future.

This is one of the main reasons I started to study and become very interested in India starting in the mid-1990s.  In the mid-1990s, after a few trips to PRC, I concluded their industrial takeoff was inevitable and will emerge as a rival to the USA.  In such a situation India will become the great balancer of the world in the future.   That is when I really started to study Indian history and politics and has become one of the great obsessions of my life.

[Mechavada]

Because with the US already (indirectly) intervening in the crisis by sending armaments and military equipment the potential for unforeseen blowback if the government gets too aggressive with other powers besides Russia is a risk few want to take at the moment.  Like why try to pick fights with other large nations in this current conflict?

It's common sense.  If you were in middle school and you got into a fight with one kid how much sense does it make to badmouth the kid who has been trading Pokemon cards with said kid even though that kid has never had any beef with you?  Like zero, like none.

[Mechavada]

The US in fact seems quite relaxed about it. From an economic standpoint, why is that? Is there no good path for the US vis a vis India to take further action to defund Russia's ability to finance its invasion of Ukraine?

I thought I would this here, because my question is economics focused, and I want to pose this question far from the madding crowd, and his place is like a library where you can hear a pin drop.

And yes, my googling on the subject has not come up with much that is illuminating on the subject. The press does not do well with economics in general. It's all just too abstract for the poli sci and journalism majors methinks.

Well the question is where would they get the oil they would lose from dropping RU oil?  Is there another country that can provide India with the same amount of oil at a cheap price?  This is something I wish a lot of Democrats could understand: not every society can transition to 100% clean energy by the year 2050 or whenever save for a technology revolution in energy production.  Many of these clean sources still require "backup" sources so right now honestly Obama's goal of 80% renewables is way more realistic.

India needs the oil.  But India also has a host of environmental issues of it's own.  Therefore, how about instead of taking an all or nothing approach, instead of making demands, we make them an offer: In exchange for reducing dependence on (but not getting entirely rid of) RU oil the US gives targeted foreign aid to alternative energy development and pollution mitigation efforts in India?  We clearly have more than enough money that we don't have to keep funding things and our Foreign Aid budget (excluding military obviously) is actually around 1% or less of our national budget.

And who knows?  If we implement a plan like this and it helps at least reduce the amount of pollution and sewage in the water in India and these results are to the extent that they are obvious maybe this could encourage even a lot of otherwise reluctant people in this country to back further funding of green infrastructure in this country?  I mean sometimes Americans have to see how something works out in another country before getting on board.  Like why do folks think Universal Healthcare has a higher approval rating than most US politicians?  It's not merely because our healthcare system is a crony capitalistic joke, it's because they've read up on it and they know it works in other countries!

Post World War II we enacted the Marshall plan in Europe and basically did several similar things.  We funded the redevelopment of many industries in war torn Europe and helped it recover back to a modern state of development after said horrific war.  Before that we provided the USSR with many millions of dollars of military equipment and other resources to help keep the Nazis at bay.  I think overall it is best to know who your true enemy is and to try to make the friend of your enemy your friend.  A pro heavy foreign aid agenda with emphasis on infrastructure services and other positive friendly aid has a proven success record by our government.

Threats, demands, etc., at least from what I've seen over the past several decades, only makes less powerful nations resent us.

[ingemann]

Because it would needlessly alienate the Indians, it would make USA look little better than Russia, and it’s not necessary.

[Frodo]

First of all, this thread belongs more to the International General Discussion board.  Secondly, I agree with others on this thread saying we need to be patient with India.  Britain was patient with us throughout the late 19th century (and into the early 20th) as it saw us as its eventual successor on the world stage, cultivating our relationship over decades following the end of our Civil War.  It paid off, as we eventually intervened on the Allies' behalf in both world wars, and saw off the spectre of communism upon the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.  

We need India not just as a key ally in our new Cold War (this time against the People's Republic of China), but also as the world's largest democracy it seems a natural choice as our successor.  I admit it has its problems, and its democracy is less than ideal (especially under Narendra Modi), but then again neither was ours in the post-war years after the Civil War and Reconstruction as we enshrined Jim Crow as a matter of law and custom not just in the South but also throughout the entire country.  They have the capacity of self-correction, at building a more perfect union and democracy, just as we do.  They are our best hope at maintaining the world we have built, and I am not about to needlessly alienate them over this.