India’s diplomatic efforts during the Russia-Ukraine war appear impressive from a distance but have yielded limited tangible results. While India aspires to be recognized as a rising power and credible peacemaker, its actual influence remains inconsistent with these ambitions.
India’s mediation efforts have not produced significant outcomes. Proposals intended to initiate dialogue have failed to yield lasting agreements. Both Moscow and Kyiv remain skeptical of New Delhi’s claims of neutrality, perceiving a double standard that benefits one side. Despite India’s continued assertions of impartiality, this perception undermines its credibility as a mediator.
Economic data provides the most compelling evidence. Before 2022, Russian oil accounted for less than 2 percent of India’s imports, totaling under 100,000 barrels per day. By 2023, imports increased to nearly 1.8 million barrels per day, representing approximately 39 percent of total imports. In July 2026, India imported a record 2.8 million barrels per day, exceeding 55 percent of its crude oil imports and amounting to roughly €5.5 billion for that month. Although purchases declined to 2.08 million barrels in August and 1.75 million in September, the overall impact remains substantial. Discounted oil purchases have provided Moscow with tens of billions of dollars. In contrast, India’s support for Ukraine has been limited to humanitarian aid and the evacuation of its citizens.
Similar inconsistencies are evident within the conflict itself. Ukrainian intelligence has identified Indian-manufactured electronic components, including those from companies such as Aura Semiconductor, in drones deployed against Ukrainian cities. The conflict has also directly affected Indian citizens. Official data indicate that at least 227 Indians have joined the Russian military, often due to deceptive job advertisements. Many have died, while others are missing or trapped. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has listed India among 47 countries whose citizens Russia uses as human shields. Additionally, a small number of Indians have volunteered to fight for Ukraine, placing Indian nationals at risk on both sides of a conflict that New Delhi officially opposes.
The United States has issued explicit criticism. Both the Trump administration and members of Congress, including Richard Blumenthal and Lindsey Graham, have accused India of supporting “Putin’s war machine” through its purchases of Russian oil. New legislation targets the largest buyers of Russian oil, and President Zelenskyy has endorsed these measures.
At the United Nations, India has consistently avoided adopting a definitive stance. On multiple occasions, it has voted against resolutions condemning the invasion, calling for Russian withdrawal, requesting reparations, addressing nuclear safety, demanding the return of Ukrainian children, and promoting ceasefires, including the resolution marking the fourth anniversary of the war in February 2026. Such voting patterns reflect participation without substantive engagement.
After years of avoiding a definitive position, India has recently proposed a three-point truce addressing Black Sea and energy issues to enhance its reputation for “comprehensive” diplomacy. However, merely presenting proposals does not elevate a nation’s standing or negate previous actions. Effective mediators are evaluated based on their actions, the trust they command from both parties, the absence of hidden interests, and consistent adherence to established standards. India does not fulfill these criteria. A country that has transferred substantial financial resources to one side, whose technology is present in military equipment, whose citizens participate and perish on both sides, and which repeatedly avoids accountability at major international forums cannot credibly claim neutrality.
While India is entitled to pursue its national interests, it cannot simultaneously assert the moral authority of a peacemaker without aligning its actions accordingly. If India considers itself a peacemaker, its actual influence and integrity do not correspond with this self-perception. Unless India’s actions align with its stated intentions, its efforts will continue to be perceived as largely ceremonial and minimally effective.
