Ukraine can’t believe Indian leader met “bloody criminal” Russian ruler on day of children’s hospital bombing.

Ukraine can’t believe Indian leader met “bloody criminal” Russian ruler on day of children’s hospital bombing.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Tuesday criticized Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for embracing Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Moscow on the day the Kremlin’s forces bombed a children’s hospital in Kyiv.

“It is a huge disappointment and a devastating blow to peace efforts to see the leader of the world’s largest democracy hug the world’s most bloody criminal in Moscow on such a day,” Zelenskyy wrote, referring to the deadly Russian attacks.

Modi arrived in Moscow on Monday for a two-day state visit, marking his first trip to Russia since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

In a video clip that went viral Monday evening, Modi climbed out of a car, walked up some steps to meet Putin, and gave the Russian president a warm hug.

  • Tryptaminev@lemm.eeEnglish
    178·
    4 months ago

    doing the same even worse to Ukraine is a disgusting double standard

    This is grossly understating how terrible British colonial rule was. Britain committed multiple genocides including by starvation, up until even the 40s in its colonies, including areas that are now India.

    Events like the Bucha massacre were basically just another Tuesday under British colonial rule.

    Lets not revise the history of one imperialist genocidal shithole to criticize another imperialist genocidal shithole

    • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      76·
      4 months ago

      OK AFAIK UK did not cause evacuation of more than 10% of the population, they didn’t bomb schools and kindergartens, or destroy infrastructure to a point to make areas unlivable, and bomb cities until there is nothing left, or explode dams flooding large inhabited areas and risking nuclear incidents. Or cause half a generation of young men to be lost.

      But I admit my knowledge of the occupation of India is limited. And I 100% grant it was bad. But were conditions honestly worse than they would have been under the former rulers? I suppose there was a reason India was relatively easy for UK to take.
      India had lots of problems before UK invaded, way more than Ukraine, and most Ukraines problems was from hostilities from Russia that preceded the war.

      Fortunately UK ended up leaving India voluntarily, which is the opposite of what Russia is doing, Russia left Ukraine in 1991, but then turned around and invaded, despite Ukraine had done nothing to provoke this.

      • Tryptaminev@lemm.eeEnglish
        126·
        4 months ago

        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html

        British rule in India was objectively worse. Much more people displaced, much more people killed. And “was easy to take” is a quite shit argument to create “perspective” on these kind of atrocities.

        The British empire got away without facing any real consequences and is fairly effective at controlling the cultural and societal narrative about it. But it is in one league with Maos China or Stalins Sovjet Union.

        Also considering Holodomor, what Russia is currently doing is not as devastating in humanitarian terms like what Stalins reign brought.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          33·
          4 months ago

          OK I’ll grant that’s pretty horrible, maybe it seemed less so in history class, because complete inhumanity seemed more common back then?