Subrahmanyam Jaishankar (SJ): Absolutely. For all their differences, Barack Obama and Donald Trump already agreed that the U.S. can no longer play the same role on the world stage that it once did and must withdraw. 

Our perception is that Europe adopted a defensive posture toward the world after the financial crisis erupted in 2008. Europe wanted to develop primarily in its own space and keep international problems as far away from itself as possible. Europe focused on trade, emphasized multilateralism, and used its economic influence to shape the world to its liking on issues such as climate change and human rights. Europe tended not to want to get involved in hard security issues. 

How can the plate tectonic shift in the world's power structure be managed? History shows that such phases can be very dangerous. 

We are already living in dangerous times. This transition to the new world order will take a long time. For the change is great. The Americans have been the quickest to grasp that they need to reposition themselves and seek cooperation with countries like us. The Europeans needed a wake-up call to understand that it is not always others who take care of the difficult aspects of life. This realization started even before the Ukraine conflict. When Europeans started talking about an Indo-Pacific strategy, it was clear to me that they no longer wanted to be mere spectators of developments in other parts of the world. 

That is difficult to say after less than a year. But there is a clear psychological effect in Europe, which is forced to deal with a conflict in close proximity after a long time. What's more, Russia has always had a European-Asian duality. But this two-headed eagle always looked more toward Europe than toward Asia. Russians always saw themselves as Europeans. In the wake of the Ukraine war, that orientation could shift to Asia. This has geopolitical implications. 

Each state judges events according to its location, interests and history. There are also incidents in Asia, where countries in Europe or Latin America do not feel the need to take a position. What happened in Ukraine is closer to Europe. Europe has a different history with Russia than India. We also have different interests in Ukraine than you do. Almost all states will say that they support the principles of the UN Charter. But look at the world of the last 75 years: Have all UN members really always followed the UN Charter and never sent troops to another country? 

Correct. Whataboutism is one extreme, the other extreme position is: My interests are threatened, so you all have to be on my side. After all, I don't expect Europe to follow India in every foreign policy matter. 
India benefits from not joining the sanctions. It imports energy from Russia at discount prices. 

Europe imported about $120 billion worth of energy from Russia after the war broke out. That's six times as much as we bought. 
Europe has reduced its Russian energy imports, while India has increased its imports from Russia. 

That was a Western decision without consultations with us. Every state has the right to make decisions. But we will never automatically sign what others have cooked up.

That depends on what impact it has on energy markets. Nobody knows at the moment. Therefore, if prices continue to rise, the rest of the world will express what they think. 

No. But it's not a question of who gets the credit as mediator and makes the headlines for it. 

The alternative according to not: are there peace negotiations or can we do nothing at all. For reasonable diplomats, now is not the time to take an all-or-nothing approach. There are many issues in between that need to be addressed quickly and where progress can be made. It doesn't always have to be about the grand peace deal. For many African countries, the fertilizer issue is a top priority. If there is not enough fertilizer coming from Russia and Ukraine, there will be global food shortages and famine in a few months or years. I wonder what the consequences of this conflict, following years of covid pandemic, will be for global energy and food markets, inflation and international trade. I see nothing but bad news everywhere. Nobody really needs this war.We don't need wars at all. 

I find it interesting that you came to Vienna. Although India, with 1.4 billion people, has 158 times the population of Austria, there is one thing in common: both countries try to take neutral positions. 
If there is one country in Europe that can understand where we are coming from, it is Austria. By the way, at the right moment, of the more than 190 countries in the world, there is no country that is not important. 

We have not been as reluctant as many might think. Quite a few challenges in Asia have less resonance in Europe. But that aside: When a country grows economically, demographically and technologically, its interests and the responsibilities that go with them broaden. India is now the world's fifth largest economy. Around 2028, we will probably have overtaken Germany and Japan to rank third behind China and the United States. Last year, our global exports exceeded $400 billion for the first time. India has become a major foreign investor. All of this will reflect on foreign policy. 

The more India grows, the greater our economic weight and political influence becomes, the better it is not only for us but also for the world. Not only the world order, but also Asia must become multipolar. No region will be stable if it is dominated by a single power. The essence of international relations is for states to get along and find a balance.

###

Jaishankar: This is not a typical Austrian phenomenon. There is a lot of interest in India to look at the global world of work. About 15 million Indians work abroad.

Jaishankar: We promote legal mobility and migration and are against illegal immigration. That is also good for Austria's economy.

Jaishankar: Understandably, the focus in Europe is currently heavily on the Ukraine conflict. But in large parts of the world, people are worried about high energy prices, food shortages and whether there is enough fertilizer for food production. These are concerns that go well beyond the conflict in Ukraine. Especially in the Developing countries that we call the Global South, there is a lot of frustration that their concerns go unheard by much of the world. The G20 should therefore deal with the problems of economic growth in the world.

Jaishankar: In the first few weeks and months, our focus was mainly to fly out Indian students who were caught off guard by the conflict. But we have from the beginning said that we are against this conflict and that we are doing so very consistently. But sometimes the press listens only to what they want to hear. In any case, we believe that dialogue and diplomacy are the right approach. Differences are settled at the negotiating table.

Jaishankar: Yes, but why are we doing this? During these 60 years, western countries including those in Europe have sold arms to a military dictatorship in Pakistan. The only country that was willing to help us at that time was the Soviet Union. So if we have an arrangement with Russia, it is a direct consequence of Western preference for military regimes in our part of the world. As for today, when you build a military relationship like that, you can't get away with it overnight and say: I am done now. Ultimately, there is the basic obligation of every government to take care of the security of their country. So if there is an expectation in Europe that we will sacrifice our security because Europe has a problem, then I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.

Jaishankar: In fact, until recently we weren't particularly big importers of Russian energy. This began to change as energy markets became increasingly political as competition was distorted. Even before the Ukraine conflict broke out, our largest source of energy – Iran, was sanctioned. And it became very difficult to get out of Iran import. We had another energy supplier, Venezuela. Venezuela was also imposed with sanctions. Europe at that time continued to import energy from Russia and was very happy with it.

Jaishankar: Exactly. So it cannot be that you have interests and we have principles. We both must find a way to reconcile our principles and interests. What really happened on the energy market? We don't even get answers to our global Tenders because Europe pays top prices and withdraws liquid gas to Europe. As of now,  of course we look at where we can get oil and gas from. And we go where there are possibilities.

Jaishankar: This conflict is a conflict that is of no interest to anyone. The predominant Majority of countries around the world would say the sooner it ends the better. With such a big one and complicated problem, many countries can help somehow. To a certain extent we have already done quite a bit: we got involved in the grain deal. We keep relationships with Russia and Ukraine upright. I think people know that India is not polemical. India is trying to find solutions.

Jaishankar: For me, there is a need for a very fundamental debate - what the democratic world is. Who aligns with whom? The sharp division between democracy and autocracy is politically practical. You can use them as you need them. For example, India at times has a military dictatorship in the west in Pakistan and one in the east in Myanmar. The one in Myanmar has been sanctioned. The one in Pakistan was considered more important and designated as an ally of NATO. If it fits, it says: let us make changes achieving trade, let's do more business with autocracies, because then we can make them change. Or it says: Let's impose more sanctions on autocracies because they need to learn. At the end of the day, we come back to principles and interests.

Jaishankar: We are an argumentative society. The fact that criticism was voiced shows that there is a democratic environment. In the Indian society significant change has taken place in the past few decades. We are working very hard to convince people of the quality of our policy. If we were less democratic - why would we do that? I can speak about any part of the world, including Europe or the US, on a wide range of subjects, pointing out things that concern me: dealing with immigrants, with minorities or the extent of surveillance. There is no country that has no problems.

Jaishankar: When countries have agreements, they have to abide by those agreements. If countries have differences, they need to discuss those differences. But if it becomes a situation where one side says: I will deploy troops against deals that I signed myself, then there is a kind of message in it for the international community. In this respect, the international community should of course be concerned.