In the last few years, the world saw growing tension between the West and rising powers like India. For decades, Western countries, led by the US and Europe, claimed they stood for a “rules-based world order.” They said global rules should guide how countries behave. This idea became a central theme in international politics after the Cold War. But the real world often looked very different from the ideal they described. They were stuck to the rules of the rule-based order till they benefited from it.
The West insisted that other nations must follow norms on sovereignty, democracy, and human rights. These norms were meant to limit force and protect weaker states. But in practice, the West used these ideas to justify pressure or interventions when it suited their interests.
Take the case of Venezuela. In early 2026, the US took strong actions in Venezuela, including a military attack that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro. The US then declared its intention to control Venezuela’s oil operations. The stated purpose was to promote stability and restore democratic governance. Yet the whole world knew why the US attacked. The US used the same tactics and logic which they used during the Iraq invasion- force, or threatening force, under the banner of “democracy and order” and undermined international law and sovereignty. The global reaction was mixed and muted.
Carney’s Canada or Frederiksen’s Denmark happily supported America’s illegal wars in the South until now. Just look at Carney’s own response on Jan 3 when Venezuela was bombed, and its president abducted.
At the same time, the US expressed renewed interest in acquiring Greenland, an autonomous region of Denmark. The idea of buying or controlling another territory alarmed many outside the West. It triggered debates about dominance and spheres of influence. Suddenly, European leaders started remembering rule-based order, international law and sovereignty.
Canada’s PM Carney gave a powerful speech at Davos on ‘rule-based order’ but he forgot his own remarks on the US after Venezuela’s incident. Denmark, Nordic allies, and other global actors reaffirmed Greenland’s sovereignty and rejected any forced transfer of territory.
These events revealed an important point: the rules Western powers champion are often applied selectively. When the West sees a strategic interest, they talk loudly about norms. Elsewhere, when interests differ, those norms seem optional. This inconsistency highlighted deep fractures in the rules-based order.
India understood this long back and recalibrated its foreign policy accordingly. The concept of strategic autonomy is part of the recalibration. India started choosing its own ground by not falling for this trap. However, India faced intense criticism from Europe and the US but did not bend.
Let’s recall Carney’s speech, where he said the middle path is what the Indians have been practising for decades. As The Hindu, International Affairs Editors, Stanly Johny, posted on X.
A few points about Carney’s outstanding speech at Davos. What he said about the middle path is what the Indians have been practising for decades. When India did it, driven by its national interests, we were attacked as fence sitters who were shy of taking positions. Now Carney…
— Stanly Johny (@johnstanly) January 22, 2026
“When India did it, driven by its national interests, we were attacked as fence sitters who were shy of taking positions. Now Carney realises that the third way is not actually fence sitting, it is standing on one’s ground.”
In these global debates, India watched and adjusted its diplomacy. India did not openly support unilateral uses of force. India stressed respect for international law and peaceful resolution of disputes. India also balanced relationships with Western powers, other major powers, and the Global South. This balancing act was not easy. Western pressure to choose sides or to condemn certain actions left little room for compromise. Yet India held to its principles and its idea of strategic autonomy.
How India Withstood Pressure and Stayed Firm
India’s approach to global conflict and world disorder showed a strong focus on national interest and independent judgment. India did not rush to applaud Western positions when they conflicted with sovereignty or international law. At the same time, India did not isolate itself from important partnerships with Western countries either. Instead, India carved a path that fit its own strategic priorities.
India’s stand on key issues demonstrated resilience. At the United Nations and other multilateral forums, India consistently insisted that international law must guide actions by all countries, big or small. This respect for law resonated with many nations in the Global South who also felt squeezed by great power politics.
India’s diplomatic strategy was built on patience and persistence. India invested in partnerships across continents — from Africa to Southeast Asia and Europe — without blindly accepting Western narratives. India also chose to collaborate on common challenges such as trade, climate change, and regional security without sacrificing its own strategic autonomy.
The examples of Venezuela and Greenland became talking points in global debate. Venezuela showed how Western powers might act forcefully under the cover of rules. Greenland showed how strategic interests can overshadow cooperative norms. In both cases, India’s measured reaction reflected a belief that global stability requires fairness and mutual respect, not just rules dictated by one group of powers.
In the end, India’s ability to stand firm despite pressure demonstrated political maturity. It sent a message that emerging and middle powers will not be easily swayed by old prescriptions of world order. Instead, India pushed for a more balanced, multipolar world where rules apply to everyone equally — not just to those who wrote them.
