AltaVista had the first-mover advantage.

Yahoo! had the second-mover advantage.

Public investment. Private profit.

So, let's start World War III... for Ukraine?

So, is that the hill that humanity is gonna die on? Let's risk apocalypse and extinction for... Ukraine. Really??

That's not how it works.

British, French, Dutch and Portuguese - all of them European - have invaded and occupied India.

On the other hand, Russians have never invaded India.

History matters. The history of what Europeans did to India, it still matters to India, and it influences how India behaves and reacts to Europeans today.

I'm not sure why White people think the history of them invading, occupying, colonizing, looting, pillaging, plundering other countries no longer matters in current international politics. It's like Americans and Europeans keep telling Africans to not make deals with China. They keep saying how China is bad and dangerous, how Chinese want to colonize Africa. Yet they keep ignoring the important history (or just pretend it did not happen or it does not matter): why are Americans and Europeans ignoring what they have done in Africa and to Africans for centuries? Do white people think Blacks are just gonna listen to them on anything about "colonization" and "dangerous foreigners", after everything that they have done in Africa and to Africans for centuries??

It just boggles my mind that white people think that the history (of what they have done to India, Africa and other people) does not factor into the current international politics. White people do not even preface their demands with the historical context of they did in India or Africa, or even try to offer an apology/excuse/explanation/recognition for the history before making all kinds of demands from the people they have victimized. They just get right into making more new demands, as if other people have completely forgotten (and forgiven) what they did.

There is a huge disconnect here between white people and other people on international politics. The history between whites and non-whites continues - and will continue - to play huge parts on what and how India, China, Africa, and other non-white people would work or not work with white people on all kinds of issues. That is just the reality that white people do not seem to get. Unless you guys take that reality into consideration, you ain't getting what you want from India, China, Africa, etc., just by making demands and telling them what to do.

That is not how international relations work.

Not as close as India and Russia.

Germany actually occupied and colonized part of China, and that is not yet forgotten nor completely forgiven.

Obviously Russia had also invaded China and stolen large swathes of lands from China in the 1800s, (stolen lands that Russia still keeps, like Siberia.) so China actually does not and would NEVER think of Russia as a "real friend". When it comes to White people in general, pretty much they all have invaded, looted, pillaged and occupied China at one time or another. So China has no friends among White people, and China would NEVER trust any White people including Russians. When dealing with White people, China would do whatever that serve China's own interests for the time being.

FYI:

China agreed to entered World War I and joined the Allies on the condition that, if the Allies won the war, the German-held colony in China (Qingdao) would be returned to China. The United States, which brokered that agreement with China, actually made a double deal behind China's back: the US also convinced Japan to join the Allies and enter the war... and one of the condition offered to Japan: when the Allies won the war, Japan would given control of the same German colony in China. (Today Qingdao is an interesting place in China: it has both German and Japanese influences.)

Also FYI:

Ryukyu used to be a Chinese tributary territories, but the US deceived China and stole it from China and gave it to Japan. You know Ryukyu as Okinawa.

How it happened: in the 1800s Japan invaded Ryukyu, which was a tributary state under the protection of China. China was about go to war with Japan, but the US (which was still mostly a new and unknown entity to China at the time) stepped in and volunteered to mediate between China and Japan. Unbeknown to China, the US also secretly cut a deal with Japan: Japan would open some ports to trade with the US if the US would give Ryukyu to Japan in the mediation. And that was how China lost Ryukyu to Japan.

Do you see a pattern here?

What has Germany (or France) done for India in the past?

India has had close and strong diplomatic, economic, military and political ties with Russia (and its predecessor the Soviet Union) for EIGHTY YEARS. They are like old buddies.

Germany and France or just most any European country, which have never really had any sort of close relations with India, now wants India to turns its back on an old buddy for something that happens between Russia and Europe, i.e., none of India's business.

Another sign of the lack of self-awareness of the West: America and Europe - which have themselves committed illegal invasions, occupations and war crimes, and committed them far more frequently and far longer - are not exactly in the moral position to lecture to others about illegal invasions and war crimes. Yet America and Europe love to lecture to India (or China) about Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine but refuse to talk about their own illegal invasions and wars. That just reeks of self-serving hypocrisy.

Anyway, back to the to point:

What exactly has Germany done for India that warrants India throwing away eight years of close and warm buddy relations with Russia? France, which also has never had a close relations with India, is also asking India for the same favor. Germany or France is not exactly on that level of relations with India. Is it the lack of self-awareness or just the stereotypical European arrogance and habit of ordering other (brown and color) people to do this and do that?