India-Russia: News & Analysis

[Avinash R]

Something interesting.

A former Chechen separatist field commander has been killed in Istanbul
http://news.russiannewsroom.com/details.aspx?item=23379

A former Chechen separatist field commander has been killed in Istanbul, Turkish media reported on Thursday.

Islam Janibekov, 38, who had been living with his family in Istanbul for the last six years, was probably shot with a 7.62mm pistol with a silencer near his home on Tuesday evening, according to police.

The Turkish newspaper Sabah, citing police officials, said that the murder was carried out using a Groza, a silenced double-barreled pistol.

Grozas are used by Russian special forces and the Turkish authorities have not ruled out Russian involvement in the shooting.

Russian special forces are believed to have carried out operations in other countries, including in Qatar in 2004, when two Russian intelligence agents were convicted for a car bombing that killed Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, a Chechen rebel leader who had taken refuge there.

Istanbul police have not commented on the incident, saying only that they are carrying out a detailed investigation.

Turkish Dogan News Agency reported that in September another Chechen rebel, Gadji Edilsultanov, was killed in Istanbul during a dispute over financial aid for Chechen separatists that was being collected in Turkey. The agency said similar circumstances could have led to the murder of Janibekov.

[renukb]

India, Russia regain elan of friendship
By M K Bhadrakumar

The visit of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to New Delhi last week turned out to be an occasion for the Indian government to fundamentally reassess the strategic significance of the traditional India-Russia partnership. No doubt, the visit took place at a turning point in contemporary history and politics against the backdrop of massive shifts in the international system.

Medvedev arrived in India in the immediate aftermath of the horrific terrorist strikes on Mumbai. The regional security situation - especially Afghanistan - naturally figured prominently in the agenda of the visit.

The joint declaration signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Medvedev after extensive talks in New Delhi reflects that the two sides have taken serious pains to understand each other's vital concerns and have endeavored to go more than half the distance to accommodate them. They also made a conscious effort to expand their common ground in the international system. After a considerable lapse of time, Russian-Indian relationship seems to be on the move.

Things which were hanging fire in the general drift of Russian-India relations in recent years are being attended to. Principal among them is the tendentious issue of the escalation of costs for the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, which India has contracted to buy. On the eve of Medvedev's visit, the Indian cabinet took the decision to agree to discuss an additional US$2.2 billion payment as demanded by Russia. The government also has approved the acquisition of 80 medium-lift Mi-17 helicopters from Russia worth $1.3 billion.

Reaching out
Medvedev also came with a brief to discuss the leasing of a nuclear submarine to the Indian navy. India-Russia military cooperation is back in full swing with a host of projects in the pipeline. Russia has consolidated its place as the number one arms supplier for India. But the icing on the cake is the proposed cooperation in the nuclear and space fields. Agreements were signed on Russia constructing four new nuclear power plants in India and on assisting a manned Indian space flight. Russia has offered a new power plant AES-2006, which incorporates a third generation WER-1200 reactor of 1170MW. Russia has also agreed to supply uranium worth $700 million to meet India's acute shortage.

Manmohan described the agreements as signifying a "new milestone in the history of cooperation with Russia". He added, "It is a relationship that has withstood the test of time." He acknowledged that India's dialogue with Russia has "intensified considerably". Significantly, he said the terrorist attacks on Mumbai "present a threat to pluralistic societies" [read Russia] and that "there is much Russia and India can do to promote global peace".

Clearly, the two countries have rediscovered the old elan of their friendship. They are reaching out to each other once again in a world that is in transition. Apart from the volatility in the international situation, both India and Russia sense that change is in the air in the United States' global policies, but neither would wager the extent and directions of the change. Both are acutely conscious of the inexorable decline in the US influence in world politics and the urgent need to adjust to the emergent realities of multipolarity.

At the same time, the US remains the single-most important interlocutor for both India and Russia for the foreseeable future. Neither would see their partnership as directed against the US. Even as Medvedev arrived in Delhi, a senior Indian official was making contacts with key advisors to president-elect Barack Obama to brief them on Delhi's perspectives and policies. On its part, Moscow is also in an expectant mood about the Obama presidency, though tempered with cautious optimism.

The balancing of Russian-Indian mutual interests evident in the joint declaration brings out these delicate impulses as they touch on many areas. The declaration is devoid of any anti-US rhetoric as such but it is very obvious that the two countries are overhauling their partnership in tune with a "post-American century". India has identified itself with the Russian position on reforming the international economic and financial systems so that it adapts to "new realities" and promotes a "more just world economic order based on the principles of multipolarity, rule of law, equality, mutual respect and common responsibility".

Russia seeks Sino-Indian rapport
India also finds itself emphasizing the "growing and more focused interaction" within the framework of the trilateral format among Russia, China and India, despite its lukewarm attitude in the recent past towards the process which annoys Washington as a needless endeavor on India's part.

Significantly, the joint declaration says that the trilateral format "acquires importance in the framework of multilateral dialogue mechanisms, substantially contributes to strengthening newly emerging multipolarity and promotes collective leadership of world’s leading states". This is a carefully drafted formulation that speaks of an intention to inject new dynamism into the format. Conceivably, Moscow has prevailed on Delhi to reassess the significance of the format in the volatile international situation. Russia had been viewing with growing despondency its inability to foster Sino-Indian rapport.

Equally, the Russian side seems to have urged India to play a more active role and "more constructive participation and contribution to" the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Similarly, India has shed its carefully cultivated ambivalence and come out in open, unqualified support of the Russian position on the situation in the Caucasus region. It is a signal victory of the Kremlin to have finally got India on board, as this is a most sensitive issue which occupies the first circle of Russian foreign policy and is, in fact, a leitmotif of Russia's relations with the US in the coming period. The joint declaration stresses, "India supports the important role of the Russian Federation in promoting peace and cooperation in the Caucasian region".

The key expression is "Caucasian" - anything from the Caucasus region. India's support is open-ended and unequivocal.

Again, India has voiced its support for Russia's keenness to join the Asia-Europe meeting and East Asia summit mechanisms, while Russia has reiterated its support for India's claim to permanent membership in an expanded United Nations Security Council.

From the Indian perspective, no doubt, it is an invaluable asset that Moscow has voiced its total "support and solidarity" with New Delhi on the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The Russian gesture by far exceeds the words of sympathy offered by Washington. Of course, Moscow is not facing Washington's dilemma, which is one of having to carefully balance between New Delhi and Islamabad. Simply put, what the Mumbai attacks have badly exposed is that much as terrorism is a shared concern for the US and India, their priorities at this juncture greatly differ.

India would expect Washington to come down like a ton of bricks on Islamabad to pressure the latter to take seriously the Indian allegation that the terrorist strike in Mumbai was perpetrated by elements in Pakistan with possible links to that country's security establishment. Evidently, Washington is in no position to fulfill the Indian expectations. Its number one priority is the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan's continued cooperation in the war. Washington cannot afford a "distracted" Pakistan, and its main political and diplomatic challenge, therefore, is to get Pakistan to remain "focused" on the war effort in the Afghan-Pakistan tribal areas.

New Delhi senses that as time goes by, it will find this paradigm frustrating. This is not a new paradigm, either. But Delhi's options are limited, though the government is under immense pressure not only to act but also to be seen actively acting. The delicate strategic balance between India and Pakistan virtually forecloses even a "limited" war option for either nuclear power. The only alternative open to India is to reassess its diplomatic options. But on this score, New Delhi needs to do some new thinking.

Which is where Delhi's partnership with Moscow comes into play. The strategic community in New Delhi would realize to their great discomfiture that the entire package of post-Cold War assumptions underlying the US-India strategic partnership just do not add up in the present situation for India to cope with the formidable task of pressuring Pakistan. Their broad assumption that the US would take care of India's "Pakistan problem" while India concentrated on its tryst with destiny as a great power or "balancer" in the international system is turning out to be a grotesque misjudgment by the Indian strategic gurus. So, indeed, their assumptions regarding "absolute security".

The Russian-Indian joint declaration suggests that New Delhi is swiftly adapting to the reality that it must diversify the sinews of cooperation and revitalize its diverse partnerships with countries on the basis of shared concerns and commonality of interests rather than pursue a foreign policy whose prime objective has been to harmonize Indian regional policies with the US's. This is most tellingly evident on the Joint Declaration's paragraph devoted to Afghanistan.

Realignment on Afghanistan
Ironically, New Delhi seems to have decided that if it is Afghan war that causes so much discomfiture for Washington to come out into the open in support of India over the Mumbai strikes, it shall also be Afghanistan on which Indian regional policy shall begin to make a new beginning and careen away for the first time in a long while from US benchmarks and expectations.

The punch line in the joint declaration comes almost innocuously. Sharing their concern over the "deteriorating security situation" in Afghanistan, India and Russia called for a "coherent and a united international commitment" to dealing with the threats emanating from that country. The implied criticism of the US-led war is obvious as also the rejection of the US strategy to keep the war strategy as its exclusive prerogative. The Joint Declaration then goes on to say, "Both sides welcome Russia's initiative to organize an international conference in the framework of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, involving its Member states and Observers."

New Delhi has come out into open support of a regional initiative on Afghanistan, which Washington would have loved to stifle in its cradle. The Indian stance is significant for various reasons. India has decided that there is no need to mark time until the Obama administration finalizes its own new Afghan strategy. It is asserting its own stakes independent of the US strategy. Two, India is identifying with Russia, China and Iran, which is an immensely significant happening in regional politics. Three, India is siding with a Russia-led regional initiative on Afghanistan at a time when various influential American opinion-makers have been floating the idea of a US-led "regional approach" to an Afghan settlement that virtually allows the US to be on the driving seat.

Most certainly, India is implicitly recognizing the SCO's relevance to South Asian security. Afghanistan is a member of the SAARC and could act as a bridge between South Asia and Central Asia. In essence, therefore, India is spurning the US's much-touted "Great Central Asia" strategy that aims at diluting the SCO's role in Central Asia and instead pins hopes on India as a counterweight to the Russian and Chinese regional influence.

It is apparent that India is dissociating from the concerted US policy to keep the SCO out of Afghanistan. Moscow has been vainly striving to carve out a toehold for the SCO as a regional body while Washington has been discouraging Afghan President Hamid Karzai from lending weight to the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group. More than anything else, the fact remains that the Russian initiative on an SCO conference is intended as a challenge to the monopoly that Washington has kept in determining the contours of any Afghan settlement.

Indeed, it opens up more possibilities for Karzai to expand his "strategic autonomy" vis-a-vis Washington, which he has been inclined to exercise, even if timidly, of late. Karzai has every reason to cooperate with a regional initiative in which all the major powers surrounding Afghanistan such as Russia, China, India and Iran are associated. The onus is now on the US and Pakistan to explain why they should dissociate.

Of course, the US would have preferred to encourage the on-going Turkish initiative to mediate Afghan-Pakistan talks. The latest three-way round involving the presidents of Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan just concluded in Ankara. Washington was happy that Turkey lent a hand in keeping the Afghan peace process as an "in-house" affair - keeping "outsiders" like Russia or Iran at arm's length. The SCO initiative is a needless intrusion, from the US-Turkish perspective.

SCO stance on Afghanistan
A most significant aspect of the Russian-Indian Joint Declaration is its deafening silence on the US-sponsored talks with the Taliban. The Russian and Indian position is that there is nothing called "moderate" Taliban leaders, whereas, the US is edging close to a formula that so long as the Taliban leadership disengages and disowns the al-Qaeda, there should be no problem in assimilating them as part of a coalition government in Kabul. In fact, the second round of talks with the Taliban under Saudi mediation is due to take place shortly.

In the context of the Mumbai blasts, the Indian attitude towards the Taliban can only harden further, placing itself at odds with the US strategy in the coming period. In a manner of speaking, the Russian-Iranian-Indian convergence in bolstering the anti-Taliban resistance in the late 1990s is straining to reappear, though in an entirely new form. Interestingly, Iranian officials also held consultations recently in New Delhi regarding Afghanistan.

Without doubt, India would have given thought to the SCO's collective stance on the Afghan problem prior to lending support for the regional body's initiative to call an international conference. The Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin's speech at the UN General Assembly session in New York on November 10 on behalf of the SCO becomes the benchmark for New Delhi. Evidently, Delhi finds itself in harmony with the major elements in Churkin's speech. The key elements were:

"Concerted joint action" by the international community is necessary to arrest the "continuing deterioration of the military and political situation" in Afghanistan.

The policy of isolating the extremist Taliban leaders should not be watered down and any reconciliation should only include those Taliban cadres who are "rank-and-file Taliban members who are not tainted by military crimes".

A system of "anti-drug and financial security belts" should be set up around Afghanistan with the coordinating role of the UN and involvement of neighboring countries.

The NATO must cease operations involving "indiscriminate or excessive use of force, including bombings" that cause heavy civilian casualties. The level of collateral damage in the military operations is hampering Afghanistan's long-term stabilization.

An enduring Afghan settlement is "impossible without an integrated approach on the part of the international community, led by the United Nations, and at the same time without delegating to Kabul greater independence in resolving inter-Afghan problems".

"The situation in Afghanistan cannot be fixed by solely military means". Therefore, security must be backed by "real measures" towards socio-economic revival.

"It is essential to ensure respectful attitude towards national and religious values, centuries-long customs and traditions of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious people of Afghanistan and on these grounds to achieve conciliation of Afghanistan’s antagonistic forces".

In sum, the Mumbai attacks may prove to be a watershed in Indian regional policies. Relations with Russia, China and Iran assume a new level of importance in New Delhi's regional strategies. The gravitation towards the SCO signifies the new thinking. Not too long ago, India visualized the SCO as primarily an "energy club". Actually, India's petroleum minister routinely represented India at the SCO summit meetings. Now, to envisage a crucial role for an SCO-led regional initiative on Afghanistan, New Delhi has indeed come a long way. Surely, Medvedev would have returned to Moscow quietly pleased that he met a long-lost friend.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JL09Df02.html

[renukb]

India, Russia set to start work on fifth generation fighter
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 818702.cms

BEIJING: Russia would soon sign a contract with India to jointly develop and produce a fifth-generation combat jet from next year, the director general of Russian aircraft maker Sukhoi said here Wednesday.

"We plan to begin flight tests (of the fighter) as early as in 2009," Mikhail Pogosyan told reporters.

The Russian-Indian advanced multi-role fighter is being developed by Sukhoi, which is part of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), along with India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), under a inter-governmental agreement signed in Oct 2007.

Russia and India will simultaneously develop two versions of the combat aircraft - a two-seat version to meet the requirements of India's air superiority policy, and a single-seat version for the Russian Air Force.

Pogosyan is in Beijing as part of a delegation accompanying Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who is leading the Russian side at the 13th Russian-Chinese Commission on Military and Technical Cooperation.

Pgosyan told reporters that Russia and China are also set to boost cooperation in combat aircraft production.

"China is one of the main customers for our (Russian) aircraft and today the Chinese Air Force has in service over 200 of our Su-27 Flanker and Su-30 Flanker-C jet fighters," he said.

The commission is set to discuss further cooperation in aircraft production and particularly the licensed production of Su-27 and Su-30 planes in China.

China has acquired 76 Su-27SK fighters from Russia since 1992, and bought a license for production of another 200 planes in 1995, in a deal worth $2.5 billion.

However, the 1995 agreement did not include the transfer of avionics and AL-31F turbofan engine technology, and the Chinese manufacturers had to rely on the Russian supply of these systems.

[samuel.chandra]

Brilliant US of A! The problem is they want to step on both boats. They do not want to understand GOI's problem. They don't realize that groudswell of anger after Mumbai cannot be "managed" by any political party... that too this close to an election. This is not pakistan. The russians are back in the game. First they trumped Obama with the missile defense and now they have gained India's gratitude with a clear statement of support. How could the Americans ****** up after working so hard to get India the nuke deal?? Its not late yet... pick your boat.

India, Russia regain elan of friendship
By M K Bhadrakumar

The visit of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to New Delhi last week turned out to be an occasion for the Indian government to fundamentally reassess the strategic significance of the traditional India-Russia partnership. No doubt, the visit took place at a turning point in contemporary history and politics against the backdrop of massive shifts in the international system.

Medvedev arrived in India in the immediate aftermath of the horrific terrorist strikes on Mumbai. The regional security situation - especially Afghanistan - naturally figured prominently in the agenda of the visit.

The joint declaration signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Medvedev after extensive talks in New Delhi reflects that the two sides have taken serious pains to understand each other's vital concerns and have endeavored to go more than half the distance to accommodate them. They also made a conscious effort to expand their common ground in the international system. After a considerable lapse of time, Russian-Indian relationship seems to be on the move.

Things which were hanging fire in the general drift of Russian-India relations in recent years are being attended to. Principal among them is the tendentious issue of the escalation of costs for the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, which India has contracted to buy. On the eve of Medvedev's visit, the Indian cabinet took the decision to agree to discuss an additional US$2.2 billion payment as demanded by Russia. The government also has approved the acquisition of 80 medium-lift Mi-17 helicopters from Russia worth $1.3 billion.

Reaching out
Medvedev also came with a brief to discuss the leasing of a nuclear submarine to the Indian navy. India-Russia military cooperation is back in full swing with a host of projects in the pipeline. Russia has consolidated its place as the number one arms supplier for India. But the icing on the cake is the proposed cooperation in the nuclear and space fields. Agreements were signed on Russia constructing four new nuclear power plants in India and on assisting a manned Indian space flight. Russia has offered a new power plant AES-2006, which incorporates a third generation WER-1200 reactor of 1170MW. Russia has also agreed to supply uranium worth $700 million to meet India's acute shortage.

Manmohan described the agreements as signifying a "new milestone in the history of cooperation with Russia". He added, "It is a relationship that has withstood the test of time." He acknowledged that India's dialogue with Russia has "intensified considerably". Significantly, he said the terrorist attacks on Mumbai "present a threat to pluralistic societies" [read Russia] and that "there is much Russia and India can do to promote global peace".

Clearly, the two countries have rediscovered the old elan of their friendship. They are reaching out to each other once again in a world that is in transition. Apart from the volatility in the international situation, both India and Russia sense that change is in the air in the United States' global policies, but neither would wager the extent and directions of the change. Both are acutely conscious of the inexorable decline in the US influence in world politics and the urgent need to adjust to the emergent realities of multipolarity.

At the same time, the US remains the single-most important interlocutor for both India and Russia for the foreseeable future. Neither would see their partnership as directed against the US. Even as Medvedev arrived in Delhi, a senior Indian official was making contacts with key advisors to president-elect Barack Obama to brief them on Delhi's perspectives and policies. On its part, Moscow is also in an expectant mood about the Obama presidency, though tempered with cautious optimism.

The balancing of Russian-Indian mutual interests evident in the joint declaration brings out these delicate impulses as they touch on many areas. The declaration is devoid of any anti-US rhetoric as such but it is very obvious that the two countries are overhauling their partnership in tune with a "post-American century". India has identified itself with the Russian position on reforming the international economic and financial systems so that it adapts to "new realities" and promotes a "more just world economic order based on the principles of multipolarity, rule of law, equality, mutual respect and common responsibility".

Russia seeks Sino-Indian rapport
India also finds itself emphasizing the "growing and more focused interaction" within the framework of the trilateral format among Russia, China and India, despite its lukewarm attitude in the recent past towards the process which annoys Washington as a needless endeavor on India's part.

Significantly, the joint declaration says that the trilateral format "acquires importance in the framework of multilateral dialogue mechanisms, substantially contributes to strengthening newly emerging multipolarity and promotes collective leadership of world’s leading states". This is a carefully drafted formulation that speaks of an intention to inject new dynamism into the format. Conceivably, Moscow has prevailed on Delhi to reassess the significance of the format in the volatile international situation. Russia had been viewing with growing despondency its inability to foster Sino-Indian rapport.

Equally, the Russian side seems to have urged India to play a more active role and "more constructive participation and contribution to" the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Similarly, India has shed its carefully cultivated ambivalence and come out in open, unqualified support of the Russian position on the situation in the Caucasus region. It is a signal victory of the Kremlin to have finally got India on board, as this is a most sensitive issue which occupies the first circle of Russian foreign policy and is, in fact, a leitmotif of Russia's relations with the US in the coming period. The joint declaration stresses, "India supports the important role of the Russian Federation in promoting peace and cooperation in the Caucasian region".

The key expression is "Caucasian" - anything from the Caucasus region. India's support is open-ended and unequivocal.

Again, India has voiced its support for Russia's keenness to join the Asia-Europe meeting and East Asia summit mechanisms, while Russia has reiterated its support for India's claim to permanent membership in an expanded United Nations Security Council.

From the Indian perspective, no doubt, it is an invaluable asset that Moscow has voiced its total "support and solidarity" with New Delhi on the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The Russian gesture by far exceeds the words of sympathy offered by Washington. Of course, Moscow is not facing Washington's dilemma, which is one of having to carefully balance between New Delhi and Islamabad. Simply put, what the Mumbai attacks have badly exposed is that much as terrorism is a shared concern for the US and India, their priorities at this juncture greatly differ.

India would expect Washington to come down like a ton of bricks on Islamabad to pressure the latter to take seriously the Indian allegation that the terrorist strike in Mumbai was perpetrated by elements in Pakistan with possible links to that country's security establishment. Evidently, Washington is in no position to fulfill the Indian expectations. Its number one priority is the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan's continued cooperation in the war. Washington cannot afford a "distracted" Pakistan, and its main political and diplomatic challenge, therefore, is to get Pakistan to remain "focused" on the war effort in the Afghan-Pakistan tribal areas.

New Delhi senses that as time goes by, it will find this paradigm frustrating. This is not a new paradigm, either. But Delhi's options are limited, though the government is under immense pressure not only to act but also to be seen actively acting. The delicate strategic balance between India and Pakistan virtually forecloses even a "limited" war option for either nuclear power. The only alternative open to India is to reassess its diplomatic options. But on this score, New Delhi needs to do some new thinking.

Which is where Delhi's partnership with Moscow comes into play. The strategic community in New Delhi would realize to their great discomfiture that the entire package of post-Cold War assumptions underlying the US-India strategic partnership just do not add up in the present situation for India to cope with the formidable task of pressuring Pakistan. Their broad assumption that the US would take care of India's "Pakistan problem" while India concentrated on its tryst with destiny as a great power or "balancer" in the international system is turning out to be a grotesque misjudgment by the Indian strategic gurus. So, indeed, their assumptions regarding "absolute security".

The Russian-Indian joint declaration suggests that New Delhi is swiftly adapting to the reality that it must diversify the sinews of cooperation and revitalize its diverse partnerships with countries on the basis of shared concerns and commonality of interests rather than pursue a foreign policy whose prime objective has been to harmonize Indian regional policies with the US's. This is most tellingly evident on the Joint Declaration's paragraph devoted to Afghanistan.

Realignment on Afghanistan
Ironically, New Delhi seems to have decided that if it is Afghan war that causes so much discomfiture for Washington to come out into the open in support of India over the Mumbai strikes, it shall also be Afghanistan on which Indian regional policy shall begin to make a new beginning and careen away for the first time in a long while from US benchmarks and expectations.

The punch line in the joint declaration comes almost innocuously. Sharing their concern over the "deteriorating security situation" in Afghanistan, India and Russia called for a "coherent and a united international commitment" to dealing with the threats emanating from that country. The implied criticism of the US-led war is obvious as also the rejection of the US strategy to keep the war strategy as its exclusive prerogative. The Joint Declaration then goes on to say, "Both sides welcome Russia's initiative to organize an international conference in the framework of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, involving its Member states and Observers."

New Delhi has come out into open support of a regional initiative on Afghanistan, which Washington would have loved to stifle in its cradle. The Indian stance is significant for various reasons. India has decided that there is no need to mark time until the Obama administration finalizes its own new Afghan strategy. It is asserting its own stakes independent of the US strategy. Two, India is identifying with Russia, China and Iran, which is an immensely significant happening in regional politics. Three, India is siding with a Russia-led regional initiative on Afghanistan at a time when various influential American opinion-makers have been floating the idea of a US-led "regional approach" to an Afghan settlement that virtually allows the US to be on the driving seat.

Most certainly, India is implicitly recognizing the SCO's relevance to South Asian security. Afghanistan is a member of the SAARC and could act as a bridge between South Asia and Central Asia. In essence, therefore, India is spurning the US's much-touted "Great Central Asia" strategy that aims at diluting the SCO's role in Central Asia and instead pins hopes on India as a counterweight to the Russian and Chinese regional influence.

It is apparent that India is dissociating from the concerted US policy to keep the SCO out of Afghanistan. Moscow has been vainly striving to carve out a toehold for the SCO as a regional body while Washington has been discouraging Afghan President Hamid Karzai from lending weight to the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group. More than anything else, the fact remains that the Russian initiative on an SCO conference is intended as a challenge to the monopoly that Washington has kept in determining the contours of any Afghan settlement.

Indeed, it opens up more possibilities for Karzai to expand his "strategic autonomy" vis-a-vis Washington, which he has been inclined to exercise, even if timidly, of late. Karzai has every reason to cooperate with a regional initiative in which all the major powers surrounding Afghanistan such as Russia, China, India and Iran are associated. The onus is now on the US and Pakistan to explain why they should dissociate.

Of course, the US would have preferred to encourage the on-going Turkish initiative to mediate Afghan-Pakistan talks. The latest three-way round involving the presidents of Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan just concluded in Ankara. Washington was happy that Turkey lent a hand in keeping the Afghan peace process as an "in-house" affair - keeping "outsiders" like Russia or Iran at arm's length. The SCO initiative is a needless intrusion, from the US-Turkish perspective.

SCO stance on Afghanistan
A most significant aspect of the Russian-Indian Joint Declaration is its deafening silence on the US-sponsored talks with the Taliban. The Russian and Indian position is that there is nothing called "moderate" Taliban leaders, whereas, the US is edging close to a formula that so long as the Taliban leadership disengages and disowns the al-Qaeda, there should be no problem in assimilating them as part of a coalition government in Kabul. In fact, the second round of talks with the Taliban under Saudi mediation is due to take place shortly.

In the context of the Mumbai blasts, the Indian attitude towards the Taliban can only harden further, placing itself at odds with the US strategy in the coming period. In a manner of speaking, the Russian-Iranian-Indian convergence in bolstering the anti-Taliban resistance in the late 1990s is straining to reappear, though in an entirely new form. Interestingly, Iranian officials also held consultations recently in New Delhi regarding Afghanistan.

Without doubt, India would have given thought to the SCO's collective stance on the Afghan problem prior to lending support for the regional body's initiative to call an international conference. The Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin's speech at the UN General Assembly session in New York on November 10 on behalf of the SCO becomes the benchmark for New Delhi. Evidently, Delhi finds itself in harmony with the major elements in Churkin's speech. The key elements were:

"Concerted joint action" by the international community is necessary to arrest the "continuing deterioration of the military and political situation" in Afghanistan.

The policy of isolating the extremist Taliban leaders should not be watered down and any reconciliation should only include those Taliban cadres who are "rank-and-file Taliban members who are not tainted by military crimes".

A system of "anti-drug and financial security belts" should be set up around Afghanistan with the coordinating role of the UN and involvement of neighboring countries.

The NATO must cease operations involving "indiscriminate or excessive use of force, including bombings" that cause heavy civilian casualties. The level of collateral damage in the military operations is hampering Afghanistan's long-term stabilization.

An enduring Afghan settlement is "impossible without an integrated approach on the part of the international community, led by the United Nations, and at the same time without delegating to Kabul greater independence in resolving inter-Afghan problems".

"The situation in Afghanistan cannot be fixed by solely military means". Therefore, security must be backed by "real measures" towards socio-economic revival.

"It is essential to ensure respectful attitude towards national and religious values, centuries-long customs and traditions of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious people of Afghanistan and on these grounds to achieve conciliation of Afghanistan’s antagonistic forces".

In sum, the Mumbai attacks may prove to be a watershed in Indian regional policies. Relations with Russia, China and Iran assume a new level of importance in New Delhi's regional strategies. The gravitation towards the SCO signifies the new thinking. Not too long ago, India visualized the SCO as primarily an "energy club". Actually, India's petroleum minister routinely represented India at the SCO summit meetings. Now, to envisage a crucial role for an SCO-led regional initiative on Afghanistan, New Delhi has indeed come a long way. Surely, Medvedev would have returned to Moscow quietly pleased that he met a long-lost friend.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JL09Df02.html

[renukb]

ISRO to redesign Soyuz for manned mission
http://howrah.org/sci_tech_htm/36996.html

After the historic moon mission, India will redesign Russian space capsule Soyuz to send its astronauts on the country's maiden manned space mission.

"We will be redesigning the Soyuz space capsule of the Russian agency for our mission," Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Chairman G Madhavan Nair told PTI.

ISRO signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Russian space agency Roskosmos on Joint Activities in the Field of Human Spaceflight Programme during the recent visit of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in New Delhi.

Under the MoU signed by Nair and his Russian counterpart Anatoly Perminov, space scientists from the two countries will jointly build the spacecraft for India's manned mission.

The Soyuz, which has been in use since 1967, has been upgraded several times and has recently brought back American astronauts from the International Space Station.

The Soyuz TM is a modernised version of the Soyuz T with a new docking and rendezvous, radio communications, emergency and integrated parachute/landing engine systems. It has a more durable metal body and lighter heat shield material.

It serves as both a ferry for Russian crews coming to and from the space station as well as a "lifeboat" for any emergency escapes.

Government has already sanctioned Rs 95 crore to study all aspects of the manned space mission under which ISRO plans to send a two-member crew on a week-long sojourn in space.

ISRO plans to undertake the manned space mission in 2015 in which the spacecraft will be placed in a low earth orbit. It will splash in the Indian ocean after completion of the mission.

The space agency is also setting up an astronaut training centre in Bangalore. For the two-member mission, a batch of 200 would be initially selected and trained before opting for four persons out of which two would go on the mission.

Upbeat over the success of Chandrayaan-I, the country's maiden mission to moon, India and Russia are already working on a sequel which entails landing a rover on moon.

The two countries have already launched technical discussions for the Chandrayaan-II project which was signed during Prime Minister's visit to Moscow last year.

Last year, ISRO had sent to space a capsule which was recovered after keeping in orbit for 22 days. The Space Recovery Experiment (SRE) was seen as a technology demonstrator for future manned missions.

Russia and India are also expected to collaborate on launch vehicles for future space missions. The two sides will also set up the India-Russia Centre for Technology Transfer.

India launched its first satellite Aryabhatta in 1975 which was followed by another successful launch in 1980.

The human space flight mission holds immense potential in terms of telemedicine, material science and would involve various work packages before it is launched.

It includes development of human-rated GSLV, an escape system, an environmental life support system, thermal protection system for re-entry into the earth's atmosphere, facilities for training astronauts and crew and with mission management system in place with man being in the loop.

[renukb]

Brilliant US of A! The problem is they want to step on both boats. They do not want to understand GOI's problem. They don't realize that groudswell of anger after Mumbai cannot be "managed" by any political party... that too this close to an election. This is not pakistan. The russians are back in the game. First they trumped Obama with the missile defense and now they have gained India's gratitude with a clear statement of support. How could the Americans ****** up after working so hard to get India the nuke deal?? Its not late yet... pick your boat.

Regardless of which boat the US is, India should now know that our interests are better served by Indians being with the Russians, and this must be mutual feeling I believe, and Also by making compromises with other Asian nations (Japan, China, Iran etc...). Being on this side of the ship, India can get what it wants, easy access to CAR nations and Oil and GAS and also the technology we need, along with the long term regional stability. In our neighbourhood, we should not let phoren forces to ensure peace and stability.

[renukb]

Russia, China to strengthen ties in military aircraft production
http://en.rian.ru/world/20081210/118779793.html

[renukb]

When did Indian express became Amex?
From Russia, with what?
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/fr ... at/397864/

[Suppiah]

Russia solves the financial crisis in a typical commie fashion...go after all those who talk about it..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081216/wl_ ... ssia_media

[Igorr]

Russia solves the financial crisis in a typical commie fashion...go after all those who talk about it..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081216/wl_ ... ssia_media

The
duty of a capitan to prevent panic on the ship. They do those things which help to save money of the citizens themselves.There were too much speculative attacks on ruble with desinformation use.

[krish.pf]

I have a question- Some time ago I read that India & Russia were developing the fifth gen fighter, and India was asking for a single engine fighter & Russians a twin engine fighter. But now from this link- http://en.rian.ru/world/20081210/118779793.html it appears that India requires a twin seat fighter & the Russians a single seat. Is the single engine news true? Or is India asking for a single engine twin seat fighter?

Thanks.

[Nihat]

I have a question- Some time ago I read that India & Russia were developing the fifth gen fighter, and India was asking for a single engine fighter & Russians a twin engine fighter. But now from this link- http://en.rian.ru/world/20081210/118779793.html it appears that India requires a twin seat fighter & the Russians a single seat. Is the single engine news true? Or is India asking for a single engine twin seat fighter?

Thanks.

India always wanted a twin seater PAK FA derivative for a wider combat radius , never have we wanted a single seater for the IAF - the LCA and MMRCA will do that job.

[krish.pf]

No.. I'm inquiring about reports that India wanted a single engine fifth gen fighter while the Russians a twin engine. I'm sure I read that the "single engine" statement somewhere.

[NRao]

No.. I'm inquiring about reports that India wanted a single engine fifth gen fighter while the Russians a twin engine. I'm sure I read that the "single engine" statement somewhere.

I had posted such a link a few days ago, perhaps you can back on these pages and find it.

However, the IAF NEVER came out and stated that. It was mostly Pranab Da (when he was the DM) that preferred the MiG, which was a single engined option (that the Russians rejected). There was one incidence when the Russian DM came to ND and made some statements that preempted ND - which I took to mean as arm-twisting.

Either way - single or a dual engine - IMHO, India always wanted a dual seater. For sure that is the case for the current PAK-FA Indian selection, but I think India wanted that for a single engined 5th Gen AC.

[krish.pf]

Much thanks for the info, NRao. So it was Pranab who made that statement. From what you said, and the absence of "single engine" in the news above(minor alterations to wing & fuselage is mentioned but the core difference - engine - is not mentioned)I think it is safe to assume that we'll be getting the dual seat twin engine version.

[Yogi_G]

Honestly, I have not been able to understand the Indo-Russian friendship of late...

Russia sells RD-33 engines indirectly to Pakistan and now releases info on India's most wanted which has directly embarrassed Pakis....

http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2008/ ... i-attacks/

I think for now Indo-Ruski relations are back on track....unless we get back to price negotiations on Gorshkov...

[Singha]

getting double of the original $700 mil for 80Mi17V placated them.

ofcourse they have already commenced licensed production of a more advanced
version of Mi17 in PRC which will eventually be sold to TSP also.

[Philip]

26/11 was a massive shock up the nether end for the pro-US strategists who have ruled the corridors of power in this insidious govt. of the moment.Brainwashed by Washington's promise to "rein in" Pak from its terrorist ways,thus ensuring a peace in the subcontinent and the promise of much economic largessse,has come a total cropper.On the economic side,the inexhaustible greed of US MNC CEOs and mega-thieves have virtually bankrupted the entire globe.Almost every state has reverted back to "socialism" of the printing press to keep afloat.It was thanks to the Left's brake upon this GOI that has seen us economically knocked down,but not out.

On the military side,the CBMs that we brought into being-relaxation of the J&K border,being the most important of the lot,has been betrayed by the Paki military/ISI who are the true rulers of that country.They and the US have been engaged for decades in a game of duplicity,Pak taking advantage of playing the part of a willing rent boy,while in the shameful bargain,passing on the fatal disease of Islamist terror to its sugar daddy.The current GOI also had its own "love affair" with Uncle Sam,seduced by his promises of a rosy future.All that India had got in this shameful bargain has been a dose of "Pakistan Rose",similar to "Vietnam Rose" that afflicted US troops in that conflict.This dose of clap that Uncle Sam has given us courtesy Pak,is even more lethal as this terror disease strikes at men,women and children without mercy.Sugar Daddy has no cure for this affliction and is totally contaminated with it,as he is still unwilling to give up its "rent boy" and lust for Gen."Arsefu*k" Killany.

Our worthy strategists who have now got since 26/11 this massive dose of Uncle Sam's clap and crap,are witnessing the impotence of the dying Bush and his cronies.Condy Rice is as likely to get Pak to hand over its terror masterminds as to procreate peace in the region.Adm.Mule..sorry Mullen,is another who is as likley to strike fear into the rent boy's heart as much as Mr.Bean in a child.With their private regions itching badly,our worthy strategists have finally remembered the faithful family doctor,Dr.Russia,who helped cure us of a similar affliction in '71.With the failure of western medicine to rid us of this awful disease,we must now turn to our own indigenous medicine along with the help of Dr.Russia and his bag of cures which helped us in the past to cure the ssame disease.The sooner we change mendicants,the faster will be the cure.

[renukb]

Medvedev's visit- Unnoticed but significant
http://www.centralchronicle.com/20081223/2312301.htm

Arriving in the aftermath of the Mumbai mayhem and the unfolding events thereafter, the maiden visit of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to India received scant media attention. Nevertheless, it was a significant event, where efforts were made to expand ties with a resurgent Russia. In the face of the recurring attacks on national security, the energy crunch and the official financial meltdown, it becomes imperative for New Delhi to look to avenues for co-operation. Hence, Medvedev's visit provided an opportunity to re-assess the potential of Indo-Russian relations.

The Russian President was the first world leader to travel to India after the Mumbai attacks. This gave both the Indian and the Russian establishments to take into account the current status of regional security, especially the recurring insecurity in Afghanistan. In a way that may have raised some eyebrows in Washington, wherein the joint agreement signed between India and Russia calls for a coherent and a united international commitment, both to Afghanistan's development and security aspects, to deal with threats from a determined and coordinated resurgence of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

This apart the joint agreement dealt with the growth in cross-border terrorism, its links with international terrorism and international drug trafficking. Both sides welcome Russia's initiative to organize an international conference on Afghanistan in the framework of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), involving its Member States and Observers.

The text of the agreement, though, not literally critical of any country, was meant to send clear signals of India's independent foreign policy and the clout that emerging countries like ours and resurgent Russia demand in world politics. In fact, it closely resembled a treatise on the inevitable rise of a multi-polar world, emphasizing the salience of the United Nations and that of growing interaction in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) format.

Hence, the text tries and covers some of the pressing global issues that, as a matter of fact, also involve the US. If New Delhi and Moscow believe that all efforts should be made to address the Iranian nuclear issue by peaceful means, dialogue and negotiation, both sides also reaffirm their commitment to securing a comprehensive, lasting and just settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict through a recognized international legal base.

If New Delhi fully appreciates the desire of the Russian Federation to join the Asia-Europe meeting and East Asia summit mechanisms, Moscow expresses its support for a more active role for India as an Observer State in the SCO. It reaffirms its support to India as a deserving and strong candidate for the permanent membership in an expanded UN Security Council. In an interesting development, New Delhi has too supported the important role of the Russian Federation in promoting peace & cooperation in the Caucasian region.

Irrespective of these strategic calculations, the crux of the visit was cementing the evolving cooperation in the civilian nuclear sector, gaining importance post the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver. Both sides signed agreements that would go a long way in allaying New Delhi's worries of the country's limited sources of uranium. At present, mines at Singhbhum, Jharkhand are the only source of nuclear power plants, with other areas of exploration entangled in environmental issues and the unavailability of sophisticated equipments. Recently, chief of Nuclear Power Corporation of India, S.K. Jain was quoted as saying that unless India was lucky to explore new reserves, shortage of fuel may jeopardize the country's nuclear energy growth plants.

At a summit meeting between Medvedev and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a mega-agreement to supply nearly 2,000 tonnes of uranium was finalized. This would help increase the efficiency of the existing plants to 90 per cent from an unhealthy 40 to 60 per cent due to shortage of the raw material. The two sides agreed to set up four more plants at Koodankulam, Tamil Nadu, where Russia is already assisting in installing two plants.

In addition, the two agreed to explore the possibility of setting up more nuclear plants, with Russia offering a new power plant AES-2006, which incorporates a third generation WER-1200 reactor of 1170MW. The nuclear reactor will operate at higher thermal power of 3200 MW with a longer life span of 50 years. What's more, all reactors will reportedly be supplied with lifetime guarantee of fuel. Thus, the success in signing these agreements makes Russia the first country to have established civilian nuclear cooperation in concrete terms with India post the NSG waiver.

The visit has also seen significant developments towards overcoming contentious issues in the already vibrant defense ties between the two countries. Principal among these is the tendentious issue of cost escalation for the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, which India has contracted to buy. On the eve of Medvedev's visit, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) chaired by Manmohan Singh gave its seal of approval to an agreement reached between the two sides to resolve the pricing issue within three months as Russia has more than doubled the original price of the carrier to over $2 billion.

Another issue is the confusion over the fate of the deal on the Russian-built nuclear powered, Akula-II class Nerpa attack submarine, which met with an accident during trials in the Sea of Japan last month. It was to be rechristened in the Indian Navy as INS Chakra and delivered by 2009 on a 10-year lease primarily to be used to train crews to operate this kind of a vessel. The Russian President however, dismissed the differences on the purchase of military platforms as "nothing special" that couldn't be resolved by "adjustments" by both sides.

The UPA-led government has approved the acquisition of 80 medium-lift Mi-17 helicopters from Russia worth $1.3 billion. Besides, Space agencies of both the nations agreed on plans for cooperation in manned space flights, in addition to their resolve to cooperate in Chandrayaan II. Regarding the sluggish economic ties between the two nations that thanks to a host of problems, including visas for businessmen, the plan is to increase trade to $10 billion by 2010 from this year's $7 billion, and diversify economic cooperation.

In the joint agreement, the two sides also emphasized the important role of the private sector in developing bilateral trade and investment between each other, taking special note of the creation of the India-Russia CEOs Council. Expressing satisfaction over cooperation in the field of science and technology under the framework of the Integrated Long Term Programme (ILTP), they also underlined the importance of bringing relevant technologies to their respective markets. Last but not the least, both New Delhi and Moscow expressed satisfaction at the successful conduct of the 'Year of Russia' in India, 2008. Now, it was time to work together on the smooth holding of 'Year of India' in Russia in 2009.

[Vikram_S]

people are now realising most comment about russian army in ossetia was propoganda from usual suspect - janes, western sources

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.ph ... I3NzM2Ng==
Russian army faced critics, but did well in war

Published Date: December 23, 2008
By Stefan Korshak

The Russo-Georgian War in August of this year demonstrated a basic truth about the Russian army: it is a sledgehammer, not a rapier, and a fairly effective sledgehammer at that. The five-day conflict left few doubts that, when it came to high tech and training, Russia's fighting men are behind modern armed forces. Western experts routinely pointed out during the conflict how antiquated some parts of the Russian military are. However, the well-orchestrated, lightning invasion also made clear that the Kremli n's soldiers are more than capable of using ingenuity and overwhelming numbers to crush an opponent like the Georgian military.

Even as experts in Brussels and Washington were repeating conventional wisdom about Russian military weaknesses, rapidly- advancing armoured forces like Russia's 58th Army were lancing into Georgia, and in high spirits as they systematically demolished Georgia's US-trained army. "Join us, we have plenty to eat!" an ethnic Ingush trooper from Russia's 503rd Motor Rifle Regiment told a dpa reporter visiting a strongpoint without invitation: "Rice, vegetables, and plenty of meat.

A drab green ZiL lorry hauling hot food and bottles of greenish fizzy water rumbled through the sector, held by a Russian armoured reconnaissance company. Two tanker lorries followed, one with diesel for BMP fighting vehicles, the second with water, which was going fast in the 35-degree August heat. That scene of a combat unit supplying itself with little fuss jarred with reports from the Pentagon and US news agencies.

According to the Western narrative, Moscow's armed forces were massive but shoddy, with vehicles breaking down repeatedly. Other purported problems included obsolete weapons, sloppy field commanders, primitive communications, and pilots incapable of low-level flight. But on a rise overlooking the highway to Tbilisi, under a Caucasian midday sun, Russian infantry hacked away at the rocky ground with picks and shovels. They were digging in, in positions well chosen to command the highway. Sentries were posted, tanks were camouflaged, junior officers were on the move, and anti-tank rockets were cached at 500-m intervals by the blacktop.

Despite an absence of GPS, or even topographical maps for anyone but the commanding captain, the reconnaissance company of 503rd Motor Rifle Regiment gave no appearance of the incompetence highlighted by the pundits back in the NATO countries. Nonetheless, even after the war ended, criticism of the Russian army's performance came thick and fast. A spokesman from Janes Defence International Weekly, a leading arms publication, pointing out to the Wall Street Journal that the Russian tanks operating in South Ossetia lacked modern steel lattice armor. Additionally, the publication noted, some of the tanks were more than twenty years' old.

Such analysis failed to impress the Russian rank-and-file. "She (our tank) got us here from Chechnya, we love her, and she's going to get us home too," boasted a sergeant commanding a T-62 tank, according to him one of the oldest tanks in all of 19th Motor Rifle Division. "She's good enough to fight Georgians ... and in any case, there is more to war than equipment." The Russian army also displayed a dangerous weakness in communications, with a general resorting to use of a journalist's satellite phone in an attempt to locate his troops, in an incident widely reported in Russian and Western media.

However, Russian troopers and junior officers appeared unfazed by communications problems, employing captured Georgian mobile telephones and military radios. And, just like their Red Army forefathers, they sent important messages by motorcycle or jeep courier. Perhaps the worst problem experienced by the Russians in the war was Georgia's surprisingly effective air defence, which knocked down between four and 16 Russian planes, depending on which side one believes.

But the Grakali railroad bridge - a key transport link between Georgia's capital and the coast - is good proof the Russians weren't stymied. Forced to pull back their air force, and still wanting to knock down the bridge, the Russians sent a platoon of combat engineers, who dropped the span with high explosives. The Russians dealt with a critical Georgian air defence radar, located on a mountain overlooking the Tbilisi airport, using similarly rough-and-ready means. Confounded in repeated attempts to hit the radar with a daytime surgical strike, the Russian air force unloaded a single massive bomb in the middle of the night, leveling the radar and a substantial portion of the hilltop.

Critics of the Russian military also have been mostly silent on a whole host of skillful moves by the Kremlin, which made the five-day war a hands-down Russian success. Among those moves was a complicated surprise amphibious landing on Georgia's sea coast that went off without a hitch and the lightning capture of the strategically critical Kodori Gorge by heliborne infantry deep in Georgia's mountains.

Russian electronic jamming forced Georgia's officers to abandon their radios and issue orders by mobile phone, which were then intercepted by Russian intelligence. In a striking psychological move, Russia sent Chechen mercenaries - feared for ruthlessness throughout the Caucasus - as shock troops against Georgian positions. Georgian morale crumbled, and in some cases Georgian troops literally ran rather than face the Chechens. "We are here to teach people a lesson," a cocky Russian motor rifle lieutenant said. "Russia is no longer on her knees." - dpa

this is same kind of propganda indian forces are used to from west whenever india went to spank wests munna

[Igorr]

One of Russian UAVs civilian manufacturers url
Funny toys

[RajeshA]

I think, first time Obama makes some noise on Kashmir, India should go ahead and open trade offices in Sukhumi, Abkhazia and Tskhinvali, South Ossetia.

Even as India will continue to make a case on legal and historical grounds for considering Jammu and Kashmir a part of India, those would mean little, if these claims are not underwritten by solid facts on the ground and a political will in Delhi against constant Western pressure to oblige Pakistan. As such legal issues of sovereignty are less important than the political will to hold land, in which case India should not cringe from recognizing the independence of these two regions, even if that recognition is not official but rather de-facto.

India needs Russia firmly on her side, if we want to even contemplate securing Afghanistan and destroying Pakistan.

[kidoman]

India needs Russia firmly on her side, if we want to even contemplate securing Afghanistan and destroying Pakistan.

Hopefully they will be with us , like they have stood by us for last sixty odd years..
They are our true friend, not an iota of doubt abt this..

[Hiten]

Talks about Russia's ressurgence post-Cold War and countering American desires

Global Research - Russia Reasserts Itself as a Great Power

Geopolitics is a science whose strategic depth allows us to identify several constant patterns of human history. One of these regularities has been the conflict between sea power and land power. This rivalry has existed for millennia: Athens vs. Sparta (the Peloponnesian War); Rome vs. Persia (the Roman-Persian Wars); England vs. France (the Napoleonic Wars); Britain vs. Russia (i.e. the so called 'Great Game') and the US vs. the USSR (better known to all as the Cold War).

As Halford Mackinder stated, Eurasia is by far the world's most strategic piece of land. Russia is and has been one of the most important players in Eurasian geopolitics. Thanks to its geographic position, Russia has been able to project its power deep into both Europe and Asia. Indeed, during wartime Russian troops have gone as far as Paris, Berlin, Central Asia and Persia. Nevertheless, that does not mean that Russia is invulnerable to foreign invaders for it has been attacked by the Mongols, the Turks, the French and the Germans.

Mackinder is regarded as the intellectual founder of the concept of NATO because he concluded that the potential of Eurasia's heartland was so overwhelming that it could only be contained by a transatlantic alliance formed by Western Europe and North America.

During the early phases of the Cold War American geostrategists sought to encircle the Soviet Union by establishing a meaningful presence as well as by courting allies in Eurasia's rimland, i.e. Mackinder's "inner crescent" which encompasses Western Europe, Anatolia, the Middle East and the Far East.

The US triggered the collapse of the USSR by overtly and covertly supporting anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan (e.g. the Mujahideen) and Eastern Europe (e.g. Solidarity). Moreover, the Soviet economy could not possibly match the ever-increasing American military expenditures without going bankrupt.

The end of the Cold War was a huge window of opportunity for the US to forge a 'Pax Americana' now that the Soviet Union had collapsed. A vacuum power provided a chance to prolong this 'unipolar moment' long enough to become a 'unipolar era'. This is the geopolitical context in which the Project for a New American Century was born, echoing Henry Luce's appeal to become the world's only and unchallenged superpower.

To fulfill such strategic agenda, American policymakers had to take care of some matters first. Even though the Soviet Union had been split into fifteen Republics, Russia was/is a major cause for concern. During the 90's Russia was economically devastated and its political leadership was too corrupt or too incompetent to heal the country's ailing health. Nonetheless, that did not necessarily mean that someday Moscow could not regain its place as a world-class major power.

Russia inherited a stockpile of nuclear weapons capable of obliterating the United States; it has a competitive military-industrial complex that designs and manufactures state-of-the art products (long-range strategic bombers, fighter aircraft, satellites, tanks, submarines, ICBMs); its huge territory contains large sums of key natural resources (oil, gas, precious metals, iron ore, bauxite, diamonds, fresh water, coal, timber); it possesses the third largest foreign currency reserves; its manpower must not be underestimated because Russia has more college graduates than any other European country. Last but certainly not least, Russian national morale and resilience have always been formidable because both its State and its people have successfully managed to recover from tremendous catastrophes such as the Mongol, Napoleonic and Nazi invasions, which inflicted a great deal of pain on Russia.

Therefore, the West was not willing to share any power with Russia even though Russia's ruling elite, at the time, thought it was possible to build a Northern community from Los Angeles to Vladivostok. The West had different plans; the idea was to gradually disintegrate Russia as a functioning Nation-State one and for all so that it would never reemerge as a strategic challenger. Russia, as suggested by Zbigniew Brzezinski, would be Balkanized into several States (following the Yugoslavian model) to gain access to its abundant natural resources (particularly in the Caspian, the Urals and Siberia), its economy had to be permanently crippled and the country's remaining its pieces could serve as cannon fodder to be used in a potential war against China should the need arise.

After the Cold War, the Russian government believed that the West was willing to facilitate the integration of Russia's economy into international markets due to its comparative advantages. However, the West allocated more resources and investment in Eastern Europe (Russia's former satellites) in an apparent attempt to seduce them away from Russia and towards the European Union. Economically, such decision made no sense because it would have been far more profitable to invest in Russia. That policy can only be understood as political tool meant to isolate Russia and to prevent its economy from fully recovering.

Moreover, NATO kept moving closer and closer to Russian borders. The Western alliance absorbed almost all former members of the now-defunct Warsaw Pact and, even more provoking for the Kremlin, it had also engulfed the Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia), countries formerly belonging to the Soviet Union itself. NATO also attacked Serbia, which has been one of Moscow's staunchest allies in the Balkans. Of course Moscow expressed its disagreement but the West could afford to ignore Russia's objections because of the latter's weaknesses. The US intentions to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO were the straw that broke the Russian bear's back.

This encirclement has not yet stopped because outgoing President Bush promoted the idea to establish radar facilities as well as missile interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic whose covert purpose would be none other than the achievement of operational capability to eliminate the Russian nuclear deterrent. It is not yet clear if the Obama administration will go along with these plans.

Both Washington and Brussels thought they could continue belittling Russia even after Vladimir Putin came to power. Putin belongs to a political clan called the Siloviki; they are mostly former members of Soviet and Russian security and intelligence services, so one of their main goals is to re-establish the Russian Federation as one of the world's top powers. They are highly pragmatic and they also know that the West is not eager to passively behold Russia's resurgence. The Boris Yeltsin presidency was a major disaster because it privileged accommodation with the West at any cost, even at the expense of Russian basic national interests. The Siloviki are not necessarily anti-Western. Both Putin and Medvedev have been willing to negotiate with the West so that the latter recognizes the Kremlin's legitimate geopolitical concerns but they have demonstrated their determination to protect Moscow's interests whether the West likes or not.

Therefore, the Kremlin has befriended some countries openly hostile to American power (Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and so on) not because of ideological motives but because Moscow can use them to apply pressure on both the Europeans and the Americans and to be able to extract substantial concessions from them.

Even if Russia would prefer to negotiate with the West, it has also been preparing for the worst in case it is targeted by any Western attack. Russian military design bureaus have developed the "Topol-M" ICBM which is immune from almost any interception system known, including EMPs, nuclear blasts and laser hits. Russia is expected to witness the Sukhoi PAK FA's maiden flight sometime during 2009, which will be the first operational Russian stealth fifth-generation fighter, created to modernize its Air Force. Moscow has also contemplated the possibility to station Iskander missiles in both Kaliningrad and Belarus.

US senior geostrategist George Kennan (the very creator of the Containment strategy) warned about alienating Russian interests in the 'Near Abroad' (the post-Soviet space) because such impudence could trigger a harsh backlash from Moscow. Such response is clearly reflected in Russia's resolve to counter 'Color Revolutions' in Belarus and Uzbekistan and to unseat pro-Western regimes in Georgia and Ukraine.

The Kremlin has been cultivating a close relation with Beijing in order to increase bilateral collaboration in energy, defense, trade and foreign policy matters. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization has become an institutional framework that embodies both countries' joint efforts to advance mutually shared interests. The SCO has not become a full-fledged alliance but it certainly has the potential to become the 'NATO of the East'.

The sole prospect of Russia and China (by far the largest powers in the Eurasian landmass) united in a military alliance is a scenario which turns out to be outright frightening to the US because it would represent a formidable challenge to its hegemonic ambitions. Thus, one can venture to assert that the US instigated Georgian ruler Mikheil Saakashvili to launch an offensive in order to retake South Ossetia. American military advisors in Georgian soil were well aware that Russia would be forced to intervene and eventually place troops in South Ossetian territory. They also probably expected that Moscow would back Ossetian (and Abkhazian) independence from Georgia either by recognizing them as sovereign States or by incorporating them into the Russian Federation itself. If the Kremlin decided not to defend its allies, it would have been ridiculed for failing to protect Russian nationals anyway.

One can reasonably argue that American planners harangued Georgia into attacking South Ossetia as part of a greater strategy specifically masterminded to distance China from Russia. How so? Well, for starters Moscow offered full diplomatic support for Beijing during the 2008 unrest in Tibet. Nevertheless, the People's Republic of China was in no position to reciprocate in kind and could not openly support Moscow's efforts to dismember Georgia's territorial integrity because China itself has been dealing with aggressive separatist groups in both Tibet and Xinjiang-Uyghur. Thus, we can understand why the Chinese government only expressed its understanding for Russian involvement. Therefore, it is not implausible that Washington staged a war in the Caucasus carefully crafted to disunite China and Russia.

However, that does not mean that Russia was geopolitically defeated. Old Europe refused to join the anti-Russian hardline coming from Washington, London and Warsaw. Instead, the French and the Germans have refused to incorporate Georgia or Ukraine into NATO and both refused to implement any meaningful punishment on Russia. President Medvedev publicly explained that 'Russia can impose sanctions as well', just in case some Western capitals needed to be reminded. Moreover, the Kremlin militarily crushed a US client State, sending a powerful message: It is no longer possible to systematically ignore Russian interests and if someone is reckless enough to do so, he will not go unpunished. Furthermore, Moscow demonstrated that it will not hesitate to deploy and display its military power if deemed necessary. Last but not least, Russia made it clear that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline is well within its firing range.

The next geopolitical battle between Russia and the US will be Ukraine. Russia has decided that, one way or another, the pro-Western regime in Kiev has to go. The outcome is still to be seen and, at the moment it seems the Kremlin has many tools at its disposal to make its interest prevail. Central Asia, attractive for both its strategic geographic position and its abundant natural resources, is another contentious issue. We must scrutinize how these world powers move their pieces in this game of geopolitical chess, which is being played for the highest stakes. Whether their discrepancies will be dealt with through an accommodating compromise or through a somewhat hotter confrontation is still unknown at this point. What we do know, however, is that Moscow is much more empowered than during the 90's and that, if the West does not intend to reach an understanding, then Russia will be a formidable adversary.

Slightly OT: Would a strong Sino-Russian relation result into assuared continuation of the staus quo wrt to our territorial dispute with China

Considering growing Sino-India relation as also Sino-Russia, I dont think the Chinese would want to hurt it by making aggressive claims on the land. though expecting China to give up its claim because of this growing relation might be a little too much to expect

[IndraD]

i want to ask , a very basic question: How beneficial has been India's histori inclination towards Russa, had it been better if we had invested the same energy/money/time etc in building a partnership with US?

[Chandragupta]

@Ajatshatru

I think you're getting too carried away. Russia is an important ally, in addition to being arguably our safest bet in the UNSC. I don't know what causes you to bicker about Indo-Russian relationship so much, but do know that there's no country in the world that'd support you for free. We share some of our strategic goals with them & vice versa. Ofcourse, the irregularities in defence deals must be ironed out and the relationship must move to one between two equals. We need Russia on our side & they need us as well.

[ajay_ijn]

Whatever spin some of our Russian loving in-house members may give about how while Russian weapons are perfect, at the same time, they find nothing majorly positive about indigenous weapon systems like LCA, Arjun etc.... how we should be eternally grateful to present Russia for help rendered to India in the past etc, my take on the issue:

1. Though there is no denying former USSR helped India (though some defence personnel I talked to in the 1970s used to claim even in those days most of weapons given to India by USSR were not brand new but slightly second hand), there is some difference between former USSR and present Russia. Present Russia now conducts most of its defence deals on purely commercial terms.
2. Though I don’t remember the exact terms now, when USSR was disintegrating, wasn’t India was one of the few countries that stood by its promise to pay USSR’s long term debt to Russia in dollars?
3. Some years back didn’t Russia approach India to bail out Sukhoi by ordering Su-30 aircrafts?
4. Didn’t India did stand by Russia during their invasion of Afghanistan etc.

But look at the spin and excuses given by some members to justify blatantly unreasonable hike in price of Gorshkov and other weapon systems by Russia.

Various excuses given by some members at BR are ‘India was naïve to believe Russia would give a ship at throw away price etc' (My Note: oh really, a rust bucket about to be otherwise scrapped by Russia is offered to India. ‘We are offering ship free to our old friends India but oh, BTW we would charge X amount for renovating the ship etc’). India trusting Russia agreed to buy the ship from Russia and mind you not at exactly at a throwaway price.

Once the deal is concluded, first shock comes when date of delivery is delayed not by months but years and then to add insult to injury price of the ship is steeply hiked by giving excuses like original blueprint/design of ship is not with Russia, shipyard underestimated cost of refitment etc are given to justify the hike.

Net result: while Russia with impunity breaks written contract to Jake up price of Gorshkov etc, some Russian loving members start justifying Russia’s arm twisting techniques by giving various excuses (one of the members even went to the exact of stating Russia is justified in its actions as Russia is pissed off with India’s growing close relationship with US now).

Seeing the antics/shenanigans of Russia, a country that thinks nothing before breaking written contracts to steeply hike prices of defence goods, now comes this news that ‘Akula submarine delivery postponed indefinitely’.

God knows what would be the final cost of PAK-FA eventually to India.

Yet some members do not forget reminding about the favours done by former USSR to justify unreasonable behaviour of present Russia. May I remind these members former USSR is not the same as present Russia and moreover, even USSR benefited by having India as one of its close allies in the past.

While growing up, like most Indians, even I had and still have fond memories of former USSR. But present Russia is not former USSR and time we stopped justifying blatantly unreasonable behaviour of present Russia (delaying delivery of weapons, holding back critical technology e.g. Brahmos and steep hikes mid-way of various weapons etc) in its current dealings with India.

i agree, India did realise problems with russian arms and hence diversifying to Israel and now to US. Europe was traditional arms supplier and would continue to as usual.

Algeria returned all the Mig-29s when they founded they were krappy. Indian Navy was also irked with IL-38 and issues with Klub weapon Systems.

Besides all these problems, US entered Indian market, So russia will definitely lose a big share of Indian market or may be its already losing. it would only become worse if we don't work out issues about esclation of prices and penalty for delays.

but we should also make sure that overall diplomatic relations won't get affected. our challenge is also to balance relations with US & Russia both in arms market and diplomatic issues.

[Victor]

As long as we are dependent on outside suppliers for our weapons, we will have to smile and lump it. There is nothing we can do but stomp on the ground, make noises, complain and then toe the line. If Russia breaks a contract, what are we going to do--run to unkil and sign another one hoping it won't be broken? We are already diversifying our sources as best as we can and this is apparent to the Russians who will make sure we pay a price for that. But given these bitter realities, Russia is still our best option (and best friend) for weapons and advanced tech that we can't make ourselves because the others have shafted us even worse and will continue to do so, not just with hardware but politically too.

[Chandragupta]

Chandragupta wrote:

I don't know what causes you to bicker about Indo-Russian relationship so much

‘Woh (Russia) Qatl bhee kartay hain tau koi charcha nahin,
Hum (India) aah bhee bhartay hain tau ho jaitay hain badnaam’

While Russia delays delivery, breaks written contracts mid-way with impunity and at times, holds back on critical technology after promising to transfer it etc., we Indians like Gandhi’s ‘teen bandars’ dare not see, hear and say no evil lest we be accused of:

1. Bickering and/or
2. Damaging our friendship with Russia.

Bhailog, I have a question.... isn’t friendship a two way process? And do some members really/seriously believe Russia has always supported us for free?

And how come when Russia breaks written contracts by hiking price of defence items after signing the contract it doesn’t effect India-Russia friendship but Indians pointing out such a ‘unacceptable behaviour’ on Russia’s part would immediately effect Indo-Russia’s friendship? Moreover, why should total onus of maintaining good relation/friendship always lie fair and square only on India’s shoulders?

Truly, India is paying a heavy price for this goody two-shoes image India has in the world where not only our immediate puny neighbours can constantly direct terrorist activities against India but some of our old(est) allies don’t think twice before breaking written contracts to hike prices as well as delay delivery of items etc. It seems to me right now India is not only everyone’s favourite whipping boy but also seen as a ‘cash cow’ even by some of our oldest allies.

Finally all I can say is.....Is our friendship with Russia so fragile that it would get damaged or break even if India lets out a minor whimper about any ‘unreasonable behaviour’ on Russia’s part? Hypothetically speaking, if our relationship is so fragile to begin with then I must say something is terrible wrong with such a friendship....

Arre bhai, maine kab kaha ki charcha bhi mat karo! Yeh forum to charcha ke liye hi hai!

I clearly said that no country supports another for free, and Russia is no exception. They benefit from this relationship, and so do we, that's why Indo-Russian relationship is still going strong. I also said that the irregularities in defence deals must be ironed out & the relationship should be treated between two equals (and the countries are moving there - joint development of weapons, joint declarations & a strategic alliance being formed). The latter is something that is never possible with the US, in an Indo-US relationship, the US will always occupy the driver's seat.

I agree with you that India needs to shed this image of 'bhola bhala desh' whom everyone can milk, because we need to understand that they need us as bad as we need them. This is our fault that we have not been able to stand up to them, and that is due to the age old practice of Indian leaders which is known as bending over.

We ought to make it clear to Russia that we will not accept being their 'cash cow', to quote you, while at the same time, paving the road for a strategic Indo-Russian alliance, because that's what it's in our interest.

[Nayak]

Errr, some members here are pretty dumb when the issue of friendship and bhaichaara crops up. Countries guard each other interests when required and knife each other in the back if required, what has sentiment got to do with it ?

[ajay_ijn]

As long as we are dependent on outside suppliers for our weapons, we will have to smile and lump it. There is nothing we can do but stomp on the ground, make noises, complain and then toe the line. If Russia breaks a contract, what are we going to do--run to unkil and sign another one hoping it won't be broken? We are already diversifying our sources as best as we can and this is apparent to the Russians who will make sure we pay a price for that. But given these bitter realities, Russia is still our best option (and best friend) for weapons and advanced tech that we can't make ourselves because the others have shafted us even worse and will continue to do so, not just with hardware but politically too.

if Russia continues with price escalation and delays, Armed forces would be definitely pissed off. take the case Navy admiral speaking on that. Delays sometimes are simply unacceptable for Armed forces who already suffer from red-tape procurement procedures and problems with indigenous projects. This is painfully clear in Gorshkov case. There has to penalty clause in normal deals. besides all this, there are traditional problems like spares supply, maintainence issues.
No doubt, Russia won't be treated specially in many of future competitions like MMRCA, P-17A or even the Submarine. Even from late 90s, Armed forces chose more n more Israeli Subsystems for upgrading Soviet weaponry and new russia platforms instead of things offered by Russia.

[Baljeet]

Here is a connundrum India and Russia face. India has permanent Pain in the ASS--Pakistan, Russia has her own Pain in the ASS-Ukraine. Pakistan is holding up passing Natural Gas shipment from Iran to India, Ukraine is stealing Russian Gas destined for Europe. Both U-Cry-ann and pakis are blessed with the right geographical advantage, exploit it to the last drop, have learned to live off their bigger neighbors. No wonder U-cry-ane and Pakis give each other bear hugs and find a common cause against their big bad neighbor and surprisingly enough both these nations have problem on their eastern border.

[Rishirishi]

Here is a connundrum India and Russia face. India has permanent Pain in the ASS--Pakistan, Russia has her own Pain in the ASS-Ukraine. Pakistan is holding up passing Natural Gas shipment from Iran to India, Ukraine is stealing Russian Gas destined for Europe. Both U-Cry-ann and pakis are blessed with the right geographical advantage, exploit it to the last drop, have learned to live off their bigger neighbors. No wonder U-cry-ane and Pakis give each other bear hugs and find a common cause against their big bad neighbor and surprisingly enough both these nations have problem on their eastern border.

The conflict with Ukraine and the Russia/Nato divide is very different from TSP. Our problem with TSP relatates to nurturing hatread towards non-Muslims in India. Russians, Ukrainians, Europeans etc share the same culture, habbits and get along well. The general russian wants to live in London or Paris. Europeans are cool with Russian imigrants, where they dislike the third world imigrants.
The "conflict" with Ukraine has been created by the elite and is partly a way to express their national pride. Sooner or later Russia will move towards EU.
India was a semi client state of the USSR. Now the russians are interested in India because of the large arms market and the possibility to sell some nuclear reactors. India does need the Russian veto in UN. That is about it. Neither country will stick the neck out deep for each other.

[Baljeet]

Igorr, Can you shed some light on the post by RishiRishi. You may have better understanding of Russian mindset than me. I will greatly appreciate it.

[renukb]

Russia reveals new 10-year arms plan to upgrade armed forces

http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/20 ... 232490130/

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 (UPI) -- Despite facing the threat of bankruptcy because of rock-bottom global prices for its oil exports, the Russian government is pushing ahead with a costly new plan to re-equip and upgrade its armed forces with state-of-the-art and high-tech weapons by 2020.

The Moscow newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported Monday the Russian Defense Ministry has already begun work on a 10-year plan for arms procurement and re-equipment for the entire Russian armed forces starting in 2011 and to be completed by the end of 2020. The new program will be presented for approval and funding to the State Duma, the main chamber of the Russian Parliament, by March 2010, RIA Novosti reported.

The new program grew out of the failure of the current one. Former Russian President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin approved a previous, similarly ambitious and costly 10-year plan to achieve these same aims. It was budgeted at nearly 5 trillion rubles (about $154 billion) and it started in 2006 with a completion deadline of 2015. However, as RIA Novosti reported Monday, that plan "proved to be ineffective and expensive" and as a result "the production of new armaments has been delayed."

Reasons for the failure of the plan range from a shortage of skilled workers in Russia's shrinking population, to a more limited industrial base. The Russian armaments industry still has not recovered from the loss of the coal fields and steelworks of the Donbass, or Don Basin, region of eastern Ukraine that were lost when the Soviet Union disintegrated at the end of 1991.

The Russian defense industrial sector also continues to be plagued by excessive drunkenness among workers, widespread corruption and innumerable production bottlenecks caused by failure to supply reliable components within previously agreed deadlines.

Even Russia's highly impressive blitzkrieg victory over the former Soviet republic of Georgia in the Caucasus last August added to the pressures on the defense industrial sector. The Russian army conquered one-third of the remote and inaccessible, mountainous and heavily forested territory of Georgia in only four days. It was a highly creditable performance. However, Russian losses, especially of aircraft, were considerably heavier than anticipated, and Russian military analysts have publicly acknowledged that communications equipment did not work well and was poorly integrated. According to RIA Novosti, the conflict "clearly showed that Russia's military equipment had become obsolete and the armed forces urgently needed modern weaponry."

As a result, the report said, Deputy Defense Minister Col. Gen. Vladimir Popovkin, chief of armaments for the Russian armed forces, has stated that the 2006-2015 10-year plan will be accelerated and compressed to be completed by 2011 and then the second 10-year plan now being announced will be launched.

However, completing the current plan in half the time appears to be a totally unrealistic goal when the whole purpose of the new plan was the recognition that the current one wasn't working anyway.

Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, told Nezavisimaya Gazeta that Russia was going to have to slash its current defense budget by 30 percent to 40 percent because of the current global economic crisis. Russia needs a global oil price of at least $90 a barrel to break even. But current global oil prices are well below $40 per barrel and have dropped as low as $34 per barrel this month already.

"Therefore, we can say with certainty that prospects of both the current and future arms procurement programs are quite vague," Pukhov told Nezavisimaya Gazeta.

"It is a rather risky proposition on the part of Russia amid the economic crisis," he said.

But the Kremlin is pushing ahead anyway. On Jan. 15, Putin announced that the Kremlin was still going to commit 4 trillion rubles ($125 billion) to new weapons purchases by 2011, including 1 trillion rubles ($31 billion) this year, RIA Novosti reported.

"The modernization of defense industry enterprises, as well as the development of modern weapons, should continue," Putin stated, according to the report.

Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin announced the same day that the Kremlin had already approved $10 billion to preserve what he described as "core enterprises" and defense-related sectors of industry, the report said.

The message of these decisions seems to be that neither the threat of Russian financial crisis nor the growing popular unrest because of government funding cuts for social programs is going to be allowed to get in the way of the ambitious rearmament program to keep Russia one of the world's leading military powers well into the 21st century.

[Igorr]

Russians, Ukrainians, Europeans etc share the same culture, habbits and get along well. The general russian wants to live in London or Paris. Europeans are cool with Russian imigrants, where they dislike the third world imigrants.
The "conflict" with Ukraine has been created by the elite and is partly a way to express their national pride. Sooner or later Russia will move towards EU.

Russia and Europe - are two different civilisation may be like China and Japan. Ukraine - is half Russian territory with strong religion ties to Russian church and Russian ortyjodox patriarch. It's only a question of time when it will be divided between EU an Russian lead block (Security Treaty). Russian migrants inLindon are like any other migrants (Indians, Pakis or Chinese), nothing say about civilisation diferences. BTW there are some EU migrants in Russia too, kinda both side 'diffusion'. Russia will never be in EU nor wants so, as soon repeatedly said Lavrov FM. The most whelthy Norvegia, Swiss are not members of EU, why should Russia whould? For being EU cheap nafta-gas donor?

[Igorr]

Russian UAVs, my pictures and not mine too:

[Kakkaji]

Aaj ki taaja khabar

Putin-Dell slapdown at Davos

The Russian prime minister tells the Dell CEO: 'We don't need help. We are not invalids.'
By Peter Gumbel, Europe editor
January 28, 2009: 2:34 PM ET

DAVOS, Switzerland (Fortune) -- Ever since Vladimir Putin rose to power in 2000, his political opponents and entire countries have learned to their cost that he has a tough, demeaning streak. Wednesday it was Michael Dell's turn.

At the official opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Putin, now Russian Prime Minister, delivered a 40-minute speech touching on everything from why the dollar should not be the sole reserve currency to how the world needed to enter into a smart energy partnership with Russia. Then it was time for questions. First up: Dell. He praised Russia's technical and scientific prowess, and then asked: "How can we help" you to expand IT in Russia.

Big mistake. Russia has been allergic to offers of aid from the West ever since hundreds of overpaid consultants arrived in Moscow after the collapse of Communism, in 1991, and proceeded to hand out an array of advice that proved, at times, useless or dangerous.

Putin's withering reply to Dell: "We don't need help. We are not invalids. We don't have limited mental capacity." The slapdown took many of the people in the audience by surprise. Putin then went on to outline some of the steps the Russian government has taken to wire up the country, including remote villages in Siberia. And, in a final dig at Dell, he talked about how Russian scientists were rightly respected not for their hardware, but for their software. The implication: Any old fool can build a PC outfit.

[shyamd]

X post:

Was at a talk given by the head of the political section in the Russian embassy today. Spoke to him about Indian troops in Afghanistan. He said there have been worries that it might turn into a proxy war between Pak and India, they don't want it to turn out that way. They also want eventual afghanisation of the entire process and counter terror ops.

He mentioned that licensing issues were a big concern for Indian govt, and the Russian govt will offer licenses for certain goods but will take a share in..(couldn't remember what exactly).

They support Obama's approach of talking with Iran, they said Iran is a power that should not be taking lightly, they cant bomb their nuclear sites because it will cause wider ramifications and will impact afghanistan and the wider middle east. Dialogue is the only way.

[Nitesh]

something is cooking

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?opt ... 9&Itemid=1

Gilani, Putin agreed to expand strategic dialogue

DAVOS (Switzerland), Jan 29 (APP): Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani Thursday met his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and discussed Pak‑Russia bilateral relations. The meeting here at the sidelines of the World Economic Forum focussed on further strengthening the bilateral relations.

Gilani was apprised by Prime Minister Putin about the role played by his government in defusing the tension between Pakistan and India in the wake of Mumbai attacks.

The Prime Minister appreciated the role played by Russia and informed him that Pakistan had extended its cooperation to India in investigation and would share the results with it.

The two leaders also agreed to further expand the Pak‑Russia strategic dialogue besides enhancing cooperation in areas of defence and economy.