India-Russia: News & Analysis

[NRao]

Rather predictable.

Friendship Between Putin and Xi Becomes Strained as Economies Falter

[tushar_m]

GDP figures of past & present

http://knoema.com/nwnfkne/world-gdp-ran ... and-charts


we are already above both russia & italy , France is next .

[Austin]

Finally big energy deal after Essar buy

Russia's Rosneft sells 15% in Vankorneft to India's ONGC

India's Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited will be presented with two seats on the board of directors of Vankorneft, while Rosneft will retain full control of infrastructure of the Vankor cluster

VLADIVOSTOK, September 4. /TASS/.Rosneft sold a 15% stake in Vankorneft to India's Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), TASS correspondent reports from the signing ceremony.

Under the terms of the agreement, after the deal is closed ONGC will be presented with two seats on the Board of Directors of Vankorneft, while Rosneft will retain full control of infrastructure of the Vankor cluster.

The agreements on considering the deal were reached on July 8, 2015, in Ufa during the meeting of the Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister.

As TASS reported earlier, Indian ONGC was in talks with Rosneft on buying a stake in Vankorneft (Rosneft subsidiary) for $900 mln.

ONGC was planning to buy a stake in Vankorneft through its subsidiary ONGC Videsh Ltd. According to the company, it would allow producing around 3.5 mln tonnes of oil per year.

[Austin]

Rosneft Makes Bold Move In India, Secures Asian Market Position

[Austin]

1965 War: Why India quit when it was winning

2 September 2015 Rakesh Krishnan Simha

On the 50th anniversary of India’s 22-day war with Pakistan, we examine Russia’s role in the peace agreement, Shastri’s mysterious death, and why India agreed to end the war when it was close to a decisive victory.



In May 1964, Indian Defence Minister Yashwantrao Chavan made a visit to the Pentagon, the HQ of the American defence department. Chavan, who was trying to rapidly modernise the Indian military, requested the Americans to sell India the F-104 Starfighter – the most advanced jet fighter of that era.

Although the US had supplied the F-104 and the F-86 Sabres in large numbers – virtually free of cost – to Pakistan, India’s request was rebuffed in an extremely crude manner.

In his brilliant little book, ‘1965 War: The Inside Story’, former Maharashtra chief secretary R.D. Pradhan narrates what US Defence Secretary Robert McNamara told Chavan: “Mr Minister, your air force is like a museum. I wonder whether you are aware of the variety of aircraft in your air force. You are still operating with Hunters, Spitfires, Vampires, Liberators, Harvards – exotic names of World War II vintage. All these aircraft are only worthy of finding a place in a museum.”
пустым не оставлять!!

1971 War: How Russia sank Nixon’s gunboat diplomacy

McNamara suggested that until India disbanded that fleet, it was no use acquiring any sophisticated aircraft.

What the American secretary said was offensive – and true. Although the US did not offer any help, what India did with its antiquated planes and vintage tanks remains the stuff of legend. Pradhan says, “With that background, it was an exhilarating moment when some of those junk planes, such as the Mysteres, Vampires and Hunters performed brilliantly against Pakistan’s sophisticated F-86s. In fact, the indigenously built Gnat, a small beaver-like fighter, brought down several F-86s.”

The 1965 War remains memorable for two things. One was a monumental miscalculation by Pakistan. President Ayub Khan, egged on by his scheming and feckless Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, sent a top-secret order to his army chief General Mohammed Musa: “As a general rule, Hindu morale would not stand for more than a couple of hard blows delivered at the right time and the right place. Such opportunities should therefore be sought and exploited.”

Secondly, India’s leadership – as it has done consistently over the past 2500 years – frittered away on the negotiating table what the soldiers won on the battlefield. Pradhan writes: “In a way, India’s leadership, out of its sense of restraint, fair play and endeavour to seek enduring peace and goodwill with the neighbour, seems to have missed opportunities to solve the problem.”

At the end of a bruising 22-day war, India held 1920 square kilometres of Pakistani territory while Pakistan only held 550 square kilometres of Indian land. The Haji Pir pass was also captured by Indian soldiers after an epic battle. And yet India surrendered everything at the Tashkent Declaration in January 1966.

Western ways

The US, which was embroiled in a bloody war of its own in Vietnam, acted mostly through the United Nations. However, the defining western aim was to see their satellite Pakistan get through the war without getting battered. This view is amply summed by Chavan, who wrote about British Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s ceasefire proposal at a time when India had the upper hand: “I insisted on military advantages being maintained. The UK proposals look like a trap.”

As three divisions of the Indian Army were slicing across Pakistani defences and thundering across the Ichhogil canal to Lahore, Wilson sent a message to Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Ayub Khan: “Both governments bear responsibility for the steady escalation which has subsequently occurred, and today’s attack in the Lahore area presents us with a completely new situation.”

Wilson’s message implied that India was as much to blame for the war on the subcontinent as Pakistan. “Shastri more or less brushed aside that message,” says Pradhan. “Bias on the part of Britain would rule out the UK from playing any effective role in events after the ceasefire.”

Russian role

Russia, which was following the events with deep interest, maintained its traditional stand that Kashmir was part of India. Pradhan writes Moscow accepted the disturbances in Kashmir had been created by infiltrators from Pakistan.

Russia also backed India at the United Nations. K. Vijaykrishnan writes in ‘The Soviet Union and the India-Pakistan War, 1965’, “Support was available for India on some important technical points and objections India had raised,” he says. Russia supported the Indian position that the Security Council should only deal with "questions directly connected with the settlement of the armed conflict” and not drag in the Kashmir issue.

Fending off China was a trickier affair. Russia did not want an open confrontation with Beijing, but Moscow decided it would not remain a passive spectator if India had to battle on two fronts. According to Vijaykrishnan, during the thick of the conflict, India received a reassuring message from Russian Premier Alexei Kosygin indicating support in the event of a Chinese attack.

Sisir Gupta writes in ‘India and the International System’ that India was aware Russia would never like to see India humbled or weakened. “A strong and friendly India occupying a pre-eminent position in South Asia was very much a Soviet foreign policy interest. Notwithstanding the fluctuations in the Soviet attitude and the zig-zag nature of the course it pursued, there was throughout a broad assumption underlying Soviet policies towards South Asia, that India was the key factor in the region and that any policy which created distrust and dissension between the two countries was to be avoided.”

China got the message and backed off despite Pakistani appeals for help. Chinese strongman Mao Tse-Tung was reported to have told Ayub Khan that "if there is a nuclear war, it is Peking and not Rawalpindi that will be the target", writes G.W. Chaudhury in ‘India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Major Powers: Politics of a Divided Subcontinent’.

Road to Tashkent

With the US disinterested in the conflict and the UK showing its true anti-India and pro-Pakistan colours, it was left to Russia to play honest broker.
Kudankulam
Read section: History

It was after some initial hesitation that both India and Pakistan accepted the Russian offer. Ayub Khan later said that Pakistan went to Tashkent as it did not want to risk a veto by Moscow.

There was another reason for Pakistan’s eagerness for talks. According to Pradhan, “The continued presence of Indian troops on the east side of the Ichhogil canal, facing Lahore city, was hurting Pakistan’s pride.” The heat was clearly on Islamabad.

Before leaving for Tashkent, Shastri – who was hero-worshiped by Indian soldiers – had promised his victorious troops that he would not return the land captured from the enemy after so many sacrifices. But after six days of talks, Shastri proved once again that Indians are bad negotiators. He gave away everything.

Was Shastri feeling the pressure from the international community? Most likely not, but perhaps he felt – like his successor Indira Gandhi after the 1971 war – that showing leniency towards Pakistan would buy its goodwill.

Mystery of Shastri’s death

If you were Shastri, you would dread having to face the Indian soldier back home. Hundreds of them had died while capturing the strategic Haji Pir pass, which if India had kept, would have forever nullified Pakistan’s advantage in Kashmir.

On the night of January 10, 1966, the diminutive Prime Minister but a giant among men died of a heart attack. It was his fourth cardiac seizure and was likely triggered by his anxiety at having to face an irate public and having to look into the eyes of his jawans – soldiers – whose hopes he had dashed.

There have been all sorts of conspiracy theories but the reality is that none of the major countries benefitted from his death. Russia had scored a spectacular diplomatic coup, America fully supported the Tashkent Agreement, and Pakistan was happy to get its land back.

That the Indian Prime Minister died of a heart attack comes from a most unlikely source. Shortly after Mikhail Gorbachev’s liberalisation policies in 1991, Soviet Land magazine in India published an account by an ex-KGB officer.

According to the former intelligence agent, the KGB was spying on both the Indian and Pakistani delegations in order to find out how much each country was willing to yield during the negotiations. When Shastri started getting a seizure, the KGB was listening but decided not to alert his aides because that would give away their game and lead to a diplomatic showdown with India.

Prelude to Tashkent

Having dissected what transpired at the negotiating table, we need to discuss the prelude to Tashkent.

Although Pakistan was on the verge of being trounced – unlike in 1971 and 1999 when it really got hammered – India generously agreed to a ceasefire after repeated pleas from the major powers.

Why did India stop fighting when it had Pakistan reeling? Why did Chavan and Shastri, who swatted away western pressure and gave a free hand to the Indian military, cave in?

The problem was army chief Jayanto Nath Chaudhuri. The Kolkata-born general came from an affluent background and had become army chief purely on the back of family connections and pure luck. He was elevated following the resignation of another Sandhurst-educated general, Pran Nath Thapar, the army chief of the 1962 War.

Chaudhuri’s mentors were the Sandhurst educated British generals – who had utterly failed before the Germans and Japanese during World War II – and predictably he also lacked war fighting qualities. “He was so good on paper that Chavan often wondered how good he would be in warfare,” writes Pradhan.

Chavan mentions in his war diary that Chaudhuri would frequently lapse into depression. Each time the Indian army suffered a setback, the general would walk into the Defence Minister’s room, and Chavan had to give him a pep talk. Chaudhuri so completely lacked courage that Chavan often forced him to visit the front and personally take stock.
пустым не оставлять!!

Lal Bahadur Shastri’s death in Tashkent still raises questions

Pradhan writes, “On September 20 when the Prime Minister asked Chaudhuri whether India could expect to gain if the war continued for a few days more, he informed the PM that the army was coming to an end of its ammunition holdings and could not sustain fighting for much longer. Chaudhuri advised acceptance of the ceasefire proposal. It was later discovered in overall terms only 14-20 per cent of the Indian Army’s ammunition stock had been used up. At the moment of our greatest advantage the army chief’s non-comprehension of the intricacies of the long-range logistics deprived India of a decisive victory.”

In contrast, Pakistan had expended 80 per cent of its ammo. It had also lost 250 of its latest US-supplied tanks.

Chaudhuri was also criticised for his lack of daring. When the Pakistani cities of Sialkot and Lahore could have been easily taken after the dash and bravery shown by Indian troops, Chaudhuri told Shastri: “We must move with the caution and wisdom of an elephant. We will take them in God’s good time.”

In fact, when the Pakistan Army attacked in the Khem Kharan sector in Punjab, Chaudhuri ordered the Army Commander Harbaksh Singh to withdraw to a safer position. The commander refused, and what followed was the Battle of Assal Uttar – the greatest tank battle since Kursk in 1943. The Indian counter attack on the night of September 10 was so ferocious that by the morning they had knocked out 70 Pakistani tanks.

But what the Battle of Assal Uttar will be memorable for are the 25 enemy tanks found abandoned with their engines running and wireless sets on. It was the perfect metaphor for the plight of the Pakistan Army.

Had India kept its head, today we’d have a lot more to celebrate.

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_ ... ing_394095

Very interesting , Thanks for posting

[Austin]

Russian television broadcasting is preparing to enter the Indian market. Digital Television (DTV) Company recently signed a memorandum of cooperation in the field of broadcasting with the Indian state broadcasting corporation Prasar Bharati.

In an interview with RIR, Dmitry Mednikov, chairman of DTV and deputy general director of VGTRK, talked about his company’s plans, and the first projects that they will be working on with the Indians.

Cartoons: Next frontier of Russia-India cooperation

[Austin]

ONGC Pays Just Over Rs 8,250 Crore for Vankor Stake: Report

http://profit.ndtv.com/news/market/arti ... ome-latest

New Delhi: Oil and Natural Gas Corp (ONGC) has paid just over $1.25 billion or Rs 8,250 crore for a 15 per cent stake in Russian oil major Rosneft's Vankor oil field, a source with direct knowledge of the deal said on Friday.

ONGC expects to get more than 3 million tonnes of oil a year (between 66,000 and 70,000 barrels per day) from its holding in the huge Siberian oil field, the source told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Rosneft earlier announced the deal to sell the interest in Vankor, a key source of supply to markets in the Asia-Pacific. Chief executive Igor Sechin said that talks with China's CNPC on a Vankor stake were continuing.

[Austin]

Essar Company Hopes Russia Will Become India's Prime Oil, Gas Supplier

http://www.sputniknews.com/business/201 ... 80056.html

Russia was once the greatest supplier of oil and gas in India and we hope to work forward jointly with [Russian energy giant] Rosneft to restore that position again," he said at the Eastern Economic Forum.

According to Ruia, Rosneft has "unparalleled energy asset portfolio."

[Mort Walker]

ONGC Pays Just Over Rs 8,250 Crore for Vankor Stake: Report

http://profit.ndtv.com/news/market/arti ... ome-latest

New Delhi: Oil and Natural Gas Corp (ONGC) has paid just over $1.25 billion or Rs 8,250 crore for a 15 per cent stake in Russian oil major Rosneft's Vankor oil field, a source with direct knowledge of the deal said on Friday.

ONGC expects to get more than 3 million tonnes of oil a year (between 66,000 and 70,000 barrels per day) from its holding in the huge Siberian oil field, the source told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Rosneft earlier announced the deal to sell the interest in Vankor, a key source of supply to markets in the Asia-Pacific. Chief executive Igor Sechin said that talks with China's CNPC on a Vankor stake were continuing.

ONGC is a state owned company. Hopefully ONGC can get that 3 million tonnes/year of oil out. I am leery and it could turn out that getting that oil is not cost effective and ONGC is out of the $1.25 billion.

[Austin]

ONGC is a state owned company. Hopefully ONGC can get that 3 million tonnes/year of oil out. I am leery and it could turn out that getting that oil is not cost effective and ONGC is out of the $1.25 billion.

Vankor Field http://www.rosneft.com/Upstream/Product ... ankorneft/


3 million tonnes/year is very small compared to Russia's total output of 525 million tons per year and the current discovered reserves allows them to maintain similar output for 30-40 years

http://tass.ru/en/economy/801207

[Bhurishrava]

Deleted

[Austin]

Let's keep this thread for indo Russian news only Thanks

[arshyam]

^^ Where's Phillip sir of late. I am surprised he didn't see/post this article?

Looks like Ajai Shukla has had a change of heart w.r.t. Amriki and Roosi gear.

Russia still has a role - Ajai Shukla blog

During my visit to Russia last week (due disclosure: at the invitation of Rostec, the umbrella agency that oversees Russia’s high-technology industry), I was struck by the changes from the days of the Soviet Union, as also by important similarities. The drab, socialist Moscow of yore has been replaced by a glittering city, peopled by purposeful men in sharp suits and chic women in impossibly high heels. The double-headed eagle of Tsarist Russia (itself drawn from the Byzantine Empire) is clawing itself back into prominence, replacing the hammer and sickle at prominent places, most notably the Kremlin. Even so, Russia is discernibly stressed by rock-bottom global oil prices, compounded by western sanctions imposed after the intervention in Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimea. Nowhere is the strain more evident than in the defence industry. Moscow can no longer afford an ambitious $650 billion defence modernisation plan, particularly since --- unlike western defence industries that remain commercially viable by producing both weaponry and civilian products --- Russia’s defence industry serves only military buyers. Boeing and Airbus derive 80 per cent of their revenue from commercially successful civil airliners; in contrast, Sukhoi is struggling to sell its Superjet 100 outside Russia.

What does this mean for New Delhi, and what options does this create for India? In the decade after 1989, as Russia’s military spending plummeted to one-thirtieth the 1989 figure, three-quarters of the Soviet Union’s famed military design bureaus went kaput, putting a million Russian scientists on the streets. With Russian soldiers begging in uniform on Moscow’s streets, the bankrupt state cancelled 1,149 individual R&D projects. Beijing swooped in, hiring hundreds of scientists who catalyzed the birth of China’s now formidable defence industry. New Delhi, in contrast, provided Moscow life support, ordering a generation of weaponry including Sukhoi-30MKI and MiG-29K fighters, T-90 tanks, Talwar-class frigates and other procurements too numerous to recount.

India learnt hard lessons from those purchases, many involving transfer of technology (ToT) to build Russian weaponry in India. Technology sometimes remained undelivered (e.g. the T-90 tank), and India could not enforce flawed contracts drawn up by ill-qualified lawyers and bureaucrats. Spare parts, suddenly manufactured not in the Soviet Union but in successor countries, became New Delhi’s problem. India had bought equipment without providing for maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) and mid-life upgrades (MLU), even though, over the multi-decade service lifespan of a military platform, MRO and MLU tots up to four-eight times the acquisition cost. Consequently, we are still sending Kilo-class submarines to Russia for overhaul.

So should New Delhi turn away from a Russia in economic distress, or do there remain opportunities for us? Unlike in the 1990s, India has many more alternatives: the United States is today eager to bolster India as an emerging counter-balance to China. US Ambassador Richard Verma, at a recent speech in Delhi endorsed India as a “leading power” instead of a “balancing power”. Moscow’s arms prices, once well below western norms, have risen significantly, making Russian weaponry only slightly cheaper than European and American arms. This advantage, many say is negated by lower Russian serviceability rates.

Even so, the answer can only be “Stay tuned to Moscow!” Although details remain outside the public eye, Russia assists India with technologies that the western bloc is unwilling to. One example is nuclear powered submarines. From 1988 to 1991, the Soviet Union leased India the nuclear powered attack submarine, INS Chakra, and helped create the building blocks, including design assistance, that has evolved into a successful Indian nuclear submarine, INS Arihant. Since 2012, a second Russian nuclear attack submarine (SSN) has been with the Indian Navy on a ten-year lease. India hopes to develop a line of SSNs and Russian assistance could be crucial. Well-informed US scholar, Ashley Tellis, says Washington would not even consider sharing SSN technology with anyone.

In fact, the United States, the global emperor of defence technology, has opened the technology door to India only a crack. Over the last five years, over-the-counter sales to India of $10 billion worth of US defence equipment makes for happy reading in Washington. Far less impressive, though, has been progress in the Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI) that seeks to transform the “buyer-seller relationship” into a more equal one based on co-development and co-production of military platforms. A “joint working group” on aircraft carrier technology and on co-developing jet engines has reported no progress. Like French company, Snecma, earlier, US engine-makers are reluctant to share the costly technologies for materials that go into jet engines’ “combustion chamber”, which must withstand temperatures of up to 2,100 degrees. In contrast, Moscow has recently offered to co-develop with India a highly advanced engine for the “fifth generation fighter aircraft”. Russian co-development would not only provide the Defence R&D Organisation a much-needed breakthrough, but allow New Delhi to signal that it has multiple options. Cultivating Moscow has not just intrinsic benefits; it also induces Paris and Washington not to drag their feet.

Another reason to service the Moscow connection is to prevent a catastrophic Russian turn towards Beijing and Islamabad. Russia’s experience with China in the 1990s, when Beijing apparently modified the Sukhoi-27 fighter into the “indigenous” J-11B, makes Moscow extremely wary of arms sales to China. But lured by China’s massive market size and with few other options, Russia may well yield to China. It would be useful to let Moscow know New Delhi remains a buyer.

Servicing the Moscow connection would allow New Delhi to develop a structured multilateralism for defence acquisition. Such a defence procurement policy flows naturally from a multi-aligned foreign policy, in which each of India’s external relationships is leveraged by the combined weight of all the others.

The mistakes of the 1990s and early 2000s must be guarded against. India’s aim for every acquisition must be clear and spelt out unmistakeably: first, obtaining the crucial technologies for life-cycle support, including MRO, so that India’s military is assured of service support and industry can benefit from follow-on service contracts that are worth four-eight times the purchase price. Second, a contract cannot be awarded just on the basis of L-1 (lowest price); instead, a key determinant must be the technology the vendor is willing to transfer. Such an approach to acquisition would require political courage in the ministry and the expertise to evaluate technology in various forms.

Over the years, global arms vendors, together with New Delhi, have developed a bizarre ritual in which they ceremonially stone the “buyer-seller relationship” devil, and then walk back to the table and sign some more purchase contracts. Changing this would require a new mind set within government, and as many players as possible on the board, including Moscow.

[Austin]

He is on a all paid trip to Russia courtesy Rostec this time and previously he was on similar all paid trip by LM/Boeing .........change of heart occurs when you see the good side of the other

[Austin]

An interesting news along with video in the link on how US Intelligence agent change their attire and how the CCTV catches it , the videp catches couple of agents changing their atire ala Fogle , seems SOP

TV Releases Video of CIA Agents Staging a 'Cross-Dressing' Show in Moscow

[Mort Walker]

^^^Apparently these guys forgot cold war history of the last 60 or so years. Don't do sh!t like that when in Russia as you're likely to get busted.

Anyway, that really isn't a topic for Indo-Russia News & Analysis. However amusing it may be though.

[svinayak]

He is on a all paid trip to Russia courtesy Rostec this time and previously he was on similar all paid trip by LM/Boeing .........change of heart occurs when you see the good side of the other

Rostec is going to change the scene very much for the India Russia relations.

[NRao]

Do not see any issues with Indo-Russia relations, assuming they are not defined in terms of def items.

However, there is certainly something wrong somewhere. Not been able to explain the MTA and FGFA status. And the recent events of reduced numbers and direct purchase of PAK-FA is even more mind boggling. Then, what to say about the offer to jointly develop a next gen engine and India not even making a move.

Said this before, my feel is that Russia is able to deliver, but not what India needs. My suspicion is that Russian techs are not up to par with the Western counterparts, that is what India *needs* and Russia cannot provide that. To provide what India needs Russia needs funds and I suspect India sees that as a risk and in unwilling to step up to the plate.

Meanwhile the news about 200 odd projects in the in progress are recycled.

I think AS's article seems to confirm that.

[svinayak]

However, there is certainly something wrong somewhere. Not been able to explain the MTA and FGFA status. And the recent events of reduced numbers and direct purchase of PAK-FA is even more mind boggling. Then, what to say about the offer to jointly develop a next gen engine and India not even making a move.

India is under the coordination between major powers US, Russia, Europe/UK/France. They coordinate when to give tech to India based on China factor and other factor. India has slightly moved up in the ladder in the last 10 years.

Only Indians can make such a statement.

Such a defence procurement policy flows naturally from a multi-aligned foreign policy, in which each of India’s external relationships is leveraged by the combined weight of all the others.

[Vivek K]

That is because the Indian state is weak and scared of creating offensive situations. India's almost Gandhian handling of Pakistan is a case in point. Pakistan has broken every promise to the international community yet we have not been able to break it's back except in 1971.

Indira Gandhi remains the only real leader India ever had.

[svinayak]

[NRao]

India is under the coordination between major powers US, Russia, Europe/UK/France

Wake up.

India is a power.

Maybe that is the problem. Do not know how to behave as a power?

Yeah, China knows how to behave as a power.

[Austin]

Indian company to boost Rosneft revenues

[Austin]

Russian and Indian Police agree to fight terrorism together

The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs, General Colonel of Police Vladimir Kolokoltsev has held talks in New Delhi with the Minister of the Home Office Rajnath Singh. They discussed the potential for cooperation between the two agencies in countering terrorism and cybercrime.

“Remembering the close and friendly relations with Russia, the Indian minister of Home Affairs observed that our good relations have been reinforced and strengthened, and India continues to view Russia as a privileged strategic partner”, stated a press release from the Indian ministry.

Participants at the meeting agreed that terrorism continues to present a serious danger to the international community. In particular, the growing threat of the Islamic State terrorist organization was also noted, which is expanding its operations into cyberspace and is actively disseminating its ideas. For closer cooperation in the war against terror the Russian and Indian ministers agreed to establish an expert group whose main task will be to exchange information in the field of special training preparation for military personal and also exchanges among specialists.

It was announced, in addition to the war against terror, the bilateral discussions also touched on a wide range of issues including countering extremism, crimes involved advanced technology and information technology, cyber security, and also narcotic related crimes.

The parties agreed to stimulate tourism between the countries by simplifying visa requirements.

[Prem]

US Air Force: Russia Has Closed Air Power Gap With NATO\
http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/us-air-f ... with-nato/

NATO’s air superiority vis-à-vis Russia is waning, Air Force (USAF) General Frank Gorenc, the commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Africa told an audience at this year’s Air and Space Conference held near Washington DC, according to military.com.“The advantage that we had from the air, I can honestly say, is shrinking not only with respect to the aircraft that they’re producing, but the more alarming thing is their ability to create anti-access/area-denial [A2/AD] that are very well defended,” Gorenc said.According to the general, Russia accelerated the development of A2/AD capabilities during the 2008 war with Georgia and has heavily invested in fielding modern long-range surface-to-air missile systems (.e.g., the S-400) and other land-based A2/AD weapon systems based on their experience during the war. “They learned a lot along the way, and they made moves to close the asymmetric advantage posed by the quality of our air force; they’ve done it,” he emphasized.It’s one thing to address a aircraft threat that has increased significantly — which by the way it has — but clearly, surface to air missile systems are much cheaper, they’re much more available and that is a concern,” he added.Indeed, A2/AD capabilities are fundamentally undermining the essence of the American way of war (See: “The End of the American Way of War?”). ”The American way of war requires a robust air reconnaissance … because we believe with air superiority, everything is possible and without it, nothing is possible. We just need to continue to work really hard to make sure that we can provide that to make the aspiration of our joint partners,” according to Gorenc.“We’re going to have to extend the training that we do to allow for access into areas that are very well defended. We’re going to have to develop TTPs [tactics, techniques, and procedures] and continue to develop requirements that allow us to address that modern long-range SAM array,” according to Gorenc

[dsreedhar]

It would be great if India could broker peace between Russia and the US/West. The cold war is over but the perception and distrust towards Russia still lingers. We cannot lose Russia from our side especially it getting aligned to Pakistan and China which will be very disadvantageous to India. Russia is geographically closer to India than US and also Russia can be a front for us against China if ever need be as China continues its aggressive stance towards India.

[Vipul]

Dont expect this charade of India -Russia special relationship lasting much.

UNSC reform: Ditched by US and betrayed by Russia, but India still tore down Chinese wall.

There was diplomatic blood on the floor in the tension-filled days before the UNGA decision on Monday to begin text-based negotiations to reform the UN Security Council. Once again, China and Russia led the move to sabotage the process.

A few days before the UNGA session, Chinese and Russian diplomats(Bloody Ruskies) , in a stealth operation, attempted to insert a couple of paragraphs into the text. If they had succeeded, it would have diluted the entire negotiations on unnecessary technicalities which would have meant the UN would be negotiating UNSC reform for years and years without a decision in sight.

Led by India, a number of countries joined the battle against the Chinese move, even launching a protest at UNGA president, Sam Kutesa's residence over the weekend. Kutesa agreed to remove the offending paragraphs.

China wasn't giving up without a bigger fight. They reached out to a number of national capitals to get the text amended before it reached the floor on Monday. Some countries agreed, but ultimately China failed to get the numbers that India had. In all of this diplomatic warfare, the US stayed strangely silent - either to see whether India could win on its own, or because they are keeping their powder dry to kill the process later, or because they silently supported the Sino-Russian move.

India was not surprised by the Chinese action. And in those last frenzied moments in the UN, it became clear this would be an India-China battle.

But to see Russia on China's side, after supposedly supporting India's case for almost half a century, was a tough one. This week, Russia sent its deputy foreign minister, Gennady Gatilov to meet Sujata Mehta in the MEA, after their performance in the UN. A statement from the Russian embassy said, the two "exchanged opinions on the main aspects of intergovernmental negotiation process considering the current various options for the increase in the United Nations Security Council membership. The Russian Side reaffirmed the readiness to support the Indian candidature for the United Nations Security Council. (Back stabbing B*stards) " But India has taken the Russian betrayal hard.

Bloodied but unbowed, China and Russia, say sources, now plan to take the battle one step further. They have been working on the Jamaican government to remove Courtney Rattray, the prime brain behind the UNSC reform text, so he cannot head the negotiations on the text and it can be given to someone unfamiliar with the history of the text. That would deal a blow to India.

The UNGA decision to negotiate UNSC reform succeeded on two counts. First, after 23 years there is a text on which the UN can negotiate a reform agenda. Second, in a fair fight, the 13-country group led by China and including Pakistan and Italy called United for Consensus could not drum up enough support for stalling the process.

[Philip]

If we are perceived as being nothing better than Western lackeys,a la Nehru,then both Russia and China will little want India to sit at the UNSC. First India has to demonstrate its unique individual foreign policy and identity and gather many smaller nations with it to form a large group.Only then we will be takens eriously.We had this leverage when we were the acknowledged leaders of the NAM,but simply allowed it to go to sleep and we lost a lot of goodwill after the Cold War.We are mow desperately trying to recover lost ground.Our myopic MEA is mainly responsible for the fiasco.

[Viv S]

If we are perceived as being nothing better than Western lackeys,a la Nehru,then both Russia and China will little want India to sit at the UNSC. First India has to demonstrate its unique individual foreign policy and identity and gather many smaller nations with it to form a large group.Only then we will be takens eriously.We had this leverage when we were the acknowledged leaders of the NAM,but simply allowed it to go to sleep and we lost a lot of goodwill after the Cold War.We are mow desperately trying to recover lost ground.Our myopic MEA is mainly responsible for the fiasco.

So Russia's actions on the issue are India's fault?


Remind me again, how exactly did India hurt Russia's foreign interests? Did we condemn its annexation of Crimea? Did we support Ukraine over Russia in the ongoing civil war? Did we join the western economic sanctions against Russia? Did we even take a contrarian position on Syria? Did we (ever) vote against Russia in the UNSC? Did we not support the Soviet seat in the UNSC passing on to Russia?

[NRao]

If we are perceived as being nothing better than Western lackeys,a la Nehru,then both Russia and China will little want India to sit at the UNSC. First India has to demonstrate its unique individual foreign policy and identity and gather many smaller nations with it to form a large group.Only then we will be takens eriously.We had this leverage when we were the acknowledged leaders of the NAM,but simply allowed it to go to sleep and we lost a lot of goodwill after the Cold War.We are mow desperately trying to recover lost ground.Our myopic MEA is mainly responsible for the fiasco.

DONE.

India just beat China and Russia, combined!!!!!

but ultimately China {and Russia - working stealth} failed to get the numbers that India had

[Philip]

Russia's actions,

But as I said earlier,unless we act and behave as a great power should,we will be ignored. Part of the problem afflicting the perception of India was the disastrous decade-long rule of the UPA/Cong regime of Snake-Oil Singh and his Italian lady-boss Sonia-G,where we displayed utter servilitude towards the US/West.We always looked first to Washington before undertaking any foreign policy initiative.Remember the disastrous Sharam-Al-Sheikh summit ?

Had Mrs.G ,the victor of the Bangladesh War been in power today,the UNSC seat would've been openly supported by all P-5 members,such was her and India's stature and clout,undisputed leader of NAM. Thankfully the stature of India is fast improving globally under the Modi regime,where our dynamic PM has v.correctly focused first on improving and expanding India's image abroad by his personal visits around the globe to all nations,big and small,gently reminding them about India ,the world's largest democracy.Also the nation with a history and civilisation spanning 10+ millennia at least, home to several of the world's most important religions which have spread across the globe peacefully, unlike Islam or Christianity for most of their conquests!

http://in.rbth.com/world/2015/09/16/rus ... 7253[quote]
Russia to back India for UNSC

16 September 2015 Nilova Roy Chaudhury, RIR

Russia will support India’s candidature for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council, if the world body agrees to expand the UNSC in both categories; of permanent and non-permanent members. India called the UN General Assembly’s move to adopt a text for UNSC reform a small but significant step forward.

Related
•Russia backs UN Security Council reform if supported by 2/3 of members
•Putin plans to take part in UN General Assembly session — Lavrov
The draft resolution was submitted to the UN Security Council by Australia. It includes parts of an appropriate document drafted by Russia. Source: Reuters
Optimistic Indian analysts said India could become a permanent UNSC member in two years. Source: Reuters

Russia was quick to allay Indian concerns about its support for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council, saying it would back India’s candidature on the Council. On a visit to New Delhi, Gennady Gatilov, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, told Sujata Mehta, Secretary in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), that Russia would back India for a permanent seat at the UNSC, once the world body decides to expand membership to the Council, in both permanent and non-permanent categories.

UN General Assembly President Sam Kutesa convened a plenary meeting in New York last week to take action on the draft decision on the “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters”. During the meeting, he also circulated letters containing the positions of key countries, including Russia, the US and China, which refused to contribute to the negotiating text. There was no voting on the decision to continue text- based UNSC reforms in the 70th session of the General Assembly and it was adopted by consensus.

Earlier this week, in a significant decision for UN reform, the UN General Assembly decided to carry forward the text presented by the President of the General Assembly on the issue of Security Council reform. The Indian government welcomed the move saying, “This is a significant development as after more than two decades of discussions, we can now commence text-based negotiations. Adoption of this text by consensus by all UN Member States is reflective of the broad support of the international community to move forward on this issue,” Vikas Swarup, MEA spokesperson said.

Gatilov and Mehta discussed mutual priorities for the UNGA 70th session and stated proximity of approaches of the two countries on many of the issues being discussed within the framework of the UN bodies. In the context of analysing regional crises in the Middle East and the North Africa, special emphasis was given to the task to widely consolidate and coordinate international counter-terrorism efforts on a firm international legal basis under the UN aegis. They discussed common views on the significance of implementation of the Post-2015 Development Agenda and formulation of main parameters to hold the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016.Gatilov clarified Russia’s position on the UN text, stating Moscow’s position was not in any way aimed against India, when he held consultations with Mehta. They discussed a wide range of issues on the agenda of the 70th anniversary session of the United Nations General Assembly, due to begin next week. The officials discussed UNSC reform and exchanged opinions on main aspects of the inter-governmental negotiation process considering the current various options for the increase in the United Nations Security Council membership.

Kutesa and Courtenay Rattray, Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) process, decided to carry forward IGN towards a text-based negotiation process. The draft decision contains a negotiating text which has positions of UN member states on Security Council reforms and how the powerful 15-nation body should be expanded in its permanent and non-permanent categories.

Calling the decision “historic and path-breaking,” Asoke Mukherji, India’s Ambassador to the UN, said, “This decision sets the IGN process formally on an irreversible text-based negotiations path. This is the first time in the history of the Inter-Governmental Negotiation (IGN) process that a decision on UNSC reform has been adopted through an official formal L Document of the UNGA. This is a most positive and unique development, as so far, over the last 7 years we have only been making statements in the air, or at each other.”

“It is our hope that with the adoption of this Decision, we will now move purposefully towards concluding our negotiations during the 70th Session, so that we fulfil the unanimous mandate given by our leaders in the World Summit of 2005 for “early reform” of the Security Council to make it, and I quote “more broadly representative, efficient and transparent and thus to further enhance its effectiveness and the legitimacy and implementation of its decisions,” Mukherji said.

Optimistic Indian analysts said India could become a permanent UNSC member in two years.

Mehta, however, was cautious in her appraisal, saying it was “a small but definite move forward. It allows a process to begin.”

“The need for a supportive international peace and security environment is urgent, as our leaders meet in this Hall a few days from now to adopt Agenda 2030. If the Security Council continues to be ineffective, the lives of millions of people and the uninterrupted flow of trade, investment and technology, all of which depend on a stable and predictable global political environment will be jeopardized,” Mukherji said.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in New York next week, when both visit New York for the 70th session of the UNGA. Both leaders will almost be neighbours, as both are scheduled to stay at the famous Waldorf-Astoria hotel, now owned by a Chinese conglomerate.
[/quote]

[NRao]

This development is really good. It proves that India can lead - something I too was not convinced of until now. Perhaps it is this PM, the previous one I have to assume would have gone back to sleep.

[Viv S]

Russia's actions,
http://in.rbth.com/world/2015/09/16/rus ... 7253[quote]
Russia to back India for UNSC

[/quote]

Everyone's backing permanent membership for India (with the likely exception of Pakistan).

This is about opposing the expansion of veto power to new members.

_____________________________________________________________________

“The prerogatives of the current Permanent Members of the Security Council, including the use of veto, should remain intact under any variant of the council reform.”

“At this point I do not see that historic compromise any way near.”

- Vitaly Churkin, Russian Ambassador to the UN

_____________________________________________________________________

Besides, if all is so hunky dory, what was your whole whine about India being a 'Western lackey' based on?

[Viv S]

Pakistani official confirms Su-35 talks

Farhan Bokhari, Islamabad - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

18 September 2015



The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has discussed buying Su-35 'Flanker-E' fighter aircraft from Russia in potentially the largest defence deal between the two countries, but a final decision is yet to be made, a senior Pakistani government official has confirmed to IHS Jane's .

The official was responding to Russian media reports that Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov had said talks were underway for an unspecified number of Su-35s, which follow a recent agreement to provide Mi-35M 'Hind E' attack helicopters to Islamabad.

While the official said "it's too early to say if a deal will conclude and the terms", the fact that discussions have taken place shows Russia's willingness to sell advanced hardware with Pakistan despite Moscow's longstanding ties with India.

The official said Pakistan's interest in the Su-35 was driven by the PAF's need for a twin-engine fighter "that can fly for a longer range than the JF-17 and penetrate more deeply into the enemy's territory". The PAF flies a mixed fleet of Lockheed Martin F-16s, Dassault Mirage-5s, Chinese-manufactured F-7s, and the JF-17 Thunder, which is jointly produced by China and Pakistan.

In November 2014 a senior Pakistani official told IHS Jane's that Pakistan was in discussions with China to buy 30 to 40 FC-31s - the export version of China's J-31 fifth-generation platform. At the time, the official told IHS Jane's that Pakistan was interested in the platform partly because it was fitted with two RD-93 Russian Klimov engines, which also powers the JF-17. PAF officials have also told IHS Jane's in the past that they have considered the purchase of up to 40 Chengdu J-10 fighters.

[Vipul]

If we are perceived as being nothing better than Western lackeys,a la Nehru,then both Russia and China will little want India to sit at the UNSC. First India has to demonstrate its unique individual foreign policy and identity and gather many smaller nations with it to form a large group.Only then we will be takens eriously.We had this leverage when we were the acknowledged leaders of the NAM,but simply allowed it to go to sleep and we lost a lot of goodwill after the Cold War.We are mow desperately trying to recover lost ground.Our myopic MEA is mainly responsible for the fiasco.

What a load of BS. India was supported because it was leading the NAM group. Really??
With China inimical to Russian interests and fighting a war with them (1969) and Pakistan firmly in the US group initially (CENTO/SEAT) and later (literally fighting it in Afghanistan) Russia did not have much choice then to bugger upto India.

Russians need money now and hence is more then ready to sell its soul to whoever can offer it. (Russia supporting Assad is the latest example). India would be better off with out Russia considering it is more or less a totalitarian regime and has good relations only with Military/Security/Communist states. If at all it is Russia which gets credibility by associating itself with a big democratic and increasingly influential India.

[Vipul]

^^^ SU-35 deal with Pakistan. I bet if pakistan buys the aircraft China will be financing it. Russia is not selling the planes to china as it is insisting on a order of minimum number (50 Plus) at high rate and china wants to buy only 16-24 of them to get hold of the engines to copy.

So if pakistan buys then it is safe to assume it will be with Chinese funds for engines to be stripped off to china for xeroxing.

[Karan M]

And pigs will fly..
Pakistan will claim it has been in negotiation for the F-22 as well.
Beggars can't even afford the J-10 and suddenly they'll buy the Su-35.

[ramana]

KaranM, Between 1965 and 1970 FSU courted TSP thinking of weaning it from US. Found hard way won't happen. Same way Russia is trying to find some space for itself.
So don't rule out anything.

[Cain Marko]

They have been talking of China buying 35s for a long time, and even that has not materialized yet, this tsp business is v.unlikely

[Austin]

Su-35s for Pak: Pie in the sky

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_ ... sky_425933