India-Russia: News & Analysis

[Sanku]

It is here that GoI has been remiss (despite BRIC work) , struck as they are with their new found love.

This is a common, and unhelpful, perspective, although not surprising.

This is true, irrespective of whether it is found unhelpful by some. It is common because common Indians have this shared understanding because they have seen it first hand.

GoI has been neglecting Indian intrests in general and this is just another facet.

Part of being strategically autonomous obviously means we are going to have significant relationships with countries that, face it, matter quite a bit more in the grand scheme of things.

Matter more in the grand scheme of things? Typical narrow minded hubris of US. If there are Indians who subscribe to this phiolsphy they will neglect the critical relationships for the chimera of grandness.

Reminds me of a man forsaking his wife because the neighborhood hottie appears to matter more.

No, Geo-political relationships are based on Cultivation and assiduous nurturing of powers (small medium and large) which have closer geo-political intrests, not swollen heads full of their own misplaced sense of self importance.
te]

At this time the balance has decidedly shifted and Russia needs us as much or more than we need them, and we can't be stuck in the Cold War junior-sidekick mentality who has to please his big brother.

India Russia relationship was one of equals even during cold war, the problem with people approaching things from the US mindset is that they try and fit US-* relationship to others too.

No one here advocates being Unkil's chamcha- but when it comes to Russia there is still that nostalgic holdover- which is fairly obvious from the hard selling people are doing on its behalf.

There is no nostalgic hang-over, the reality is that US is piddly poor in terms of Indian intrests outside narrow trade areas. Again a reality that most people looking from US perspective miss.

Time to let it go- it needs to be about interests, not "the warm Russian bear"

It is and has always been about our intrests, mutual and shared.

In truth I don't think the Russians behavior has anything to do with this specious line of reasoning, they aren't that immature.

That is true, there we agree

Although who knows, since right here someone is reporting that Indian complaints about the shoddy service are what led to this.

This is a local tactical fallout between IN and Rus Navy, this will have to be addressed by both ends.

[negi]

UBanerjee I know how China got it's nukes but then I thought that making logical inferences from data points was not that difficult thing to do. Anyways to clarify TSP was provided with nukes by the same powers who got the farce NPT and NSG in place in the name of preventing proliferation. China was lucky enough to catch the cold war bus it capitalized by double crossing both SU and Unkil during the cold war . India ended up in a Trisankoo state sue to someone smoking stuff like NAM.

[Sanku]

These sob stories of "poor Russians" are rather compelling, yet somehow we keep neglecting our own native industries in favor of buying outdated tech like the T-90, which then get lobbied hard by vocal minorities here, so the Russkies obviously have the game figured out to a pretty good degree.

And of course this stuff all gets single-vendored to us without fancy MMRCA competitions.

Well so did C 130 and rest of that stuff, dont see you complaining about that, even though T 90 purchase was in 2000 BEFORE the multi-vendor rules were formed and while Clinton miya was breathing down our neck to go easy on Pak. Bringing in neglect of domestic industry, though true and my pet peeve, is something that benefits all others, including the west, but hey it is brought up ONLY in a completely unrelated discussion about Russia. Wonder why?

Also I had made a post saying that it is inevitable that Indian Mil-Ind complex would grow and GoI needs to take steps where the interaction with Rus is diversified, seems you didn't even read that.

[UBanerjee]

^^As far as geopolitics goes, the only area of real overlap between Russian and Indian capabilities and interests is Afghanistan & Iran. On the other hand, whether we work with, against or in parallel to the US, we have a vast overlap with it in the developments in the Gulf, Iran, Af-Pak, Indian Ocean, Australia, South China Sea, and Eastern Pacific. We will have some type of relationship with them whether we like it or not- and we will have to manage it to our advantage.

That is what I mean by "matter more in the grand scheme of things". It's not 1970. The Russians barely overlap with any of India's actual geopolitical concerns. Beyond that, great, they can cheerlead us from the sidelines and we can do that for them.

They also are not and almost certainly will continue not to be a major trading partner outside of defense. Our relationship will be a transactional one of defense goods, and they will continue to export their stuff elsewhere as well. It will be a close one insofar as we need them and they need us for the time being, for various JVs and other purchases, but there isn't much scope to expand this no matter how many lectures on how GoI is frakking it all up we are given. Let's not also downplay how much their defense industry needs us to stay relevant.

[negi]

^^As far as geopolitics goes, the only area of real overlap between Russian and Indian capabilities and interests is Afghanistan & Iran. On the other hand, whether we work with, against or in parallel to the US, we have a vast overlap with it in the developments in the Gulf, Iran, Af-Pak, Indian Ocean, Australia, South China Sea, and Eastern Pacific. We will have a relationship with them whether we like it or not- and we will have to manage it to our advantage.

As they say first take baby steps and then we shall dance; strategic partnership with Unkil is not possible simply because Unkil likes only munnas. Secondly there is no overlap between India and US over Pakistan lets not gloss over facts by just listing a few countries here and there. Unkil has it's own vested interests in the region which prevent India from engaging TSP in an appropriate manner (although most of it can be attributed to wannabe Nopel winner) and unless that changes it will be very difficult for two to cooperate in the region.

[UBanerjee]

^^As far as geopolitics goes, the only area of real overlap between Russian and Indian capabilities and interests is Afghanistan & Iran. On the other hand, whether we work with, against or in parallel to the US, we have a vast overlap with it in the developments in the Gulf, Iran, Af-Pak, Indian Ocean, Australia, South China Sea, and Eastern Pacific. We will have a relationship with them whether we like it or not- and we will have to manage it to our advantage.

As they say first take baby steps and then we shall dance; strategic partnership with Unkil is not possible simply because Unkil likes only munnas. Secondly there is no overlap between India and US over Pakistan lets not gloss over facts by just listing a few countries here and there. Unkil has it's own vested interests in the region which prevent India from engaging TSP in an appropriate manner (although most of it can be attributed to wannabe Nopel winner) and unless that changes it will be very difficult for two to cooperate in the region.

By overlap I do not mean we share interests with Unkil wrt Pakistan. We most certainly don't, although I don't think they are at complete loggerheads either. However, and I stress this, the US is very relevant wrt what actions we can and cannot take regarding Pakistan. So we will have to try to bend them to our purposes. Unkil is a very significant actor in our strategic horizon; the Russkies are not. Hence my comments.

UBanerjee I know how China got it's nukes but then I thought that making logical inferences from data points was not that difficult thing to do. Anyways to clarify TSP was provided with nukes by the same powers who got the farce NPT and NSG in place in the name of preventing proliferation. China was lucky enough to catch the cold war bus it capitalized by double crossing both SU and Unkil during the cold war . India ended up in a Trisankoo state sue to someone smoking stuff like NAM.

Let's speak plainly, China got a big kickstart to its program from Kruschev beginning '55 till the Sino-Soviet split. And TSP's bums are Chini bums with green spray-paint.

Additionally you characterized China as "not a menace", something I find puzzling. Sure, they aren't directly sending terrorists inside India, although maybe the Maoist movement would beg to differ, for they get at least some ideological succor from that direction. But there's more to being a menace than doing crude jihadi ops. The takeover of Tibet itself is a huge menace and our relations with China will be fraught with tension for as long as they occupy that historic buffer state. And on top of that you can add all the rest of it, from the nuke bums and plants they casually throw at TSP, to their troops entering PoK, to the stapled visas and their Ind. Ocean designs. There's a lot going on here to just hide behind the cover of "rival not menace".

[arnab]

As they say first take baby steps and then we shall dance; strategic partnership with Unkil is not possible simply because Unkil likes only munnas. Secondly there is no overlap between India and US over Pakistan lets not gloss over facts by just listing a few countries here and there. Unkil has it's own vested interests in the region which prevent India from engaging TSP in an appropriate manner (although most of it can be attributed to wannabe Nopel winner) and unless that changes it will be very difficult for two to cooperate in the region.

Negi ji. This is strange - you ask for 'baby steps' but start evaluating the relationship on the basis of 'the dance'. Let us say India / US undertsanding about the TSP problem has 'evolved'. Still 'baby steps' though. However, it is better to engage with some one who has the potential to do something about TSP than with one who has none (Russia).

Russia needs money - it is willing to sell its military wares to China and India. US needs money - but it is only wiling to sell its wares to India.
Whether US likes Munnas (who doesn't) and whether it will get munnas are 2 different issues ain't it? remember the MMRCA selection?

[Sanku]

^^As far as geopolitics goes, the only area of real overlap between Russian and Indian capabilities and interests is Afghanistan & Iran.

Thats a very limited understanding, I had presented a small list last page as well which ran to 6 points straight off, and was only a subset.

1) Shared intrests in entire CAR.
2) Shared intrests on Agf/Iran
3) Shared intrests on multipolarity in the world.
4) Shared worries about a aggressive militarized china.
5) Shared military ties and co-development.
6) Shared views about Libya and WANA
7) Energy security -- share oil and gas business.

On the other hand, whether we work with, against or in parallel to the US, we have a vast overlap with it in the developments in the Gulf, Iran, Af-Pak, Indian Ocean, Australia, South China Sea, and Eastern Pacific. We will have some type of relationship with them whether we like it or not- and we will have to manage it to our advantage.

So whats new about that? We have been working against and in parallel with US in all these areas since independence, and continue to do so. Overlap != synergy.

US has instered itself in areas where it has no buisness being, if it decides to transform the overlap into a shared vision and retreats from some areas handing them to us, we can talk.

Right now American expectationalism and control and Indian intrests do not intersect, expect as MMS and Japanese (munna) model.

That is what I mean by "matter more in the grand scheme of things". It's not 1970. The Russians barely overlap with any of India's actual geopolitical concerns. Beyond that, great, they can cheerlead us from the sidelines and we can do that for them.

If we can establish a good energy pipeline, in one shot that will give us a huge boost, thats not cheeleading from sidelines. Plus its a growing market, and we can have early mover advantage in terms of supplying goods, services and manpower.

It is obviously not 1970, however saying Russians do not overlap is a broken understanding as mentioned above.

They also are not and almost certainly will continue not to be a major trading partner outside of defense.

This is a issue of not going beyond the old mindset, it is PRECISELY because its not 1970s we need to go beyond as Singha said.

but there isn't much scope to expand this no matter how many lectures on how GoI is frakking it all up we are given.

I personally think there is great reluctance in some quarters to see India develop strong independent relationships with multiple powers and all the "Oh nothing is going to happen" is essentially a panic reaction if India were to indeed realize its potential beyond the narrow confines that it is being forced in.

[Sanku]

Russia needs money - it is willing to sell its military wares to China and India. US needs money - but it is only wiling to sell its wares to India.

That is incorrect, Russia at best sells first class to India and second/third class to China (since they worry about China too for their own selfish reasons)

US sells us second rate stuff which it also gifts to other Munnas, in addition, evern after paying we need to behave like Munnas.

Unless they kick this habit, they will need MMSs in place even to persuade India to acquire non MRCA types. I certainly dont see most Indian establishment looking at US strategic interaction positively beyond a narrow clique of folks (and I suspect malafides) Most India shares the feeling (as seen by Wikileaks)

[negi]

Arnab you assume things and based on what ? Why should I assume TSP problem has resolved ? I might as well then shall assume everything is fine and dandy, why worry have curry ?

I am amazed with your fixation over China. China is not sending terrorists to kill innocent Indians, just because Russia sold equipment to China in the past does not mean you equate it with Unkil sending in billions of dollars into TSP each year and if that was not enough it has used it's clout to hold India back from engaging the TSP in an appropriate manner.

Russia needs money , what do you think Unkil needs ? You have no clue of what you are talking , google up on the bilateral trade between US and China the number of reactors GE/WH are building in China and even their collaboration in the space sector; oh while you are at it Cheena mastered the MIRV capability thanks to Unkil.

From my vantage point both RU and Unkil might be just doing what I envisage India to do as a nation but the fact is Unkil's ambitions in the Af-Pak region are not in line with ours.

[UBanerjee]

Sankuji, I will just address the bit about shared interests since that is the main point I think anyway. It's not enough to have shared interests on something, that is not what I am talking about. Both India and Russia have shared interests in watching Raj Kapoor movies and long walks on the beach. But who gives a frack? So we both want a multipolar world- what does that actually mean in terms of overlap? Russia going to help maintain multipolarity in East Asia? In Southeast Asia? In the Indian Ocean? In the Gulf? Or are they just going to chai-biskoot about multipolarity?

Guess what nation is also interested in a multipolar Asia and actually has maintained that multipolarity for several decades? You may not like the answer. That is an example of actual geopolitical overlap, not chai-biskootery. The same goes for most of that list. Ah, Putin and MMS held hands and condemned Libyan bombings. Frankly, who cares? Neither of us has the slightest capacity to alter anything there (except for oops, the Russians, who despite the yapping conveniently forgot to veto), so these are hopes and posturings, not interests.

As for "aggressive China", I disagree- all signs point to a continuing Moscow Beijing rapprochement which has begun in 1991. Its quite rich for Russia to be worried about militarization of China considering it sold nearly half its mil. sales to that country in the past 2 decades.

I am amazed with your fixation over China.

I think your lack of fixation about China is far more puzzling given that most of the Indian defense establishment is rather fixated on it. I guess they are all fools?

Furthermore you continue to repeat the inanity about China not sending terrorists. Is that supposed to be some sort of test? Really, is this the level of sophistication we are falling to? Why don't you address the actual points re: Tibet and the rest, you know, like the fact that China has laid claim to the state of Arunachal Pradesh, the fact that we are the only country it has an active land border dispute with, the fact that it is stationing troops in PoK, building Pak's nuke arsenal and nuclear power industry, etc. etc.

This is a pattern of pretty significant Chinese hostility which you are waving away as "no big deal". Our relationship with China is complex but this is a big part of it. The biggest nightmare is a 2-front war and guess whose tanks and planes will be bearing down on us from the Eastern front? No one is denying the fact that Pakistan is rabidly hostile (while being far less capable) and that US aid keeps its conventional military propped up against us.

[arnab]

That is incorrect, Russia at best sells first class to India and second/third class to China (since they worry about China too for their own selfish reasons)

US sells us second rate stuff which it also gifts to other Munnas, in addition, evern after paying we need to behave like Munnas.

Unless they kick this habit, they will need MMSs in place even to persuade India to acquire non MRCA types. I certainly dont see most Indian establishment looking at US strategic interaction positively beyond a narrow clique of folks (and I suspect malafides) Most India shares the feeling (as seen by Wikileaks)

What 2nd /3rd class? MKI is MKI because of western avionics, else it is similar to what China got. T-90s are not 1st class products. It is an Indian largesse to the Russian mil complex. Russia is constructing a pipeline through turkmenistan to China. That is the basis for their security. And Russia is secure in the knowledge that their products are anyway inferior to western ones and US / NATO will not let an 'agressive' China make incursions into Siberian resources in the future.

C 130 J and c 17s are top of the line. And with fantastic offsets (like the aircraft test beds). This is what technology transfer should be about. Not about giving obsolete products (or even passing of second hand stuff to us) at first world prices. If they try and give us inferior products (F-16s) and we don't buy, the US govt does not throw a hissy fit like the Russians (and apparently this is good for us because IN chief could atleast complain!!)

Added later: And yes nobody (Not US or Russia) gives their 'latest' stuff to any of their Munnas. Incidentally, Russian love for a 'multi-polar' world is a recent discovery. once they lost the bi-polar war Just like pakis recent love for 'Kashmiri right to self determination'

[negi]

Arey boss HTF will you address Tibet if you can't establish law and order in your own frggin state J&K ? Kapiche ?
If you cannot handle TSP with what face do you even ask a question about engaging China ? Arnab da says if we address China , TSP will be taken care off , kintu bondhu please help me understand if TSP has been bothering us even when there was no China covering it's behind until the 80s how will it change things if we were to shift our focus from TSP to China ?

[arnab]

Arnab you assume things and based on what ? Why should I assume TSP problem has resolved ? I might as well then shall assume everything is fine and dandy, why worry have curry ?

Negi ji I said 'evolved'. Their understanding of the problem has evolved - not resolved.

[arnab]

Arey boss HTF will you address Tibet if you can't establish law and order in your own frggin state J&K ? Kapiche ?
If you cannot handle TSP with what face do you even ask a question about engaging China ? Arnab da says if we address China , TSP will be taken care off , kintu bondhu please help me understand if TSP has been bothering us even when there was no China covering it's behind until the 80s how will it change things if we were to shift our focus from TSP to China ?

With repect Negi ji - this argument is like, wtf do you send rockets to space when 200 m indians are starving / don't go to school yada yada. You look at the main problem. TSP is a subset of that problem. You solve one the other gets solved automatically. Incidentally China has been covering TSP backside since the 60s.

[UBanerjee]

Arey boss HTF will you address Tibet if you can't establish law and order in your own frggin state J&K ? Kapiche ?
If you cannot handle TSP with what face do you even ask a question about engaging China ? Arnab da says if we address China , TSP will be taken care off , kintu bondhu please help me understand if TSP has been bothering us even when there was no China covering it's behind until the 80s how will it change things if we were to shift our focus from TSP to China ?

We are already shifting our focus to China from TSP, at least our defense establishment has been doing that for more than a decade. We also maintain focus on TSP. So your POV is out of touch here, we can walk and chew gum at the same time just like other nations can. Because you know, we have to.

If you cannot handle TSP with what face do you even ask a question about engaging China

Since we haven't handled TSP I guess let's give up all our moves regarding China and moan about how weak we are.

[negi]

With repect Negi ji - this argument is like, wtf do you send rockets to space when 200 m indians are starving / don't go to school yada yada. You look at the main problem. TSP is a subset of that problem. You solve one the other gets solved automatically. Incidentally China has been covering TSP backside since the 60s.

Oh no it is not; TSP is not a subset of the problem . Is it too difficult to draw a logical conclusion from chronology of events ?
The statement 'You solve one other gets solved automatically' is a big haajmola . China became relevant in the TSP equation only when it passed the nukes to TSP in late 80s.

Arnab seriously this is one of the silliest lines of argument I have head in my life. If this is how people go about addressing the TSP problem one will never resolve it.

[UBanerjee]

Even if solving one doesn't solve the other- which I would agree, although it would help- we have to tackle both at the same time. Since we are using Bangla let me say I'm really rendered kingkorthobbobimuro by the suggestion that we are too pathetic and useless to handle China because we have not "solved" TSP.

[negi]

Arey boss HTF will you address Tibet if you can't establish law and order in your own frggin state J&K ? Kapiche ?
If you cannot handle TSP with what face do you even ask a question about engaging China ? Arnab da says if we address China , TSP will be taken care off , kintu bondhu please help me understand if TSP has been bothering us even when there was no China covering it's behind until the 80s how will it change things if we were to shift our focus from TSP to China ?

We are already shifting our focus to China from TSP, at least our defense establishment has been doing that for more than a decade. We also maintain focus on TSP. So your POV is out of touch here, we can walk and chew gum at the same time just like other nations can. Because you know, we have to.

Areey boss again you take things out of context the forces have to be prepared for all threats it's not only TSP and China.
I think injuns can only talk and it shows here on BRF too only hyper analysis and twisting of simple and straight forward facts.

If you cannot handle TSP with what face do you even ask a question about engaging China

Since we haven't handled TSP I guess let's give up all our moves regarding China and moan about how weak we are.

Where did I say that in fact I never even brought China into the debate , Arnab brought it in as a fig to claim as to how Russia supplies arms to China as a argument against how Unkil and China have been supporting the TSP.


Seriously when I look back at this discussion I am amazed at the level of convoluted logic at display here; China's and Unkil's support for TSP is being countered with Russian arms sales to China. If this is not clutching at the straws then what is ?

[arnab]

Oh no it is not; TSP is not a subset of the problem . Is it too difficult to draw a logical conclusion from chronology of events ?
The statement 'You solve one other gets solved automatically' is a big haajmola . China became relevant in the TSP equation only when it passed the nukes to TSP in late 80s.

Arnab seriously this is one of the silliest lines of argument I have head in my life. If this is how people go about addressing the TSP problem one will never resolve it.

My bad as I'm obviously being unable to convey my thought coherently across to you. What I was trying to say that rabid hatred from TSP is not a problem (not in a grand sense. So you hate me who cares!!). You need to 'solve' that problem but you cannot wish away 180 m TSPian (or even 90 m assuming 50 % hate us and the rest are ambivalent). Even if you militarily defeat the pakis (been there done that) - it does not solve the 'problem'.

The 'problem' is their capability. Nurtured by 3.5 over the last few decades and now primarily through China. Once you take away their capability you can leave them to 'stew in their own juice' (as shri Kao said so eloquently). So solving the capability requires us to address China (and US, and Saudi - but those are being done concurrently). China is the greatest threat among the 3.5 because it wants / has our territory. US as part of the problem can also solve the problem depending on how nimble we are. Russia can't solve this.
Russia adds to the problem (mind 'adds' to the problem) by contributing to keeping China militarily powerful and China in turn throws crumbs at a rabid dog to keep us distracted. The armed forces know this.

[Sanku]

Okay, let me try and take this one by one...

Both India and Russia have shared interests in watching Raj Kapoor movies and long walks on the beach. But who gives a frack?

Actually a lot, this is called "soft power" in other words we must not run down its importance.

So we both want a multipolar world- what does that actually mean in terms of overlap? Russia going to help maintain multipolarity in East Asia? In Southeast Asia? In the Indian Ocean? In the Gulf? Or are they just going to chai-biskoot about multipolarity?

You raise a valid point about intentions and abilities: So we agree on certain points, now what? Do we actually have the wherewithal to do anything about it?

I can not give you a yes or no answer to the above, since the answer in all cases is somewhere in between

1) Yes they can help to maintain multi-polarity : Examples are, Votes in UN (obvious one), willingness to let India use joint property (such as Brahmos tech) to provide a robust support to Vietnam for the balance. They have the werewithal to influence decisions in Gulf by not playing ball with Unkil w.r.t. Iran and arming Iran and not accepting sanctions. There are many other such examples (support for Quaddafi in Libya)

2) Assuming we say that the above is insufficient and we want more: The above shared mindset helps in drawing up a joint plan on many spaces including futuristic developments, not all policy making is about here and now.

3) Having said the above two points, I strongly think that a robust Indo-Russian relationship is hamstrung at the Russian end in some ways, this is not about intentions (such as the case with US) but the fact that Russians have not fully recovered from the Yesltin years and cant do some things even if they want (I know this first hand) -- however I expect Russia to recoverr and be free from those issues in 10-15 years time frame.

Guess what nation is also interested in a multipolar Asia and actually has maintained that multipolarity for several decades? You may not like the answer. That is an example of actual geopolitical overlap, not chai-biskootery.

I think you wish to suggest US. However

1) a "multipolar Asia" is not the same as a "multi polar world"

2) the US game is to have a finger in each pie in terms of cutting deals with each country and different nationalist and anti-national factions in each country and playing them against each other to keep everyone down.

That is not quite multi-polarity.

The same goes for most of that list. Ah, Putin and MMS held hands and condemned Libyan bombings. Frankly, who cares? Neither of us has the slightest capacity to alter anything there (except for oops, the Russians, who despite the yapping conveniently forgot to veto), so these are hopes and posturings, not interests.

Who cares? Considering that Indians and Russian are both there on the ground talking deals with Quaddfi (read the reports) I think a lot of people care.

In fact it is the US which has cut and run out of Libya and has now no stake on the ground and its Nato Munnas are not going to last very long without their mai-baap around.

As for "aggressive China", I disagree- all signs point to a continuing Moscow Beijing rapprochement which has begun in 1991. Its quite rich for Russia to be worried about militarization of China considering it sold nearly half its mil. sales to that country in the past 2 decades.

And I disagree with your disagreement, a country which share a border for which they have fought wars and a greedy china hungry for resources can never have "rapprochement"

The Russians are not mad, irrespective of their popular characterization in western space.

The rapprochement in 91 was the temporary aberration of Russian MMS++; Sriman Boris Drunkard Yelstin, with that phase of madness over, the Russian state is handling China fairly well.

[Sanku]

Nurtured by 3.5 over the last few decades and now primarily through China. .

Incorrect at least on BRF such misplaced notions should not gain currency.

The main benefactor of Pakis is US, the rest are drawn in its wake.

Yesterday and Today, and if the trend continue tomorrow.

[arnab]

The main benefactor of Pakis is US, the rest are drawn in its wake.

Yesterday and Today, and if the trend continue tomorrow.

Propaganda has value, but why preach to the converted and let the true risks be blind sided? So US is the benefactor to what end saar? Surely not fear of India? It is a logical hangover from their SEATO / CENTO days. China OTOH sees India as a threat and uses TSP to nutralize these. And Russia helps China with arms.

[negi]

Have to catch some sleep gents, dhanyabaad

[Sanku]

The main benefactor of Pakis is US, the rest are drawn in its wake.

Yesterday and Today, and if the trend continue tomorrow.

Propaganda has value, but why preach to the converted and let the true risks be blind sided? So US is the benefactor to what end saar? Surely not fear of India? It is a logical hangover from their SEATO / CENTO days.

Of course not a hangover, its a basic geo-strat move. Havent you been listening to Shri Acharya at all?

China OTOH sees India as a threat and uses TSP to nutraise these. And Russia helps China with arms.

China sees India as much a threat as Russia, if not less, and has more designs on Russia.

[rajanb]

'We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.'

Lord Palmerston

To that extent, to me it seems the problems we face with Ru are disturbing. There is no need for eternal gratitude to anyone for the past. But diplomacy is essential.

And the recent problems with Ru seem to suggest that our diplomacy is either absent, or not able to address issues related with our interests.

[arnab]

Of course not a hangover, its a basic geo-strat move. Havent you been listening to Shri Acharya at all?

China OTOH sees India as a threat and uses TSP to nutraise these. And Russia helps China with arms.

China sees India as much a threat as Russia, if not less, and has more designs on Russia.

China has 'solved' its border issues with Russia. It has 'outstanding' border issues with India. What geo-strategic aim can propping up Pak against India achieve? Post cold war? I can undestand a 'geo-strategic' desire to prop up TSP (to control oil / gas in the mid-east / or have a cold war ally breathing down USSR, just like Cuba for the other side), but here India is sort of a collateral damage. Whereas China's proping up of TSP is for actual damage to India.

Russia won't solve this problem for us. They also caved from giving missiles to Iran. Similarly mealy mouthed support to Gaddafi is kind a pointless

[Sanku]

And the recent problems with Ru seem to suggest that our diplomacy is either absent, or not able to address issues related with our interests.

I strongly agree, I charge GoI leadership with not taking the steps to secure Indian diplomacy (once more)

[Sanku]

China has 'solved' its border issues with Russia. It has 'outstanding' border issues with India.

Solved issues? Outstanding issue? The issue with Russia was solved with Russia rubbing Chinese nose in the ground. Do you really think its a "closed" issue? In any case the disputes are not really about of where the lines are on the map which are often trivial, not all map lines are Golan heights to be of value. The boundary disputes are essentially reflective of balance of powers between nations sharing a boundary and basic incompatibilities of vision.

They are all still quite alive, even more than the prior period where Chinese were humbled into submission.

What geo-strategic aim can propping up Pak against India achieve? Post cold war? I can undestand a 'geo-strategic' desire to prop up TSP (to control oil / gas in the mid-east / or have a cold war ally breathing down USSR, just like Cuba for the other side), but here India is sort of a collateral damage. Whereas China's proping up of TSP is for actual damage to India.

Collateral damage and actual damage? Kindly stop speaking like a American sir, for India damage is damage, and is caused by direct acts of US of A in terms of maintaining a pliant nation to serve its end (lot of details in various threads) -- the conflict between USSR and anglo-saxon block predates USSR and continues post USSR. This is about geo-graphical control of sea lanes, bases, trade routes etc etc.

So please take a deep breath and do some REALLY DEEP SOUL SEARCHING before characterizing real Indian losses as "collateral" to me thats deeply offensive, as I am sure will be to any Indian.

And China is quite very much part of US game, without US support the Chinese would be able to do much much less for Pakistan.

Russia won't solve this problem for us. They also caved from giving missiles to Iran. Similarly mealy mouthed support to Gaddafi is kind a pointless

I have replied to this point in the above reply to UBanrajee. In short, the above is not really relevant and accurate in terms of the discussion.

[Austin]

They also caved from giving missiles to Iran. Similarly mealy mouthed support to Gaddafi is kind a pointless

On Iran not keeping its commitments to UN Security Council resolutions will not make Russia look stronger or Wiser

On Gaddafi he seems to be a leader who is not in a good state of health mentally , frankly speaking russian have gained much from Oil price rise due to uncertainty then it had ever made in any recent arms deal with libya, but then this is not about arms or oil price.

Russians like India and Germany has opposed the means to solve this problem , NATO bombing has not helped much then creating more body bags for Libyans , they are no better now then they were at the beginning of the air campaign.

[Austin]

Gazprom to boost LNG supplies to India

Russia’s state-run energy giant Gazprom is set to increase its liquefied natural gas (LNG) deliveries to India up to 7.5 million tonnes per year.

The LNG will come from Gazprom`s plant on the Pacific island of Sakhalin.

The sides are expected to sign a respective 25-year contract in the coming months.

[Austin]

On the Money: Russia energized

[brihaspati]

Yeah and many of the rich Roosies got "irradiated" or "reabsorbed" into the reviving sasural system of Russia minus their richness. Anyway, I just asked Sankuji to consider the possibility. Don't you think my suggestion to hire Ottavio ji as consultant may do wonders for all sides? The transactions need not even be done in coal polluted air of India, they could be done in the clean and crisp honest air of business and growth that flows around the Swiss Alps.

Well not sure what more Ottavio 'Bofors' ji could manage that the Russians haven't managed on their own When you ask folks to consider 'possibilities' without any credible examples - it is known as hot air And why bring in stuff like 'irradiated' and 'coal' - unless you have completely run out of arguments - in which case, you were right to address Sanku ji

Well at least Ottavio "Bofors" ji could have taught them how not to be "ambushed" in business deals! Proper transactions through proper third parties in proper banks should have done wonders - quality or no quality. Did I ever mention that the tendency to jump into gratuitous personal denigration is symptomatic of a deep insecurity? Perhaps not.

You seem to be following in the path of another great sole comprehender and logician who thinks arbitrary epithet ascription is a sign of great intelligence. Now is it "possible" for you to see that Ottavio "Bofors" ji is a concrete example in hand - entirely in context of my post - about doing clean business deals in military hardware to the complete satisfaction of all concerned. Unfortunately there does not seem to be such examples around in case of the Russian military suppliers. And you think you need to paint that as "hot air"? If I do not have examples from the Russians about "facilitators" who can make "everyone" happy - how can I create "examples"! If you know of similar facilitators internationally who have facilitated Russian arms deals for India - let us know! Even if such characters exist they seem to be doing a very poor job of it - as their clients are getting ambushed!

As for "irradiated" - I thought you would immediately know what I was talking about - since you seem to know the depth and breadth of Russian "rich oligarchs". One method of poisoning escapee moguls from Russia appears to be radioactive substances. As for coal free air to do business - I thought you were quite convinced about the supreme poisonous effects of coal burning in India, and the Swiss banks benefit from the clean and crisp air that flows from the Swiss Alps - I had suggested that the transactions could become "cleaner" there! After all it is all about financial prosperity onlee!

Did not expect to have to write such a lengthy explanatory note. Still feel the need to make it personal? Let me know.

[somnath]

Arnab, Negi, UBannerjee et al

^^Of course, Is the absence of Russo-Paki collaboration against Russo-Indian ties only a function of Russian "ideological magnanimity"? the fact that the Pakis had no means to sustain the entire Russian mil-ind complex in the '90s (then, now, or ever) has got nothing to do with it??The fact that the Pakis went out on a limb to be America's shrpas in the Afghan adventure has got nothing to do with it??The fact that the Pakis decided very early, after flirting with both SU and US (and both returned the graces) to hitch up to SEATO/CENTO et al obviously has got nothing to do with it??

Its all religious-ideological "possibilities" isnt it....

But serioulsy - there is nothing "sentimental" about Indo-Russo relations..there wasnt anything even in the halcyon days of Khrushchev-Nehru, Brzhnev-Indira days - India was an outstanding "ally" for SU during the Cold War - we were the only true blue democracy (not a communist country or a certified chamcha state) which sympathised with a lot of SU causes...politically, this was worth a lot - especially when we dithered on denouncing them on the Prague, Budapest, even Afghanistan...All the while carrying on a crusade against American imperialism everywhere..So politically, we were valuable to them...Everything else followed from there...

Post the breakup, if anyone remembers the initial days of Yeltsin and his kitchen cabinet (chaps like Gaidar, Besmertnykh et al) - India was low, low priority..Overnight, the Russian stance on KAshmir changed, with nary a warning...The cryo engine deal got cancelled...And of course, (an expected) hard bargain was driven on settlement of the rupee-rouble trade...

The scenario changed only later in themid '90s - I would say 1995-96 was the inflection point...That is when Yeltsin had to fight for re-election, he found a sore sticking point in his narrative in the form of the bankrupt Sukhoi factory in his own backyard - it was symptomatic...Which is when India (PVNR) stepped in to conclude that initial Su30 order -it was a leap of faith then...It saved the factory, and showed Russia that only one country can sustain its broken milInd complex..ince then, Russian shipyards, tank factories, aircraft assemblies were sustained by Indian orers through the '90s and early '00s, before oil prices made Russia comfortable again...And the so-called "special" relationship continued on that basis...But the only thing "special" was India's cash...

So everyone's played according to a script well understood...No point in sentimentalising the isue..

[Sanku]

So everyone's played according to a script well understood...No point in sentimentalising the isue..

No one is sentimentalizing the issue but you are certainly trivializing it, by reducing the entire impact of Boris Drunkard Yelstin water carrying for west and wrecking his own country in the bargain as merely "trade and economic issues".

[brihaspati]

An useful reset of the perspectives :

Russian Policy toward South Asia: An Update, Martin Malek, Asian Survey, Vol. 44, No. 3 (May/June 2004), pp. 384-400. University of California Press

From Moscow’s perspective, the idea of a “triangle” consisting of Russia, China, and India—also put forward by Primakov on a visit to New Delhi at the end of 1998—would be an important complement to the “multipolar world.” It would link Russia with two politically important nations well-known for their skeptical attitude to the West (and especially to the U.S.), nations that have also been the most important customers of Moscow’s armaments industry: China and India purchase approximately 70%, or $3 billion annually, of total Russian arms exports. This should not, Russian representatives repeatedly em- phasize, be seen in isolation from Moscow’s foreign policy goals: “By strengthening the defense of India and that of China, we strengthen Russian security.”2 Moscow also relies on the massive arms trade as a means of obtaining the financial resources needed to modernize its own armed forces.
[...]
There is little doubt that Russia would like to see itself in the role of the in- formal leader of this imaginary “triangle,” although it has by far the smallest population of the three countries. In early December 2002, Putin said that the unresolved territorial disputes between China and India, which led to a border war in 1962, should not be taken as the occasion for a new controversy. Mos- cow can have no interest in a serious conflict between two other “corners of the triangle,” since this would massively weaken it. Moreover, from a Russian viewpoint, only an intact “triangle” can effectively counter the influence of the U.S. in Asia.

However, India certainly has an interest in a sustainable relationship with Washington. The relationship between India and China is characterized by a significant degree of distrust, against which India’s nuclear armaments are, to a large extent, directed. Moreover, India’s archenemy Pakistan is an old client of Beijing’s, which has also supported Islamabad’s nuclear program. For that reason, it would be illusory to believe that this “triangle” can be institutionalized any time soon. There can certainly be no talk of a “common front” against the West.

India: Moscow’s Preferred Partner in South Asia
Current Developments in the
Political Relationship

India has been Moscow’s preferred interlocutor for decades. The 1971 friendship treaty was renewed in 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1993, a new Russian-Indian Friendship Treaty was signed. The “Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation,” drawn up in 2000, postulated a “deepening of the traditional partnership with India” designed to overcome existing problems in South Asia and increase stability there.3 Moscow’s India policy is based upon a broad consensus in Russian public opinion: according to a poll by the opinion research institute Obshchestvennoe Mnenie (Public Opinion) in 2001, India heads a list of countries that are assessed as friendly toward Russia. A total of 83% polled regard India as a friendly country and only 4% see it as unfriendly (for comparison: China, 66% friendly, 18% not friendly; U.S., 32% friendly, 52% not friendly).4
Moscow and New Delhi repeatedly assure each other of agreement on major international political issues. On his visit to India in early December 2002, which came off in a remarkably warm atmosphere, Putin supported India’s ef- forts to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, as well as its accession to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO),5 [...] Pakistan’s effort to join the SCO was thwarted at the beginning of 2001, owing to Russian and Tajik objections.6 [...] Joint Russian-Indian naval exercises, which took place at the end of May 2003 off India’s west coast and in June in the Bay of Bengal, allegedly served in the same struggle (and a general “strengthening of security”). It was the largest Russian navy deployment since the breakup of the Soviet Union.7

Military-Industrial Cooperation
This is a key element of economic relations between Russia on the one hand and India and China on the other, as Moscow has little to offer beside weapons and nuclear reactors. The annual total volume of Indo-Russian trade amounts to only $1.5–$2 billion, and consists mainly of weapons trade. India is the only country with which Russia conducts a long-term program of military- industrial cooperation.

Moscow and New Delhi on January 20, 2004, signed a $1.6 billion deal finalizing India’s purchase of the refurbished Russian aircraft carrier “Admiral Gorshkov,” fighter jets, and helicopters. The Indian navy and air force in particular (the ground forces less so) are equipped with Soviet or Russian weapons. India does not restrict itself to the mere purchase of Russian armaments. It manufactures Russian weapons under license and there are also a number of joint development projects underway. Important systems in this context include the supersonic anti-ship missile “BrahMos,” which then-Indian President Abdul Kalam (himself a missile expert) referred to at a December 2002 state banquet in Putin’s honor in New Delhi. The “BrahMos” has a range of 185 miles and could enter the two countries’ arsenals in 2004 or 2005. A Russian-Indian agreement also envisions the joint development of an advanced fighter jet. India is also financing the development of new Russian weapons systems in order to obtain them at a later date. Russia’s arms producers are allegedly supplying India’s armed forces with equipment that not even the Russian army has (due to a lack of funds). This is in significant contrast to China, which only receives weapons that the Russian army already possesses.8 Moscow evidently trusts India more than it does China, which is frequently suspected, especially in the Russian Far East, of throwing covetous glances at the sparsely populated areas across the shared border.

Russia and the Kashmir Conflict
Moscow’s Position
According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, Moscow’s position on the Kash- mir conflict has not changed since the Soviet period. Russia regards Kashmir as a part of India because it is anchored as such in the Indian Constitution. In international organizations and bodies such as the Security Council, Russia, like India, does not advocate holding a referendum in Kashmir.9 Pakistan does call for a referendum, citing U.N. resolutions of August 1948 and January 1949, as well as peoples’ right of self-determination. The mostly Muslim pop- ulation of Kashmir should be able to decide for itself whether it wants to belong to India or Pakistan.

Between September 16 and October 8, 2002, elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir were held in four phases. Pakistan condemned them as illegal. In contrast to this, the Russian Foreign Ministry called them free and fair, saying the mere fact that they had been held demonstrated the will of New Delhi and the “people of Jammu and Kashmir to bring the situation back to a normal course.” “Extremist elements” had not succeeded in bringing about the failure of the vote.10

Russian Proposals for a Solution
The Russian Foreign Ministry and a clear majority of Russian South Asia experts advocate declaring the Indo-Pakistani Line of Control (i.e., the armistice line of 1949) running through Kashmir to be an international border. This action, in Moscow’s argument, would ensure that neither side lost anything and would formalize the status quo that has prevailed for a long time.11 India, too, would support this idea.12 In contrast, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf takes the view that the Line of Control as such is a problem for Kashmir, because it is not accepted by the people in either part of the region.13
Russia has advocated settling the Kashmir conflict on the basis of the Indo- Pakistani Simla (1972) and Lahore (1999) agreements. [...] The Russian Foreign Ministry does not regard an independent Kashmir as a viable option.

Russia, India, and “Terrorism in Kashmir”
In a series of bilateral documents, Moscow and New Delhi have promised to assist each other in the fight against terrorism. Especially remarkable is a memorandum signed by the two governments in early December 2002, the annex to which provides for the establishment of a “joint Russo-Indian working group on combating international terrorism.” This should lead to a more intensive exchange of intelligence information, closer cooperation between the security forces, and cooperation in the training of Special Forces. In a “Declaration on the Further Strengthening of the Strategic Partnership be- tween the Russian Federation and the Republic of India,” the two countries declared they were both “victims of terrorism.”14 It was conspicuous that in the documents signed during Putin’s visit to India in early December 2002, Kashmir was explicitly mentioned, while Chechnya was not.[...]In Russia, Pakistan and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are often accused of supplying Islamic terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir with weapons. Some of the Islamic fighters who are active in Kashmir are said to have been trained by the Taliban.16 The Russian Foreign Ministry believes that Pakistan explicitly permits international terrorists to conduct operations against India from its territory. On December 4, 2002, while in India, Putin also called upon Pakistan to destroy the “terrorist infrastructure” serving separatist operations in Kashmir. [....]Moscow does not believe that only the Kashmir problem prevents the normalization of Indo-Pakistani relations. On the contrary, argues Aleksandr Kadakin, Russia’s ambassador to India, in a major Russian newspaper that “the cessation of cross-border terrorism and a general normalization of relations between India and Pakistan would remove obstacles on the way to a solution.”18 Thus, from Moscow’s viewpoint, the key to a solution of the Kashmir problem is to be found in Islamabad.

[contd]

[brihaspati]

[part 2 - contd]

Today, both Moscow and Islamabad rule out Russian mediation in the Kashmir conflict. The Russian Foreign Ministry has unequivocally stated that it is only willing to “bring India and Pakistan together.” Kadakin has even spoken out against an “internationalization” of the Kashmir conflict, “with no external interference or mediation,” and for bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan. Russia would not push itself forward as a mediator but would be willing “to support the movement of the two countries toward a mutual understanding.”22
Pakistan’s ambassador to Russia, Iftikhar Murshed, had the impression that Putin had tried to present himself as a mediator at the Conference on Interac- tion and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia, held in Almaty (Kazakhstan) early in July 2002, when a new war between Pakistan and India seemed immi- nent. Musharraf—in contrast to Vajpayee—accepted this offer.23 Islamabad obviously hopes for progress in the settlement of the Kashmir question with Russian assistance. Musharraf announced that “Russia, with its long relations with India and now improving relations with Pakistan, is most well-placed to play a key role in the resolution of disputes and improving relations between India and Pakistan.”24 However, according to Vyacheslav Belokrenitskii from the Institute for Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Putin is “by and large powerless.”25 India, however, is of the opinion that Kashmir is an internal affair and that there is therefore nothing to mediate.

Russia: Fundamentalists Are
Trained in Pakistan
The Foreign Ministry in Moscow sees it as a proven fact that Russian Muslims are being trained in Pakistani Koran schools; upon their return to Russia, they spread fundamentalism (in Russia “Wahabbism” is the preferred term, as this excludes Iran while pointing to Saudi Arabia). Moscow has brought this to Islamabad’s attention several times, but Pakistan points out that the Koran schools are not run by the state and are funded with money from third coun- tries such as Saudi Arabia. Musharraf has, according to Moscow, conceded that the schools are a problem and that in some cases they were being abused by Muslim radicals to educate terrorists.

It is undisputed that Islamic universities in Pakistan funded by Saudi Arabia educate students from the former Soviet Central Asian republics that now belong to the CIS (which Moscow conceives as a “special interest zone”). For that reason, Moscow also believes that it has to remain not only militarily and politically present in Central Asia but also culturally, i.e., maintaining a media, linguistic, and educational presence.26 The Slavic uni- versities in Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan) and Dushanbe (Tajikistan) established in 1993 and 1998, respectively, also serve this purpose.

Pakistan and the Taliban from a Russian Perspective

From Russia’s point of view, Pakistan is threatened with “Talibanization,” or at least an undermining of the secular foundation of the state (which does not, however, appear to worry Moscow in the case of Iran). After the end of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Moscow expressed the fear that “history might even repeat itself with the Taliban in Pakistan.”27

In Russia’s eyes, Pakistan and its intelligence services contributed significantly to the emergence and success of the Taliban. Moscow had repeatedly reported that regular Pakistani troops, including air force units, were fighting with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance. Some Russian sources also accused the intelligence services of the U.S., and even Israel, of having sup- ported the Taliban,28 which Moscow regarded as a massive threat to its interests in Central Asia and elsewhere. One of Russia’s frequently repeated accusations against the Taliban was that they set up, or at least tolerated, training camps for terrorists, including those from Chechnya, in the territory they controlled in Afghanistan.

[brihaspati]

Of course of course - unilateral concentration of all comprehension abilities in one single brain results in some strange optical illusions - because it requires comprehending both sides of a conflict from their respective viewpoints, and therefore finding both equally preferable and none to criticize. For example, Pakistan's "dropping out" with flirting with the Soviets and moving over to the US camp was out of pure financial profits considerations onlee - the "geostrategic khujli" of Pakistan's grouse with India is about trade and economic development onlee! No "ideological religious" component at all! The hatred and jealousy of India by Pak that moved the starting node of the choices that made the Soviet position almost inevitable down the line - is not rooted in "religion" and "ideology".

Lord Ganesha, the favoured deity of Indian commerce and Indian merchants was and is no fool! I think even he lost his head because he stuck to his commitment - not caring for the "gains" if he compromised. But look at what blind pushing of the logic of non-"ideological" basis of all human interactions and basing them all on financial profits onlee by modern mercantile brains leads to - the grotesque distortion of reality and supreme self-delusion!

[rajanb]

@Brihaspatiji.

Very informative post. One needs to read up on the latest because this seems to relate to the Putin era and things seem to have drifted during Mededev's era?

Having dealt with both Russians and Americans during the Soviet era, I percieve that there are shifts on both sides vis-a-vis India. In those days, the Russians had dedication to our relationship. Americas, though friendly and appreciative of us being a democratic country, were enormously bugged by our Non-Alignment.

[somnath]

In those days, the Russians had dedication to our relationship. Americas, though friendly and appreciative of us being a democratic country, were enormously bugged by our Non-Alignment.

Rajanb-ji, natural, isnt it? If you are someone who has the world's largest democracy, card carrying member, nay leader of the "non aligned" setup, supporting, overtly covertly and otherwise all your shenanigans you would be "dedicated" to that relationship...On the other hand, if you are someone who has strategic interests in Pak, and are at the receiving end of daily invectives from India (despite being India's biggest aid donor by far), you would remain "bugged"...