India-Russia: News & Analysis

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 18 Jan 2016 17:32

With low oil prices and belligerent west trying to knock its door, Russia needs all the friend it can get. We are oldest friends of them and there is no serious disputes between us in any area. I am not sure how they consider NM as pro-west. He is close to Abe or Putin in his nationalistic outlook. I am sure Putin of all people may understand it better than any western leader.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 19 Jan 2016 08:10

^^^ Then why no condemnation of pathankot from Russia. Philip saar can also please enlighten us on his views.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jan 2016 04:07

^^^ He has gone to sasural for a week.

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 20 Jan 2016 07:18

Russia was fine with 'friendship' when they perceived India as being a lesser power under them, especially during Soviet times.

Even for Crimea India gave an affirmation of Russian interests, the only major country to do so, while Chine sided with Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexatio ... l_response

Yet this is how Russia treats and thinks of India with bans on Yoga, and actions such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_ ... _in_Russia

Now with India rising and Russia getting close to Chine and Paki, relationship can go on the back-burner to be more neutral. Russia in its current state does not have much to offer India anyway.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jan 2016 07:56

^^^ He has gone to sasural for a week.

Visiting Russia in winter is not a good idea.

Anyways on a more serious note.

Russia in its current state does not have much to offer India anyway

I had said that Russia will not be able to deliver. And got

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 20 Jan 2016 08:32

If Russia have nothing to give then how come every body shit in syria and nobody challenge them. They have best war gears. They might give some for good price.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 20 Jan 2016 09:28

This quote is amateurish :" "Russia in its current state does not have much to offer India anyway" " . Russia provides things to India (even at 5 times the price) something that no country is willing to even talk about, they do not put intrusive inspection and what you can and cannot, have been always dependable period. Try talking to massa to get even one month lease of a sub.

Even though it is OT but I still want to point it what Saurav Jha wrote on twitter although I do not like that guy but he is spot on when he says no one got benefit by being friend of massa everyone got burned.

Their wares quality is definitely improving and it is now among top shelf stuff , Seeria is the proof of it.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 20 Jan 2016 18:48

Wonder if Russia could provide an alternate to P-8i, even if long term R&D and if we are ready to invest. Fact is all that lack of investments have reduced options available. It is okay till transport A/C decision has gone with "most efficient" and no other option argument, but anti-sub warfare is something we can't take chances or wait till fait accompli solution package is provided by US/NATO.

If we don't invest now, next iteration may have nearly the same result. Investing in MTA/PAK-FA/FGFA would have already got us some results, such as next gen engine or some tech know how alongwith.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Jan 2016 20:01

Have Russia first get our Su-30s to 80% serviceability, fix the TI issues with the T-90, the reliability of the Smerch MBRLs.. then lets talk of Syria ityadi.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jan 2016 20:54

^^^^^

Not that the Russians cannot achieve those ends, but they are not incented because of priorities. Such Indian problems are not on their priority list - they never were in the first place (part of the problem is India).

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 21 Jan 2016 08:30

krishna_krishna wrote:This quote is amateurish :" "Russia in its current state does not have much to offer India anyway" " . Russia provides things to India (even at 5 times the price) something that no country is willing to even talk about, they do not put intrusive inspection and what you can and cannot, have been always dependable period. Try talking to massa to get even one month lease of a sub.

Even though it is OT but I still want to point it what Saurav Jha wrote on twitter although I do not like that guy but he is spot on when he says no one got benefit by being friend of massa everyone got burned.

Their wares quality is definitely improving and it is now among top shelf stuff , Seeria is the proof of it.

Here is a reality check for Recent Foreign Purchases of Platforms:

ATGMs - Israeli Spike (Over Kornets)
MANPADS - US Stringer (Over Igla)
Self-Propelled Howitzers - Korean K-9 Thunder (Over MSta-S)
Light Howitzers - US M777 (Over ???)
Heavy Attack Helicopter - US Apache-E (Over more Hinds, infact India is giving those away to Afghanistan a few helis at a time)
Heavy Transport Helicopter - US Chinook (Over Mi-26)
Attack Submarines - Additional French Scorpenes (Over Kilos)
Strike Aircraft - French Rafales (Over MiG-35)
Naval Point Defence - Israel Barak-8 (Over ???)
Naval Helicopters - US Sikorsky S-70 (Over Naval Mi)
Light Utility Helicopter - Russian K226T (Over Eurocopters)
Naval Frigates - Additional Russian Talwars (Over ???)

I am sure I have missed some, but the point is that Russian products just can't compete with Modern Western ones anymore in competitive trials, and I am not even counting all the major subsystems that Israel and France are providing like AESA radars. Israel is easily India's best military partner today, where they offer Western equivalent advanced systems without restrictions. I don't like Massa either, they meddle in internal affairs of everyone like no other country on the planet, as they see themselves as cultural superior with a 'Holier than thou' mentality on every issue. But for the time being, better to absorb their money and technology until India can match then surpass them in the coming decades.

USSR and even Russia in 90s and early 2000s was a huge benefactor for India, that is no doubt. But Russia in 2016 has little to offer India that is new, because they have fallen behind tremendously. Akula-II lease is old news, first indigenous SSBN is coming up next year, with several more to follow. Indigenous SSNs will also be developed afterwards. Indigenous products also replacing older Russian/Soviet ones with FCIV, Dhanush, Akash, Pinaka, etc. PakFA is running into trouble with RuAF only taking in 12 by 2020, and IAF showing little interest. MRTA was cancelled. Russia is selling more VVER reactors, but Areva and Westinghouse are also offering reactors if India is willing to pay. So not such a big deal.

India will pay Russia for stuff that can't be obtained elsewhere or developed indigenously, but that just means Yasen lease and S-400. I am just not seeing a whole lot else Russia can offer, maybe you could tell me what systems for export India needs that I am missing here. Primary Russian role now is just upgrading older systems and finishing current procurement.

Don't overplay the value of past actions, Russia has swung towards Paki and Chine recently over India. Relationship can be cordial and mutual, but no need to go overboard here. This 'bhai bhai' mentality in foreign relations has cost India tremendously in the past, India should never forget that.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jan 2016 12:00

^ While you are correct that India increasingly is moving towards western gear it is not because of the reason you put forth:

Russian products just can't compete with Modern Western ones anymore in competitive trials, and I am not even counting all the major subsystems that Israel and France are providing like AESA radars.

Main reason is diversification and poor uptimes of Russian hardware. Plus, India tries to get hardware from Russia that is not possible elsewhere. Still, by and large, the relationship has sure come down from where it was 15 years ago.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jan 2016 15:53

Karan M wrote:Have Russia first get our Su-30s to 80% serviceability, fix the TI issues with the T-90, the reliability of the Smerch MBRLs.. then lets talk of Syria ityadi.

Servicibility is the function of spares , If India wants 90 % servicibility of Rafale then it has to build spares for say 5-10 years then it has to pay $8-10 billion for just maintaining 36 aircraft for high uptimes

OTOH the entire Su-30MKI deal for 282 aircraft will cost India ~ $11 Billion , if India build such spares inventory by paying extra billions then it can also get high uptimes , the lead time to get spare is around 1 year.

There was also some discussion that maintaining M2K was 3x times the cost of maintaining 29's........ The cost of upgrading 52 M2K is itself many times ( $2.4 billion ) of upgrading 60 plus 29UPG in IAF ( ~ 900 million )

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jan 2016 16:02

^^^^^

The point is, even if india pays for the spares, will the Russians be able to provide the support. Or is the problem that India has not provided enough timely funds to solve the spares problem? Or a combo of the two.

Keep the French out of this picture.

habal · Post by **habal** » 21 Jan 2016 18:59

chinese manufacture all their Su-30 spares themselves except for turbine blades which they import from russia. So chinese flankers may be having 90% uptime no ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jan 2016 17:00

NRao wrote:^^^^^

The point is, even if india pays for the spares, will the Russians be able to provide the support. Or is the problem that India has not provided enough timely funds to solve the spares problem? Or a combo of the two.

Keep the French out of this picture.

the problem of spares is the long lead time of more than a year to procure it and its cascading effect which means if you dont plan and order it it tends to over lap and create more problems , a lot of spares for Sukhoi is made in india since few years from F interview but what is not economical to make is imported.

The french example is important because it helps you to understand why procuring guranteed spares 5 to 10 years is important to get high uptimes and the huge amount spent to maintain a small fleet of 36 fighters compare to almost similar cost paid to buy 272 aircraft , We could have gone for a normal spare procurement for Rafale but opted to pay through our nose to get it in advance , build/maintain a warehouse for these spares and engines

Rafale is a special case as it will be used for Nuclear Weapon Delivery hence high uptimes of 90 % guranteed for 36 aircraft in 5-10 years is most desirable which means atleast 32 aircraft is available at any point in time hence the money spent on it is worth is and nuclear deterrent cannot be compromised.

But with Parikar stating that uptimes for Sukhoi is improving from parrikar statement in Parliament 6 months back
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 280_1.html
even getting 65-70 % is good perhaps they may have achived the goal of 70 % by end of 2015 we will have to wait and see for his next statement

From Last Month news on Sukhoi from Al Hund

India-based JV being considered for supply of Sukhoi-30 spares
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... .ece[quote]

India and Russia are exploring the possibility of setting up a joint venture in India to improve supply of spares for the Sukhoi-30 frontline fighter aircraft. The two sides are also in advance negotiations for a long term agreement for spares for the fleet, of which just over 50 per cent are operational at any given point of time.

“We recently got an inquiry from India for a long term spares agreement for five years. It will increase the serviceability of the aircraft. Spares contract will allow us to deliver to deliver spares faster once we get an indent from the Air Force,” Valery V Chishchevoy, Marketing Director of Sukhoi told visiting Indian journalists who are in Moscow as part of a media tour organised by United Aircraft Corporation of Russia.

The agreement will simplify the bureaucratic procedures for procuring spares and hence cut the time required to process any request from the Air Force by simplifying procedures like customs, bank guarantees, letter of credit and so on. The prices for spares and a method for price escalation will also be factored in, company officials said.

The idea is to eventually increase serviceability to 75 per cent for the Air Force’s Sukhoi fleet. Sukhois are the main stay of the Air Force but have poor availability due to spares and maintenance issues. Currently it takes 4-12 months from the time Air Force has a requirement to the time production begins in Russia after necessary approvals. The effort is to bring that down, Sukhoi officials said.

Earlier this year Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had informed Parliament that efforts were on to improve the serviceability rate of Sukhoi’s to 75 per cent by this year end from the current level of 56-57 per cent.

“We have been trying to improve the serviceability of Sukhois. It has improved by seven% in last 8-9 months to reach to 56-57 per cent,” he told the Rajya Sabha, exuding hope that it would go up to 75 per cent by the year end.

India and Russia started working on a long-term agreement in 2006 and eventually agreed on a technical assistance agreement in 2012 for aircraft maintenance and spares which brought down time of repairs of aircraft to be sent to Russia from 8-15 months to 60 days said Viacheslav Yu. Lozan, Director of After Sales Centre of Sukhoi. However both sides felt the need to further improve the availability of spares to increase the availability of the aircraft.

As part the spares agreement Sukhoi is exploring possibility of setting up of a Joint Venture with an Indian partner in India to ensure quick availability of spares.

Though the company is open for tie up with private players, Mr. Chishchevoy said that at the moment Indian private players are not ready to take up such complex technological work and added that they have had good experience working with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

India has contracted for 272 Su-30 MKI aircraft and the Air Force has already inducted over 200 of them with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited licensing manufacturing the aircraft in India.

[/quote]

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jan 2016 17:20

Austin wrote:
NRao wrote:^^^^^

The point is, even if india pays for the spares, will the Russians be able to provide the support. Or is the problem that India has not provided enough timely funds to solve the spares problem? Or a combo of the two.

Keep the French out of this picture.
the problem of spares is the long lead time of more than a year to procure it and its cascading effect which means if you dont plan and order it it tends to over lap and create more problems , a lot of spares for Sukhoi is made in india since few years from F interview but what is not economical to make is imported.

The french example is important because it helps you to understand why procuring guranteed spares 5 to 10 years is important to get high uptimes and the huge amount spent to maintain a small fleet of 36 fighters compare to almost similar cost paid to buy 282 aircraft , We could have gone for a normal spare procurement for Rafale but opted to pay through our nose to get it in advance , build/maintain a warehouse for these spares and engines

Rafale is a special case as it will be used for Nuclear Weapon Delivery hence high uptimes of 90 % guranteed for 36 aircraft in 5-10 years is most desirable which means atleast 32 aircraft is available at any point in time hence the money spent on it is worth is and nuclear deterrent cannot be compromised.

But with Parikar stating that uptimes for Sukhoi is improving from parrikar statement in Parliament 6 months back
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 280_1.html
even getting 65-70 % is good perhaps they may have achived the goal of 70 % by end of 2015 we will have to wait and see for his next statement

So, India is willing to pay through the nose for the Rafale (I do not think because it is for SFC, but that is a diff matter) (and actually for the C-17 and C-130Js too). And, has not planned for such an event for the MKIs?

I do not follow such matter WRT IAF, etc (someone else can pitch in), but I do know that it also takes the OEM to play the game. As an example Boeing did not become so good at it over night. Sure i is a matter of planning the ordering of spares, but it will matter only if the OEM is prepared for it - no use planning and finding out he OEM is incompetent.

So,

Tass :: Oct 29, 2015 :: Indian Defense Minister: I have always seen Russia as an all-weather friend for India

Tass - What kind of spares?

MP - For Su-30MKI fighter jets. We have almost 220 of them now and ultimately the number will reach 270, which represents about 40% of Indian Air Force. When you have 40% of air force strength from a particular maker, you are obviously interested in ensuring that they are serviced properly. Those aspects will be discussed and we are coming to conclusions, to solutions to the problem. I hope that these problems will be resolved very soon so service operation is substantially enhanced.

Then there are Mi-17V-5 helicopters, which we also intend to negotiate and finalize procurement for 48 more. With that, we will have some 280 Mi-17 helicopters.

So, the problem does not seem to be about a plan to order - or lead time, it is clearly something else.

Then, here is a case of Russian OEM being a pass-through and is unable to deal with the situation.

March, 2015 :: India has started sourcing Sukhoi spares directly from Israel, France: Parrikar

With the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) in Russia facing problems in sourcing spare parts for fighter aircraft Sukhoi, India has started sourcing spares directly from western sources like Israel and France, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar informed Rajya Sabha on Tuesday.

To a question from NCP leader Praful Patel on shortage of spares due to Russia’s problems in sourcing the spare parts from countries like Belarus and Ukraine , Parrikar said the issue was “relevant for all platforms from Russia.”

“We have taken up the issue with the Russian government. In fact, I had a discussion with the Minister. In certain cases, with approval, we are also developing replacement of parts from Western sources,” he said.

“Some of the sources of Russians themselves are Western. A lot of them are from Israel, France, etc. So, these are being brought in directly with their approval, or in certain cases we are coordinating the efforts and getting the spares,” said Parrikar. He also said that the serviceability of Sukhois has increased by about seven per cent over the past eight to nine months.

“Not all issues are resolved, but as I mentioned, for Sukhoi itself, we have improved the serviceability by seven per cent, almost from 49-50 to 56-70 per cent. We intend to get it to 70 per cent by year-end,” the minister said.

Of 69 cases of engine failure in air or engine-related problems in last three years, 33 cases were due to finding of chips in the oil, 11 due to vibration in engine, and eight cases were because of low pressure of lubricating oil, Parrikar said

There could be problems within India - I do no know for sure. But what is clear (unless one dances around the issue) is that the Russians, from an Indian point of view, are inept. May be it is their style/culture and they live with that.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 22 Jan 2016 18:53

What about the indigenisation of Su 30? If the percentage of indigenisation is high as claimed, then only only those parts coming directly from Russia needs to be outsourced...which may be critical, but at the same time more reliable, longer life and longer running hrs. In such case only limited parts need to be outsourced ..and a large chunk should be coming from HAL and other suppliers in India...why this confusion. What is missing to make the picture clear?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jan 2016 19:14

The MKI has our attention. However,

Parrikar said the issue was “relevant for all platforms from Russia.”

The problem is more than "MKI".

And, if India can parts from countries of origin, then it does not speak well of the Russian OEM/s ability to build a supply chain - which is not easy, but should have been dealt with by now.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jan 2016 20:00

Austin wrote:You are simply assuming not doing any thing was the best option , you would have seen NATO at the doorstep of Black Sea Fleet.

Not likely. There was and is a high level of public support for accession to the EU. In contrast, public opinion on NATO accession was hugely negative.

From Wikipedia -

BEFORE CRIMEA:

AFTER CRIMEA

If the idea was to prevent Ukraine from slipping into the NATO orbit, they managed to achieve exactly the opposite.

Once the Nuland tapes were out every one knows and it stands in Truth today what that US/West wanted to have a puppet President and Prime minister and get the EU deal signed followed by NATO accession and the fact that they signed the Peace Deal with Ukraine ex Government and agreed Election in December and then let the riots take place after signing the deal and make president flee means any promise by Europe/US was only on paper

Victoria Nuland and the US would like Sweden and Finland to join NATO as well. However, whatever one might think, they don't run the world. The new Ukrainian govt is already stressed, and if didn't have a sense of nationalism uniting the people (through a perceived threat from Russia), it would have been in far worse straits.

I bet you Nuland & Co. were delighted with the Crimean annexation as well as the emergence of the semi-independent Donetsk & Luhansk republics, which took away a major pro-Russia voting bloc at Kiev and poisoned Russian-Ukrainian relations, possibly for decades. Plus it rejuvenated NATO, which was find itself somewhat stripped of purpose, and prompted the EU to place sanctions coinciding with a crash in the commodities market.

The 'threat' to Russian naval control of the Black Sea again was absurd. The Russians had a lease on the place running to 2042, enforced by a powerful military footprint. The Ukrainian govt had absolutely no way of dislodging the Russians from Crimea - politically or militarily. If Putin had let the Ukrainian govt make the first move, he could have taken over Crimea with uniformed troops (instead of soldiers devoid of any insignia; 'little green men') and nobody in Europe would have batted an eyebrow, let alone apply sanctions.

Frankly, the Turks are a much bigger threat with an ability to bottle up the Black Sea fleet by closing off the Bosphorus to military traffic, which would also cut off direct Russian access to Tartus.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Jan 2016 20:11

Austin wrote: Servicibility is the function of spares , If India wants 90 % servicibility of Rafale then it has to build spares for say 5-10 years then it has to pay $8-10 billion for just maintaining 36 aircraft for high uptimes

OTOH the entire Su-30MKI deal for 282 aircraft will cost India ~ $11 Billion , if India build such spares inventory by paying extra billions then it can also get high uptimes , the lead time to get spare is around 1 year.

There was also some discussion that maintaining M2K was 3x times the cost of maintaining 29's........ The cost of upgrading 52 M2K is itself many times ( $2.4 billion ) of upgrading 60 plus 29UPG in IAF ( ~ 900 million )

Not just number of spares Austin, but also timely availability of spares. There is enough evidence that Russia/Sukhoi messed up with timely TOT (did not transfer documentation, jigs etc per schedule), their production system was too slow, they didn't devote serious effort (till forced) to addressing IAF concerns about engines, FBW etc.

IAF is clearly fed up of Russian gear and logistics issues associated with them and hence willing to pay the kitchen sink for French gear, which while expensive, works. Or so they think. Who knows what teething issues Rafale will have in its first overseas deployment to a foreign AF which flies as extensively as the IAF.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Jan 2016 20:15

geeth wrote:What about the indigenisation of Su 30? If the percentage of indigenisation is high as claimed, then only only those parts coming directly from Russia needs to be outsourced...which may be critical, but at the same time more reliable, longer life and longer running hrs. In such case only limited parts need to be outsourced ..and a large chunk should be coming from HAL and other suppliers in India...why this confusion. What is missing to make the picture clear?

The details are here:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1966743
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1966983

Long story short:
Less budget from MOD
Delay on Russian side to supply TOT + slow production for IAF demands
(There was a delay of 3 years by Sukhoi in terms of TOT to HAL, resulting in HAL having to place orders back on Sukhoi for spares)
Teething issues slowly rectified by Sukhoi

On the plus side, Parrikar has pushed all the stakeholders to rectify a lot of the above.. we can expect ~70% serviceability.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 22 Jan 2016 20:36

Viv S wrote: If Putin had let the Ukrainian govt make the first move, he could have taken over Crimea with uniformed troops (instead of soldiers devoid of any insignia; 'little green men') and nobody in Europe would have batted an eyebrow, let alone apply sanctions.

Why would ukrainians make any move at all until Poroshenko's puppet masters had Crimea firmly out of Russia's reach -- any lease till 2042 would vanish in a heartbeat and Russia would be on the defensive and the bad publicity it received last year would have just been delayed until that point. Anti-russian propaganda about russian reaction was a given, no matter when it would have chosen to react to Ukraine.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jan 2016 20:52

Wotsissain wrote:Why would ukrainians make any move at all until Poroshenko's puppet masters had Crimea firmly out of Russia's reach -- any lease till 2042 would vanish in a heartbeat and Russia would be on the defensive and the bad publicity it received last year would have just been delayed until that point. Anti-russian propaganda about russian reaction was a given, no matter when it would have chosen to react to Ukraine.

How would Poroshenko have done that? Cancelling the lease wouldn't have changed the position on the ground. And the publicity would have been far more muted, with most of the world interpreting it as a pointless provocation (much like Turkey's downing of the Russian Su-25). Of course, in reality the new govt would have done nothing at all - it was more interested in pushing through the association agreement with the EU, something that Russia opposed since it was a threat to its EEU project.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 22 Jan 2016 21:17

Viv S wrote: How would Poroshenko have done that? Cancelling the lease wouldn't have changed the position on the ground.

I am starting with your premise "what if Putin had waited for Ukraine to make the first move", so let us take that as a given.

If put had waited and not exerted military pressure on Poroshenko, that provides poroshenko with enough time to (a) move towards NATO accession (b) continue to get financial support from US/NATO to do a buildup of resources/troops to mount a challenge to putin. Then let us say NATO accepts Ukraine in its fold: now (a) Putin is taking on NATO, not just ukraine in order to get crimea back. Why would poroshenko agree to the terms of the lease if he had NATO support? You think NATO will then advice him to leave Crimea under Russian control because "international law"?

Why is the above scenario better for Russian military and economy, as opposed to what Russia ended up doing?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jan 2016 22:37

Wotsissain wrote:
Viv S wrote: How would Poroshenko have done that? Cancelling the lease wouldn't have changed the position on the ground.
I am starting with your premise "what if Putin had waited for Ukraine to make the first move", so let us take that as a given.

If put had waited and not exerted military pressure on Poroshenko, that provides poroshenko with enough time to (a) move towards NATO accession (b) continue to get financial support from US/NATO to do a buildup of resources/troops to mount a challenge to putin. Then let us say NATO accepts Ukraine in its fold: now (a) Putin is taking on NATO, not just ukraine in order to get crimea back. Why would poroshenko agree to the terms of the lease if he had NATO support? You think NATO will then advice him to leave Crimea under Russian control because "international law"?

a) With public opinion dead opposed to it, even in the pro-European Western regions, NATO accession wasn't an option. And like it or not, Poroshenko was voted in through a fair election and couldn't have afforded to ignore public opinion (something his predecessor would perhaps have belatedly realised).

b) No plausible amount of outside financial support would change the power dynamic between Russia & Ukraine. The Russians had a population that was 3 times larger, an economy that was over 10 times larger and a defence budget that was roughly 20 times larger.

Not to mention there was no public support for such an adventure in Crimea. At all. While they may have wanted to join the European mainstream like their fellow Slavs in Poland & the Baltics, Ukraine was, at the time, still one of the most pro-Russian countries in the world - with a vast majority of the population supporting free and open borders between Ukraine & Russia (with a small minority even in favour of re-unification!). Ukraine & Russia relations - 2014 public poll

There was zero threat to Crimea. Period.

Why is the above scenario better for Russian military and economy, as opposed to what Russia ended up doing?

Had Russia not taken the steps it did, the only difference in the status quo would have been a Ukrainian move towards the EU, and whether that would have endured is an open question, evidenced by the ~~failure~~ petering out of the so-called 'October Revolution'.

However in reality, Russia has gained Crimea and parts of the Luhansk & Donetsk oblasts, while forever losing rest of Ukraine to the West. A state of affairs that would have been unthinkable just three years ago.

habal · Post by **habal** » 22 Jan 2016 22:41

eastern ukrainians are orthodox christians and follow russian model. West ukrainians are polish catholics and tatars, georgians, khazar aka the ukbapzis et al ... they had emotionally and psychologically seperated from russia way long time ago. No amount of keeping peace is going to bring them back. They have attained pakistaniyat and strongly believe in 2-nation theory. One for hitler and one for stalin.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 22 Jan 2016 23:46

Viv S wrote: a) With public opinion dead opposed to it, even in the pro-European Western regions, NATO accession wasn't an option. And like it or not, Poroshenko was voted in through a fair election and couldn't have afforded to ignore public opinion (something his predecessor would perhaps have belatedly realised).

Only if you ignore the colour revolution that was instigated to remove yanukovich from power to advance the elections. So no, it was not a "free and fair" election that got poroshenko into power if the previous set of elected people were thrown out in a "revolution", and this was not the first colour revolution started in the region either.

If I may ask, how do you substantiate/support your claim that NATO accession was not an option for poroshenko? Just curious. FWIK, Poroshenko won all his votes from western ukaraine which has always been pro-US and NATO and responsible for the revolution that brought poroshenko into power. Poroshenko's UKbapzi supporters were strongly pro-west/pro-NATO unlike the poorer pro-russian part of Russia to the East.

b) No plausible amount of outside financial support would change the power dynamic between Russia & Ukraine. The Russians had a population that was 3 times larger, an economy that was over 10 times larger and a defence budget that was roughly 20 times larger.

May I remind you that Poroshenko was more than happy to cut his own nose and lose all the energy subsidy Ukraine was getting from Russia when push came to shove? Why is any of the above power dynamic even relevant given the bloodymindedness of poroshenko and his supporters when it came to Russia? I still do not see how anything said so far would justify a decision by Russia to "wait it out" and let the "brotherly feeling" of Ukraine towards Russia to settle things in the long run -- that is not how realpolitik works. If Poroshenko and his supporters got more time to put pieces in place to challenge Russia according to their own timetable, there is no reason for them to not do so.

Not to mention there was no public support for such an adventure in Crimea.

If I may point out, Poroshenko's actions so far have not been in the public interest, including making them face two brutal winters and forgoing russian fuel subsidy and tanking the local economy, just to take on Putin. So why is public support even relevant when it comes to Poroshenko's actions?

Any neutral observer would see that Ukraine has ruined itself under Poroshenko and is faith in US/EU to back him up economically and militarily in a confrontation with Russia.

At all. While they may have wanted to join the European mainstream like their fellow Slavs in Poland & the Baltics, Ukraine was, at the time, still one of the most pro-Russian countries in the world - with a vast majority of the population supporting free and open borders between Ukraine & Russia (with a small minority even in favour of re-unification!). There was zero threat to Crimea. Period.

I can see your abiding faith in Poroshenko, but from the Russian point of view, a pro-Russian govt. under Yankyovich was taken down by a person with a long-history with Saakashvili, a known pro-US stooge in Georgia, who had a history of working against Russian interests. From the Russian POV, this would be seen a slide towards a pro-US regime coming to power and making it just a matter of time before posing a threat to Russia's black sea ports. Land locked countries cannot project economic and military power to any extent if they lack a powerful navy, as is well known, so Russia just preempted that possiblity and took over crimea. Depending on the soft-power of brotherly feelings of Ukraine seems like the kind of thing Nehruvites would believe in, no reason why hard-headed leaders need to buy any of that piffle.

Had Russia not taken the steps it did, the only difference in the status quo would have been a Ukrainian move towards the EU, and whether that would have endured is an open question, evidenced by the ~~failure~~ petering out of the so-called 'October Revolution'.

That is only if you continue to believe that the so-called "revolution" was not another colour revolution that toppled other pro-russian govts in the region in the past. The october revolution was just a cover to install a pro-US govt. under poroshenko and sell the lie that Poroshenko was just another "legitimately elected leader". Again, if Ukraine had joined NATO, the Russia would have to take on the US if it made any moves on Crimea, so that is a possiblity, Russia could not allow. Hence the need for preemptively striking. Procrastination is not useful if the chances of losing all your active ports in the black sea increases suddenly, and you have to make a choice between taking on NATO and taking on Ukraine. The choice is easy to make, if you were in the Russian govt.

However in reality, Russia has gained Crimea and parts of the Luhansk & Donetsk oblasts, while forever losing rest of Ukraine to the West. A state of affairs that would have been unthinkable just three years ago.

Ukraine is not really lost to the west even if the East Ukrainian who used to hate russia, now hate russia a little more than they used to -- Ukraine is in economic ruin and face no prospect of any help from US/EU for the foreseeable future.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jan 2016 23:50

habal wrote:eastern ukrainians are orthodox christians and follow russian model. West ukrainians are polish catholics and tatars, georgians, khazar aka the ukbapzis et al ... they had emotionally and psychologically seperated from russia way long time ago. No amount of keeping peace is going to bring them back. They have attained pakistaniyat and strongly believe in 2-nation theory. One for hitler and one for stalin.

Two things here -

1. Both sides were about evenly balanced - four years one set ran the govt after which anti-incumbency brought the other set to power. Even after Maidan, disillusionment would have inevitably set in at some point, and affairs would have reverted to normal. However, with the Crimean & sections of Eastern voters removed from the equation, the demographics have now dominantly and irretrievably moved in favour of the Western lot.

2. Prior to the War in Donbass and the events of Crimea, the Western Ukrainians were quite supportive of open borders & friendly ties with Russia (see region-wise breakdown of the poll linked in my last post), though they had their own independent national identity. More importantly, even in Eastern Ukraine, anyone who considers himself Ukrainian citizen, despite his religion or ethnicity, couldn't have accepted with equanimity, the sight of Ukrainian soldiers (plenty of whom belong to the East) surrounded at gunpoint in Crimea or dying while fighting Russian-backed rebel forces.

Of course those who consider themselves disenfranchised Russian citizens would have an entirely different opinion and would empathize more with the Russian soldiers or rebels instead. But they still form just about a quarter of the population in the Easternmost oblasts. Support which would have fallen now in places like Odessa.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alexander Makarov is an ethnic Russian, proud that he can trace his family’s roots to 16th century Russian chronicles. At the start of the crisis in Ukraine, he, like many people in this city, was hostile to the revolution in Kiev. He argued repeatedly about it with his daughter, Katerina, with whom he shares an apartment. He hung a Russian flag on his bedroom wall and she put a Ukrainian one on hers. (Katrina's confused seven-year old daughter asked what kind should go on her wall.)

It used to irritate Makarov, a 62-year-old radio engineer, that whenever he needed to write officially to his boss in Donetsk -- also a native Russian speaker -- he had to do so in Ukrainian. And even though 80 percent of the team he worked with at Mariupol Airport’s control tower were Russian speakers, all technical documents, including those with safety implications, had to be written in Ukrainian, too.

It angered Makarov still more when the so-called Maidan protesters in Kiev seemed willing to risk Ukraine’s ties with Russia over a trade deal with the European Union. Most of his friends and family live across the Russian border, just 30 miles away. He even accepted Russia’s decision to take Crimea, because “it was never truly Ukrainian.”

But Makarov's view changed when Putin started sending troops into eastern Ukraine. The death toll quickly doubled and today stands above 4,000. In August, Russian units crossed the border to march on Mariupol, stopping only when Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a cease-fire agreement. The city staged its first pro-Ukraine rallies. Most of Makarov’s team at work changed their minds too, he says.
.
.
Yet levelling this city of 500,000 would alienate Ukraine from Russia in ways that even spectacular corruption and economic failure on the part of future Ukrainian governments couldn’t reverse. So I asked Makarov if he thought Putin had made a strategic mistake by fuelling the war in Ukraine.

“A mistake is when you forget to put on the tea,” he said caustically. “He has done what should never have been done.” - Link

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 23 Jan 2016 00:14

It used to irritate Makarov, a 62-year-old radio engineer, that whenever he needed to write officially to his boss in Donetsk -- also a native Russian speaker -- he had to do so in Ukrainian. And even though 80 percent of the team he worked with at Mariupol Airport’s control tower were Russian speakers, all technical documents, including those with safety implications, had to be written in Ukrainian, too.

These views are typical of eastern Ukrainians -- the parts that voluntarily joined Russia. Eastern Ukrainians assisted in the engineered "revolution" in Maidan because they all hated Russia and Putin from the beginning. Not to mention, the views of individuals regarding crimea do not matter if those at the steering wheel are the likes of Saakashvili and his buddy Poroshenko (they have known each other since their youth), who have assisted the US/NATO in roping in ex-soviet states into NATO. Russia's fears of NATO doing the same to Ukraine were not unfounded because there were precedents of the same in the recent past.

Correction: changed western ukrainians to eastern ukrainians.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jan 2016 00:25

Wotsissain wrote:Only if you ignore the colour revolution that was instigated to remove yanukovich from power to advance the elections. So no, it was not a "free and fair" election that got poroshenko into power if the previous set of elected people were thrown out in a "revolution", and this was not the first colour revolution started in the region either.

If I may ask, how do you substantiate/support your claim that NATO accession was not an option for poroshenko? Just curious. FWIK, Poroshenko won all his votes from western ukaraine which has always been pro-US and NATO and responsible for the revolution that brought poroshenko into power. Poroshenko's UKbapzi supporters were strongly pro-west/pro-NATO unlike the poorer pro-russian part of Russia to the East.

To the first point, Yanukovich's ouster doesn't make the subsequent election rigged. The elections had nearly 200 international observers from the OSCE (Russia refused to send observers). Following which Poroshenko won over 50% of the popular vote with voter turnout at over 60% overall.

To the second, don't mix up pro-West & pro-EU sentiment with pro-NATO sentiment. Sweden for example is pro-West, but that doesn't make it pro-NATO. Similarly, support for EU in Ukraine was high but that for accession to NATO was quite the opposite, even in the West.

May I remind you that Poroshenko was more than happy to cut his own nose and lose all the energy subsidy Ukraine was getting from Russia when push came to shove? Why is any of the above power dynamic even relevant given the bloodymindedness of poroshenko and his supporters when it came to Russia? I still do not see how anything said so far would justify a decision by Russia to "wait it out" and let the "brotherly feeling" of Ukraine towards Russia to settle things in the long run -- that is not how realpolitik works. If Poroshenko and his supporters got more time to put pieces in place to challenge Russia according to their own timetable, there is no reason for them to not do so.

There's huge difference between giving up a subsidy and starting a war you know you can't win, with a country ten times more powerful than yours.

Not even Russian nationalists would believe Poroshenko to be madman (in the literal not figurative sense.)

If I may point out, Poroshenko's actions so far have not been in the public interest, including making them face two brutal winters and forgoing russian fuel subsidy and tanking the local economy, just to take on Putin. So why is public support even relevant when it comes to Poroshenko's actions?

Any neutral observer would see that Ukraine has ruined itself under Poroshenko and is faith in US/EU to back him up economically and militarily in a confrontation with Russia.

You're again mixing up ineptness and ineffectualness, with irreverence.

I can see your abiding faith in Poroshenko, but from the Russian point of view, a pro-Russian govt. under Yankyovich was taken down by a person with a long-history with Saakashvili, a known pro-US stooge in Georgia, who had a history of working against Russian interests. From the Russian POV, this would be seen a slide towards a pro-US regime coming to power and making it just a matter of time before posing a threat to Russia's black sea ports. Land locked countries cannot project economic and military power to any extent if they lack a powerful navy, as is well known, so Russia just preempted that possiblity and took over crimea. Depending on the soft-power of brotherly feelings of Ukraine seems like the kind of thing Nehruvites would believe in, no reason why hard-headed leaders need to buy any of that piffle.

If you think my posts suggest an 'abiding faith in Poroshenko' then your personal feelings on the matter are unfortunately clouding your opinion. Whether Poroshenko was/is a good president or bad president was never relevant. We're taking making a positive assessment of the issue, not a normative one.

There was a 'slide towards a pro-US regime' after the 'October Revolution' as well. And then it slid right back with Yanukovich re-elected. And as Poroshenko current approval ratings show, his term in office wasn't likely to be some watershed event.

However this schism, to use a mild word, between the Russian & Ukraine will take decades to heal.

Ukraine is not really lost to the west even if the East Ukrainian who used to hate russia, now hate russia a little more than they used to -- Ukraine is in economic ruin and face no prospect of any help from US/EU for the foreseeable future.

Well you have faith of the abiding sort. Which doesn't really leave much room for debate.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jan 2016 00:26

Wotsissain wrote:These views are typical of western Ukrainians -- the parts that voluntarily joined Russia. Eastern Ukrainians assisted in the engineered "revolution" in Maidan because they all hated Russia and Putin from the beginning. Not to mention, the views of individuals regarding crimea do not matter if those at the steering wheel are the likes of Saakashvili and his buddy Poroshenko (they have known each other since their youth), who have assisted the US/NATO in roping in ex-soviet states into NATO. Russia's fears of NATO doing the same to Ukraine were not unfounded because there were precedents of the same in the recent past.

You may want to brush up on your geography.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 23 Jan 2016 02:52

To the first point, Yanukovich's ouster doesn't make the subsequent election rigged. The elections had nearly 200 international observers from the OSCE (Russia refused to send observers). Following which Poroshenko won over 50% of the popular vote with voter turnout at over 60% overall.

Sounds exactly like the time Musharraf won the civilian elections in pakistan with close to 90% of the vote. sounds extremely believable of course, or the time a "two-phase election" was conducted in Afghanisthan conveniently putting in place a politician who was fine with signing the BSA with the US...sheer coincidence of course.

There's huge difference between giving up a subsidy and starting a war you know you can't win, with a country ten times more powerful than yours.

He's didn't just give up a subsidy -- he refused to pay the gas bills owed to Russia, and forced Russia's hand to cut off energy supplies to his country. Russia would have overlooked and was willing to do so, but Poroshenko was not in any mood to back down and help himself and Ukraine. Yes,there is a difference between those two behaviors, but the question is why Poroshenko was so convinced that he could take on Putin and was also confident he would get the backing of EU nations.

You're again mixing up ineptness and ineffectualness, with irreverence.

So poroshenko was just "inept" and "ineffectual" when all the pro-russian officials in his govt. started dying like flies soon after he was in charge. Likely story. Don't see the relevance of reverence or the lack of it to what was tactical decision to reverse the decaying relations with Russia. After all it is the less powerful state that would have to capitulate if it comes under the gun and is forced to face a situation where its citizens will have to face a brutal winter without any heating fuel.

Whether Poroshenko was/is a good president or bad president was never relevant. We're taking making a positive assessment of the issue, not a normative one.

That was not the point, i.e., his competence. What is being questioned is his motive for escalating the war with Russia at great loss to his own country's economic well being and the well being of his citizens.

If it was just a matter of Russia pushing his buttons, and he had no designs on crimea, then surely he would prioritize the short-term necessities of his people like gas for winter over escalating hostilities with Russia. There were plenty of reports from about a year ago where Poroshenko was expecting the EU to pull him out of the hole he had dug for himself.

Well you have faith of the abiding sort. Which doesn't really leave much room for debate.

Offended you by using the word "faith" did I. Point is that Ukraine does not have rich friends like it did in the past, when it was being egged on to take on Russia, and EU has no intention of accepting Ukraine for the time being.

In the long term, Ukrainians may see reason to patch up with Russia if Russia continues to be a powerful state for that duration...hard to make any claims beyond short term ones (in the order of a few years) with implicit assumptions of power of states remaining constant.

Wotsissain wrote: These views are typical of western Ukrainians - <snip>

Meant to say Eastern Ukrainians, which is pro-Russia, not "western ukraine". Fixed post.

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 23 Jan 2016 03:48

Cain Marko wrote:^ While you are correct that India increasingly is moving towards western gear it is not because of the reason you put forth:
Russian products just can't compete with Modern Western ones anymore in competitive trials, and I am not even counting all the major subsystems that Israel and France are providing like AESA radars.
Main reason is diversification and poor uptimes of Russian hardware. Plus, India tries to get hardware from Russia that is not possible elsewhere. Still, by and large, the relationship has sure come down from where it was 15 years ago.

After market service is a huge problem of Russian gear, but the other is that it is indeed behind Western technology in many fronts, particularly electronics technology.

Russia does not even have a front-line AESA equipped fighter. Their latest Su-35S is actually only using a PESA. Their towed artillery is also similarly behind, with Indian Dhanush offering much better performance since Russians are still using +30 year old Soviet-designed artillery without auto-loading and modern FCS.

It is a similar story with ATGMs, Self-propelled artillery, Heavy Attack helicopters, MANPADS, point defense systems, ASW planes, etc. Russia, even during Soviet times, has always suffered from a heavy deficiency in electronics technology. That has not yet changed, even recently. That is why much of their advanced equipment is still severely gimped compared to Western ones, and falls behind Western ones in competitive trials. IAF has a number of Hinds for example, but they are content with giving them away to Afghanistan to procure Apaches with modern electronics and sensors on them.

The only two systems India really needs from Russia that are actually comparable or even better than Western equivalents are Yasen-class submarines and S-400 batteries. Nuclear and rocket propulsion technologies are still where Russia still leads in, which is why their procurement are probably tied up with other contracts like Pak-FA.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jan 2016 03:53

Wotsissain wrote:Sounds exactly like the time Musharraf won the civilian elections in pakistan with close to 90% of the vote. sounds extremely believable of course, or the time a "two-phase election" was conducted in Afghanisthan conveniently putting in place a politician who was fine with signing the BSA with the US...sheer coincidence of course.

OSCE: 100 long term observers. 900 short term observers. From final report presented by it -

The Central Election Commission (CEC) operated independently, impartially, collegially, and generally efficiently, and met all legal deadlines, despite the challenging environment, the limited lead time and the changeable legal framework.

There's nothing to suggest that Poroshenko is an illegal dictator of some sort, and would therefore lead his country into a doomed war, with no pay-off or plausible rewards, against a country that was in public opinion (at the time), considered a friendly state.

He's didn't just give up a subsidy -- he refused to pay the gas bills owed to Russia, and forced Russia's hand to cut off energy supplies to his country. Yes,obviously there is a "huge difference" in the behavior, but the question is why Poroshenko was so convinced that he could take on Putin and was also confident he would get the backing of EU nations.

So poroshenko was just "inept" and "ineffectual" when all the pro-russian officials in his govt. started dying like flies soon after he was in charge. Likely story. Don't see the relevance of reverence or the lack of it to what was tactical decision to reverse the decaying relations with Russia. After all it is the less powerful state that would have to capitulate if it comes under the gun and is forced to face a situation where its citizens will have to face a brutal winter without any heating fuel.

That was not the point, i.e., his competence. What is being questioned is his motive for escalating the war with Russia at great loss to his own country's economic well being and the well being of his citizens.

Poroshenko's politics/administration is irrelevant. There is no plausible circumstance under with Ukraine voluntarily goes to war against Russia. 'Decaying relations' are hardly a provocation to war.

If it was just a matter of Russia pushing his buttons, and he had no designs on crimea, then surely he would prioritize the short-term necessities of his people like gas for winter over escalating hostilities with Russia. There were plenty of reports from about a year ago where Poroshenko was expecting the EU to pull him out of the hole he had dug for himself.

Maybe he expected EU to 'dig him out'. Maybe he didn't have the funds. Maybe something else. The performance of his govt is not relevant.

Offended you by using the word "faith" did I. Point is that Ukraine does not have rich friends like it did in the past, when it was being egged on to take on Russia, and EU has no intention of accepting Ukraine for the time being.

In the long term, Ukrainians may see reason to patch up with Russia if Russia continues to be a powerful state for that duration...hard to make any claims beyond short term ones (in the order of a few years) with implicit assumptions of power of states remaining constant.

I'm not offended at all. I do however think its rather odd that you thinking anyone who disagrees with your position is bound to be pro-Poroshenko.

Ukraine cannot both return to its previous relationship with Russia and be a part of the NATO. Also the EU never offered membership to Ukraine, only an association agreement, which is only the beginning of the path to membership. A path which is not blocked. Just to put that in perspective, it took the Czech Republic a full decade after signing its association agreement to become a member of the EU.

Wotsissain wrote: These views are typical of western Ukrainians - <snip>

Meant to say Eastern Ukrainians, which is pro-Russia, not "western ukraine". Fixed post.

:cough:

- Ukraine is not really lost to the west even if the East Ukrainian who used to hate russia, now hate russia a little more

- Eastern Ukrainians assisted in the engineered "revolution" in Maidan because they all hated Russia and Putin from the beginning.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 23 Jan 2016 04:28

I am quite skeptical of all these OSCE observers given that they are hardly neutral when it comes to Russia given that they have an axe to grind in the power politics in the region, or the fact that the "revolution" that was engineered provided a fait accompli to early ukrainian revolutions. It was pretty clear back then that this was a reprise of the "orange revolution" in 2005 that saw heavy involvement of Ukrainian americans in the revolution.

This obviously would raise red flags as far as Russia was concerned, especially if a pro-Russia president was hounded out of his office mid-term by a violent mob, only to be replaced by another ukrainian oligarch who was against Russia in the elections that followed immediately.

I'm not offended at all. I do however think its rather odd that you thinking anyone who disagrees with your position is bound to be pro-Poroshenko.

This is just banter...not ideologically bound to either side..just passing through.

Poroshenko's politics/administration is irrelevant. There is no plausible circumstance under with Ukraine voluntarily goes to war against Russia. 'Decaying relations' are hardly a provocation to war.

Yes, but poroshenko's action also played a point in this whole episode. If we step back here, Russia was presented a couple of tough choices by the chess-playing pigeon:

(1) Not be provoked while NATO expanded its membership with Ukraine in the grouping, and get the NATO/US right next to its border and in possession of Crimea down the line, with the possiblity of having to take on NATO if it wanted to retain crimea -- this would no longer just be fiction if the Ukrainian govt. terminated the lease unilaterally provoked a fight down the line..stranger things have happened.

(2) Preemptively strike ukraine and take over the parts it was interested, thus lowering the risk of losing strategic territory in the short term (as opposed to a few decades from now when the lease ended) should ukraine become hostile...of course, by doing so, Russia would make sure that ukraine was hostile, but it does not matter anymore.

If Russia chose (1), it may still have retained the southern stream pipelines to europe and the revenue generated from it, but then if Ukraine turned hostile, these pipelines would either be rendered useless (like they are now) or end up funding Ukraine's hostile (to Russia) leadership, and there was a good chance that the oil revenues from EU would suffer if the situation escalated a few years from then.

If Russia chose (2), pipelines would be rendered useless and it would lose all the oil revenue, and the risk would be to get back from the economic downturn due to their choice. The would assured of retaining control of geopolitical assets in crimea.

If loss of revenue from oil sales was a highly probably event, then doing so while retaining control of crimea sounds like the right choice. Of course, things got worse for Russia when the saudis suddenly decided to cut oil prices also against their own best interest.

What is interesting is how Germany (cutting off business relations with Russia), Ukraine (ditto), Saudis (cutting down oil prices and hurting their revenue severely) -- all of them took policy decisions that were obviously not in their long term interests, and yet they not only took those decisions, they also have no intention of rolling them back even after all the pain such decision making has cost them. What's up with that? What kind of arm twisting can cause these govts. to commit themselves to some horrible policy choices?

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 23 Jan 2016 04:31

Viv S wrote:
- Ukraine is not really lost to the west even if the East Ukrainian who used to hate russia, now hate russia a little more

- Eastern Ukrainians assisted in the engineered "revolution" in Maidan because they all hated Russia and Putin from the beginning.

the point remains if you change east to west (because Kyev is in the west where the revolutions were engineered) -- just a typo. if this is all you have to say in response to whatever else was written, that's terrific.

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 23 Jan 2016 04:51

Not sure why it matters so much about who is right and who is wrong in Ukraine. And if things could have turned out differently with better leadership.

Point is that Russian seizure of Crimea and the War in Donbass have created harsh sanctions on them from the West which, along with low oil prices, are taking a toll on Russian economy.

Relations are also permanently damaged with Ukraine for the next decade or two, so they will probably join EU and NATO once the conflict is over. This will also be a big blow to Russian influence and pipeline plans.

Russia in this stage of weakness is not good for India, as it means them getting closer to China. But it also gives India the opportunity to drive harder bargains on indigenous servicing and spare procurement contracts. Both good and bad to keep in mind.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 23 Jan 2016 05:19

chakra.in wrote: Not sure why it matters so much about who is right and who is wrong in Ukraine. <snip>But it also gives India the opportunity to drive harder bargains on indigenous servicing and spare procurement contracts.

There is a larger game aimed at weakening Russia, which was most of the post (am not into who's right contests,as it were), so it is short-sighted to see only the immediate game of getting cheaper contracts and procurements and not try and figure out the possibilities of a weakened Russia post Putin, if Russia is unable to climb back from its weakened economic position. One of Putin's weakness is that he has not create a successor line of leaders to fill the gap, implying that he will be replaced by someone who has the support of the oligarchs and others who currently support him. Will it be more of the same as Putin? If not what?

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 23 Jan 2016 06:06

Wotsissain wrote:
There is a larger game aimed at weakening Russia

Obviously, US and NATO have been playing that game for sometime. It seems they were successful in grabbing Ukraine out of Russian sphere of influence. Who you blame for this, depends on who you talk to, and as you said the 'who's right contest' isn't important.

so it is short-sighted to see only the immediate game of getting cheaper contracts and procurements

Well, as I said the good and bad right now for India is mostly Russia getting closer to Chine, and India being able to strike harder bargains on contracts. Obviously, there are much bigger implications here in the long run, but for India this is the immediate reality and one of the few benefits they can/are taking advantage of from a weakened Russia. Overall, an economically weak Russia in the long term is definitely not good for India.

...and not try and figure out the possibilities of a weakened Russia post Putin, if Russia is unable to climb back from its weakened economic position.

Putin is probably stepping down by 2018 elections. I doubt even he even planned or wanted to stay longer than that. And Putin can compromise on the situation anytime, ending sanctions. What the final deal will be who knows, it will probably end with Russia formally getting Crimea and Donbass, but Ukraine joining EU and NATO. An overall huge blow to Russian influence, trade, security, and pipeline strategy. Ukraine, Belaruss, and Kazakhstan were supposed to be unbreakable Russian brotherly nations. Now that has changed.

However, this won't fix the real problem with the Russian economy which isn't just sanctions, but mostly low oil prices. And there is nothing Russia can do about that. Players beyond their control have decided to flood the market to run out US Shale from taking more of their market-share. Nobody knows when oil prices will go back up, but it is unlikely that they are ever returning to +$50 a barrel for any meaningful period of time as long as the fear of US Shale exists. So oil-exporting nations should be looking at a permanent decline in oil revenues and global influence, from their previous high.

One of Putin's weakness is that he has not create a successor line of leaders to fill the gap, implying that he will be replaced by someone who has the support of the oligarchs and others who currently support him. Will it be more of the same as Putin? If not what?

The people will decide in the elections. Nobody knows what it will be, but Putin's influence and popularity still remain strong, so he will probably have large input in his part about who his successor will be. I doubt it will be someone so autocratic, however. I expect someone more open and less autocratic.

India/Russian relations will probably not be helped or hurt in any meaningful way from the current status quo unless the new leader is heavily pro-Chine and pro-Paki.