Bharat Rakshak

Scowcroft Likes Prospects for Better Ties to Russia, China
By GERALD F. SEIB
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124112759652674705.html

Brent Scowcroft, an éminence grise of U.S. foreign policy, has watched superpower relations up close through seven presidencies, and here's some good news: He mostly likes the potential he sees in relations with both Russia and China right now.

In the early stages of the Obama presidency, Mr. Scowcroft thinks the table is set for productive relations with both nations, which, even in a much-changed world, remain the most powerful forces with which Washington must contend.

Promoting world economic cooperation and decreasing nuclear weapons are just two priorities that signify the importance of the U.S. maintaining relationships with Russia and China, WSJ's Washington Executive Editor Jerry Seib says.

The combination of new leaders in Russia and the U.S., and a willingness on both sides to think anew about nuclear strategy, could significantly upgrade ties between Washington and Moscow, Mr. Scowcroft says. And the global economic crisis, if handled right, actually has the potential to improve U.S.-China cooperation.

Positive outcomes are hardly guaranteed on either front, of course. But in any case, the stakes are enormous, for those two countries have the greatest ability to affect the broader national-security strategy for good or ill. It may be that only solid U.S.-Russian cooperation can stop Iran from moving toward nuclear weapons, for instance. Meantime, the U.S.-Chinese economic relationship is probably the most important in the world, and China may be able to help, at least a little, in easing dangerous situations in North Korea and Pakistan.

Nobody has seen these pivotal relationships from up close longer than Mr. Scowcroft. Veteran of the Nixon White House, national security adviser to both Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, and current confidant to foreign-policy thinkers of both parties, he may be the closest thing to a personification of the foreign-policy establishment. One of his closest colleagues, Robert Gates, serves as defense secretary for President Barack Obama, and White House aides speak respectfully of Mr. Scowcroft's views.
[Brent Scowcroft]

Brent Scowcroft

So a chat in his office, two blocks from the White House, is a good way to size up the state of superpower ties.

First, Russia:

"On Russia, we have tended, since the end of the Cold War, to benign neglect, except when we need them for some particular thing," Mr. Scowcroft says. That has exacerbated feelings of bitterness in Moscow: "I think we have severely underestimated the humiliation that Russia and Russians felt at the demise of their position in the world."

Many of those sentiments were embodied by former President Vladimir Putin, now prime minister. But now, with the arrival of new President Dmitry Medvedev, Mr. Scowcroft says, "we have an opportunity to turn that around, and it is in the area of nuclear business."

That's precisely the opportunity Messrs. Obama and Medvedev sought to pursue when they agreed recently to focus on nuclear-arms reductions. The U.S. and Russia still own 95% of the nuclear weapons in the world, Mr. Scowcroft notes, and the U.S. ought to start talking with Russia "as equals" about reducing the threats from nuclear arms and spreading safe nuclear power.

U.S.-Russian cooperation in this area also offers the best-remaining chance to deal with the looming Iranian nuclear danger, Mr. Scowcroft says: "The only chance to dissuade Iran is if the U.S. and Russia are linked together on Iran."

Mr. Scowcroft sees a deal to be made: If the Russians really help stop the Iranian nuclear-arms program, the U.S. could drop its plans for a European-based missile-defense system that so troubles Moscow. The U.S., he notes, has tried to reassure Russia that deployment of the missile-defense system is designed to thwart threats such as Iran's, not to confront Russia. If Iran is stopped, "we don't need that deployment."

On to China:

"Right now, I feel good about China," says Mr. Scowcroft, who has navigated much of the relationship with Beijing over the past generation. The transition from the George W. Bush to Barack Obama administrations has been smooth on this front, he says. Now, "the financial crisis has the potential to work two ways: It can either bring us closer together or split us apart."

Mr. Scowcroft sees more potential for the former so far. The Chinese have stepped up with an economic-stimulus plan that "has ours beat substantially, as near as I can tell, which is to say, when they decide to spend money, it gets spent the next day."

The Chinese have shown a willingness to undertake "huge" infrastructure spending, with benefits rippling to the U.S. On the American side, the Obama administration's recent decision, in a Treasury Department report, not to label China as a nation that manipulates its currency to gain economic advantage was "a clear political statement."

"I don't see anything on the horizon that leads me to think inevitable hostility has to be the result," he says.

Which is good, because much as Russia can provide help stopping Iran's nuclear program, China has the best shot at altering North Korea's move down the nuclear-weapons path. There are limits, Mr. Scowcroft notes, but "even if the Chinese can't control North Korea, they have more influence."

Similarly, Mr. Scowcroft notes, Pakistan has traditionally tried to rely on two nations, the U.S. and China. It may be beyond the power of either to halt Pakistan's current slide toward turbulence at the hands of Islamic militants, but they stand a better chance working together than apart.

Write to Gerald F. Seib at [email protected]

Russia’s biggest shipyard on the Pacific coast, the Amur Shipbuilding Plant, has been renationalised for a token sum and will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in state aid, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Monday.

On Monday, the plant’s general director, Nikolai Povzyk, said the submarine was fully repaired and would be passed to India by the end of the year, Itar-Tass reported.

The matter was raised informally by Russia during a recent visit of an Indian delegation led by Defence Secretary Vijay Singh to Moscow. The defence agreement with Ukraine is at an advanced stage of negotiation...............Moscow is also believed to be unhappy over reported comments of former IAF chief Fali Homi Major, just before his retirement, that India would prefer A330 multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) for mid-air refuelling of fighter aircraft, instead of the Russian Illushin-78 tankers, six of which are already being used by the IAF..........

KrishG wrote:India's defence pact with Ukraine annoys Russia

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ia/360635/

The matter was raised informally by Russia during a recent visit of an Indian delegation led by Defence Secretary Vijay Singh to Moscow. The defence agreement with Ukraine is at an advanced stage of negotiation...............Moscow is also believed to be unhappy over reported comments of former IAF chief Fali Homi Major, just before his retirement, that India would prefer A330 multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) for mid-air refuelling of fighter aircraft, instead of the Russian Illushin-78 tankers, six of which are already being used by the IAF..........

Aircraft with US military goods forced to land

Posted: Saturday , Jun 20, 2009 at 0429 hrs IST
Mumbai/New Delhi:

A cargo aircraft, allegedly carrying US military goods, was forced to land in Mumbai on Friday night after the Indian Air Force became suspicious that it was a military aircraft flying on a civilian code. The aircraft is Russian-made but was apparently leased to the US Air Force.

Travelling to Kandahar from Diego Garcia, a US military base, it had permission to fly over India as a civilian aircraft but the IAF found that, once in Afghan airspace, it would have its designation changed into one usually meant for military aircraft …..……...........................

Indian Express

2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship
(Redirected from Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation)
The Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation (FCT) is a twenty-year strategic treaty which was signed by the leaders of the two international powers, Jiang Zemin and Vladimir Putin, on July 16, 2001

Possible benefits

Analysts have attributed the motives behind, and perceived mutual benefit of, the FCT to several factors. [1]

China

* China aims to produce more advanced technology, as opposed to a continued reliance on "Made in China," light consumer goods. This process can be accelerated with Russian training and technology.

* China wishes to develop and modernize its armed forces, much of which remain outdated. This process can be accelerated with Russian military training and technology.

* China wants to obtain a stable, consistent and affordable level of fuel shipments, especially petroleum. This goal can be better met with purchases and delivery of Russian oil, including the construction of a Trans-Siberian oil pipeline. [2] [3]

* China wishes to attain support for its stance on Taiwan.

Russia

* Russia strives to obtain sources of capital, which it is in need of following severe losses to international speculators during the process of Soviet dissolution. This effort can be significantly aided through the use of Chinese capital. Accordingly:

* Russia wants to find sources of employment for its skilled workforce.

* Russia wants to sell its military technology and expertise.

* Russia wants to sell its large reserves of petroleum and natural gas.


Fear of US encirclement

Both the PRC and Russia fear an encroachment by the United States (especially following its strengthened geopolitical position following the September 11, 2001 attacks) involving areas which they view as belonging to their respective spheres of national influences and interests: for the PRC, this largely involves Taiwan serving as a US client state, while for Russia it involves having various former Soviet Republics as US client states. Many of these do not border either country, though Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan border the PRC, whereas Kazakhstan borders both.

Economic competition with the US, Japan and the EU

The United States, Japan and the European Union are three economic powers who possess a skilled workforce and access to capital. Russia and the PRC can more effectively compete against these powers in the world economy, with Russia given access to Chinese capital and China given access to Russian training and technology.

Opening Up the Silk Road
Mozaics and turquoise domes: Islamic treasures open for tourism in Uzbekistan


By PATRICK BARTA

Khiva, Uzbekistan

Walking at dusk through the stone alleyways of this legendary Silk Road city, it's difficult to tell which country, or century, you're in. Minarets and 17th-century mosques tower overhead. Battered Soviet-era taxis wait for passengers. Signs in Russian hawk meat dumplings to men in robes and shaggy sheep's-hair hats. It could be an Arabian Nights caravan town—or the Soviet Union, circa 1962.

Uzbekistan is one of the most-overlooked tourist destinations in the world, attracting scant interest from Western travelers, especially Americans, after decades of isolation under the former Soviet Union. Patrick Barta reports.

Midway along the great Silk Road that connected East and West for more than a millennium, Uzbekistan has seen Mongol hordes, Alexander the Great, Turkic raiders and Persian traders. In the 1800s, it was ground zero for the decades-long cold war between Russia and Britain that eventually ended with Central Asia falling under Russian, and ultimately Communist, control. Today, it's one of the world's most-overlooked tourist destinations, attracting scant interest from Westerners, especially Americans, after decades of isolation under the former Soviet Union.

Recently, though, Uzbekistan has emerged as a haven of relative calm in the region, which also includes Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has been slowly building a tourism infrastructure, giving foreigners a chance to see some of the Islamic world's great architectural treasures without serious concern for safety or discomfort.

Of primary interest are three spectacular Silk Road cities, starting with Samarkand, the former headquarters of Tamerlane, the famously-brutal 14th-century warrior whose conquests ranged from parts of modern-day India to Russia and Syria. Although he reportedly built towers from his victims' skulls, he also populated Samarkand with architects, poets and mathematicians and filled it with the spoils of his conquests, creating a city of turquoise-domed monuments that survive in epic, decaying splendor.

Uzbekistan remains something of a police state, controlled by former Communist apparatchiks famous for corruption and human rights abuses, including a crackdown on protesters in 2005 that left several hundred Uzbeks dead. The government has jailed many political opponents and media controls are tight, according to the U.S. State Department and others.

The police in Tashkent are known for hassling foreigners, and visitors must fill out government registration forms at hotels. While touring the city's extravagant Soviet subway, with its chandeliers and collectivist murals, I was detained twice for no apparent reason, though the police let me go after examining copies of my passport.

"In fact the 'Gorshkov' project has become the sole problem in Russian-Indian relations," Medvedev said during a visit to the Sevmash shipyard in the White Sea town of Severodvinsk.

Responding to Sevmash General Director's argument about the whopping cost escalation due to additional work in the course of modernisation, an irritated Medvedev said in his televised remarks: "Why did you sign (Gorshkov deal)? As a result all of us have to give explanations, you to me and me before the Indian colleagues."

"Complete the work and deliver the ship, otherwise it would have serious consequences," Medvedev cautioned.

Early last year, Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Milov published a report titled "Putin. Itogi," or "Putin. The Results." It was a well-documented, comprehensive, and absolutely damning critique of the corruption, authoritarianism, and general dysfunction of what they called rezhim Putina, or "Putin's regime." Most revealing was their economic argument: After eight years of Vladimir Putin's centralizing of the government and the economy, as well as the bureaucratic incompetence and cronyism his policies fostered, Russia had squandered the unique chance at modernization offered by the flush years of the early 2000s. Their conclusion: "The situation could be changed. But the current Russian authorities are neither responsible nor professional nor honest and, as such, cannot initiate change. The situation in Russia will change only when the Russians take the fate of their country in their own hands."

Despite the authors' credentials—Nemtsov was first deputy prime minister in the 1990s and a key reformer who later went into the opposition, and Milov was an early Putin-era deputy minister of energy who now heads a small Moscow think tank—their report circulated only as modern-day samizdat on the opposition Web site grani.ru and later as a thin pamphlet with a press run of 5,000. And even among the small circles of what remains of Russia's liberal intelligentsia, their critique made no waves, seeming irrelevant at a time when oil was on its way to $140 a barrel. These days, however, Nemtsov and Milov are looking startlingly prescient. This is in part because of last winter's burst in the bubble of the Russian economy, largely based on oil profits that fell to less than half of what they had been, with GDP shrinking by a 10 percent annual rate in the first quarter of this year compared with the first three months of 2008, industrial production 17 percent lower this April than a year ago, unemployment hitting 8 percent and rising rapidly, the ruble losing half of its value against the dollar, and inflation likely to reach at least 13 percent. But it's also because the economic crisis has triggered a much broader reevaluation of the Putin-era political system. Even now, with oil prices rising again and Russia's stock market beginning to bounce back, for many, the crisis still points to what a missed opportunity the last few years have been.

Russia's failure, and Putin's role in it, is now the subject of an increasingly loud, surprisingly vigorous debate playing out on the Russian-language Internet—where a host of opposition Web sites publish untouched by heavy-handed Putin-era regulations on mass media—and in the pages of the struggling but still influential Moscow liberal press. Taken together, these writings make for a new literature of crisis, an intellectual debate that is not only about that classic Russian question, Kto vinovat? but also about competing visions of Russia's future, Chto delat? In other words, not just who is to blame, but what is to be done? Russia today is not only a country battling economic crisis, but one in a crisis of political identity as well. Out of the Russian intelligentsia's struggle to understand what Putin's rule has wrought springs an effort to shape the future: Now, at least, they know what they don't want.

Aircraft carrier blunders

2009-07-03

……………….... Mr. Kalistratov criticized the Indians for having raised their requirements from Sevmash. –They wanted a Lada, and now they demand a Mercedes, he told the President. …………………….

Barents Observer

Nezavisimoa, Russia
http://watchingamerica.com/News/30263/n ... can-style/
National Security Strategy,
American Style

By Vladimir Ivanov
Translated By Yulia Kosiw
19 June 2009
Edited by Louis Standish
Russia - Nezavisimoa - Original Article (Russian)

The document “National Security Strategy of the United States" along with the “National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation before 2020” was signed by the president of the country. This happened when George Bush Jr. was president in 2006. The American document is the strategy for fighting terrorism on American territory and beyond its borders. However, a lot of other aspects of modern calls and threats are also being considered. A significant part is dedicated to democratic development around the world, economic globalization, as well as nuclear containment and WMD non-proliferation.

From Nixon to Bush, Jr.

The United States started the process of formulating a modern anti-terrorist national security strategy in 1972. At the Olympic games in Munich, the members of a Palestinian group “Black September” took hostage and killed a group of Israeli athletes. In 20 days, American President Richard Nixon gave an order to create a committee on battling terrorism, which was chaired by the secretary of State. A special working group was created within the framework of the committee, which was responsible for questions such as security aboard air vessels and visa reforms.

The American ambassador to Sudan was kidnapped and killed in 1973, after which Washington strengthened cooperation in the sphere of battling terrorism on the international level. Besides this, the U.S. administration decided to never negotiate with terrorists: making concessions and meeting their demands.

The Carter administration made substantial changes to the strategy for fighting extreme groups. He dismissed the committee created by Nixon. The White House delegated the responsibility of coordinating anti-terrorist strategy to the National Security Council, the State Department and the CIA.

During the Reagan era, anti-terrorist activity for the first time became a matter of national importance. It was assessed that in order to defeat the threat of terrorism, America needs to use its diplomatic, economic, legal, military and media might. Numerous organizational structures were created, including the interdepartmental committee, whose members exchanged information and developed new approaches to the solution of the problem of opposing extremists. These structures continued to function under George Bush, Sr.

However, in 1995, Bill Clinton again delegated the responsibility of coordinating anti-terrorist activities to the National Security Counsel. A special group responsible for providing safety from the threat of the terrorist acts was created during his administration.
President Bush Jr. raised the fight against terrorism to a new level. He reorganized the security group for terrorist threats into a committee on anti-terrorist activity within the framework of the National Security Counsel. These organs still provide the solution for problems in fighting radical groups.
Statement of Intentions

The new options of the National Defense Strategy appeared in the White House in 2002 and 2006. The last document was 49 pages and included 10 sections:

– General Strategic Overview.
– Guarantee to protect human rights around the world.
– Strengthening alliances with the goal of defeating global terrorism and averting the threat to the United States and its allies.
– Joint resolution of international conflicts.
– Guaranteeing nuclear containment.
– Creating conditions for global economy through free markets and free trade.
– Assisting in the creation of open societies and the development of democracies.
– Developing cooperation with the centers of global power.
– Reorganization of structures responsible for national security, in accordance with security requirements of the 21st century.
– Using all opportunities for resisting opponents of globalization.

The last version of the "National Security Strategy" signed by President Bush in 2006 does not include the term of the operation. This document was developed by the National Security Council with direct participation of the American head of state. In essence, the strategy is only an enumeration of measures which Washington intends to carry out in the sphere of providing national security. Further directions of the activity of the government in this region are formulated in the document. The White House is obligated to publish "National Security Strategy of the USA" openly and make it available to the public in accordance with Goldwater- Nichols Act about the reorganization of the department of Defense from 1986.

Major Principles

According to the National Security Strategy, major goals of the administration of the United States are protecting the American people, combating terrorism and advancing democracy around the world. As the basis of the document, the White House placed the principle of preventive approach, stating that in ensuring self-defense, the USA is ready to deliver a hit to the enemy even when time and the place of his attacks on America is virtually unknown.

First and foremost, the goal of the military-political leadership of the United States is the defense of the American population from internal and external enemies. The enemies of the United States will not necessarily have great military or economic might. A serious threat to the country can be small groups of fighters. According to the experts of the National Security Council, a collective effort of the entire international community is necessary in order to lead an effective fight against a terrorist threat. The USA must use its entire power in order to head this fight and help those who do not have their own capabilities for the opposition to extremists. America’s enemies are not only terrorist groups but also the states that support them by allowing them to exist in their territories, rendering extremists financial aid or by contributing some other methods to the creation of the terrorist networks.

The analysts in Washington assume that the impulse action of terrorists for obtaining access to weapons of mass destruction is a very serious danger for the USA. It is asserted that obtaining this possibility by fighters can considerably aggravate the situation in the world and even become the reason for a global catastrophe.

The White House considers adhering to the principle of not negotiating with fighters and not fulfilling their demands to be the most important direction of policy regarding national security. Furthermore, those who support the must be included. The USA must in every way possible counteract the activity of terrorist networks, liquidate their leaders, control posts, communications centers and also reveal and destroy the channels of the material and financial supply of terrorists and apply the most rigid sanctions to the persons and the states which render them financial aid.

Special efforts must be directed toward the liquidation of those terrorists groups of an international nature and are attempting to obtain WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). In both strategies, it is indicated that the United States will push the idea of the illegality of terrorism and prevent its propagation by diplomatic means.
Even states with a weak authority, like Afghanistan, also pose a serious threat to the national security of the USA. This is caused by the fact that the favorable conditions for extremists to settle basing are created in their territories. Using this possibility, terrorist cells develop camp for the preparation of new fighters, where the quality of instruction grows substantially. Based on the example of Afghanistan, it is possible to estimate the results of how the USA will fight with those regimes that support terrorism. However, Afghanistan is far from being the only refuge of terrorists. They live and are prepared for attacks on the civilized world in North and South America, in Europe, in Africa, in the Near East and in Asia.

It is impossible to defeat terrorism and assure global security single- handedly. This goal can only be reached with the efforts of the entire global community. The United Nations, the Word Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, NATO and other international organizations will need to play a role as well.

The USA is intended to reform the system of domestic security so that it would cover the government structures on all levels and would contribute to interaction of state and private sectors.

The "National Security Strategy of 2006" closely resembles the 2002 version. It is based on the need to protect freedom, the rule of law and human rights while maintaining America’s role as a leading combatant of global terrorism. Washington considers the active way of fighting with the given threats its main priority. Iran is declared America’s main enemy. America charges Teheran with the spread of nuclear weapons and providing refuge to terrorists. North Korea is also considered the country which presents threat from the point of view of spreading nuclear weapons. This is why the White House proposes to introduce the universal production control of components for WMD (weapons of mass destruction).

In 2006, the document radically changed the position of the USA with respect to the Russian Federation. In 2002, Washington noted some positive changes regarding Russia and named it as an ally in combatting terrorism. The 2002 version emphasized that the United States cannot attain significant positive changes without the support of international allies and partners. But in 2006, Washington expressed very skeptical relations to the development of democracy in the Russian Federation, writing In that the USA “must be ready to act independently if necessary,” in connection with which the department of Information and press of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia stated by the way. In the opinion the White House, “the principal criterion of the development of the relations of the United States with the foreign states will be the correspondence or the nonconformity of the behavior of one or other country or another to the American understanding of democracy and to the needs of fight with the objectionable regimes, as this is seen from Washington."

Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also noted that in the latest version, “not one word about partner interaction between our countries, the formation of which both sides dedicated much time and efforts in accordance with the decisions of the presidents of Russia and the USA, about the mutual respect and the calculation in the practical policy of the legitimate interests of each other, about the equality of rights, mutual confidence, to the predictability of behavior, transparency of actions. This, from our point of view, concerns the policy on the post-Soviet space. One cannot fail to understand that without the application of these principles Russian- American relations can become the hostage of subjective judgments,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation said in a statement.

Shankar wrote:In a bold and decisive move -Russia has opened its air space to US military overflight ending its dependence on Pakistan as the sole logistics hubs .There will be no restriction on type of cargo carried and may include additional troops.

This is an interesting development from our point of view . Does it mean slowly obam administration is getting fed up of pak duplicity in war against terror ?

Add to the fact Dr Sing may be the first state guest to US

Things may be changing on ground faster than we think .

With Russia extending support to us on af pak policy and china bugged up like hell on muslim uprising slowly India is being pushed in a very advantageous position

Shankar wrote:In a bold and decisive move -Russia has opened its air space to US military overflight ending its dependence on Pakistan as the sole logistics hubs .There will be no restriction on type of cargo carried and may include additional troops.

This is an interesting development from our point of view . Does it mean slowly obam administration is getting fed up of pak duplicity in war against terror ?

Add to the fact Dr Sing may be the first state guest to US

Things may be changing on ground faster than we think .

With Russia extending support to us on af pak policy and china bugged up like hell on muslim uprising slowly India is being pushed in a very advantageous position

* JULY 25, 2009

Biden Says Weakened Russia Will Bend to U.S.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124848246032580581.html

By PETER SPIEGEL

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview that Russia's economy is "withering," and suggested the trend will force the country to make accommodations to the West on a wide range of national-security issues, including loosening its grip on former Soviet republics and shrinking its vast nuclear arsenal.

Mr. Biden said he believes Russia's economic problems are part of a series of developments that have contributed to a significant rethinking by Moscow of its international self-interest. The geographical proximity of the emerging nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea is also likely to make Russia more cooperative with the U.S. in blocking their growth, he said.

But in the interview, at the end of a four-day trip to Ukraine and Georgia, Mr. Biden said domestic troubles are the most important factor driving Russia's new global outlook. "I think we vastly underestimate the hand that we hold," he said.

"Russia has to make some very difficult, calculated decisions," Mr. Biden said. "They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they're in a situation where the world is changing before them and they're clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable."

Mr. Biden's remarks were the most pointed to date by a senior administration official on why the Obama administration believes its "reset" with Russia is likely to succeed, while previous efforts to engage Moscow by the Clinton and Bush administrations ended with little progress.

'More upgrades will hike the Gorshkov's price'

Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi July 31, 2009, 0:50 IST

A consummate Russian diplomat, Vyacheslav Trubnikov is returning home this week after having served as serving as Russia’s ambassador to India for nearly five years. The period has seen several highs and lows in the bilateral relationship, including the building of the first civil nuclear power plants by Russia and nagging problems over defence spares and equipment. Edited excerpts from an interview with Jyoti Malhotra. ………………….

Business Standard

Russia fears embrace of giant eastern neighbourBuzz up!
Luke Harding
The Observer, Sunday 2 August 2009
Article history

Chinese and Russian youngsters socialise next to the Amur River in Khabarovsk. Photograph: Justin Jin

It was an unashamed display of military force, involving tanks, fighter jets and more than 3,000 soldiers. Last week China and Russia held their biggest joint military exercises ever - their battalions streaking across the plateaus and shimmering plains of Shenyang province.

The exercises come as Moscow and Beijing prepare to celebrate an important moment in history: 60 years of diplomatic relations. After long periods of frigidity during the cold war, the two countries now claim to be enjoying an unprecedented strategic partnership.

But the military manoeuvres - named Peace Operation 2009 - were not just about showing off, unleashing rockets at imaginary terrorist enemies or threatening the US. Instead their aim was to send an unambiguous message to the internal Muslim populations of China and Russia: no dissent will be tolerated.

Both countries are now facing simmering Muslim uprisings. In China's case, this comes from Uighurs whose revolt in the north-west province of Xinjiang this summer has been brutally suppressed. Russia, meanwhile, is facing an insurgency of its own in the north Caucasus republics of Ingushetia, Chechnya and Dagestan.

But while China and Russia have much in common, including a mutual fear of separatism and Islamic radicalism, there are also signal differences. Despite last week's exercises, and a visit to Russia by Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, in June, politicians in Moscow harbour a deep-seated fear of China - in particular, of Chinese encroachment.

Russian TV recently claimed that Beijing has drawn up a secret plan. According to this top-secret blueprint, China is determined to grab back Russia's remote, but vast, far east region. China's strategy includes persuading migrants to settle in Russia, marry local women and steal or co-opt local businesses.

Russia's far east has always been the most strategically vulnerable part of Moscow's fissiparous imperium, in what is the world's biggest country. Some 6,100km (3,800 miles) and an eight-hour flight from Moscow, the far east is home to just 6.5 million Russian citizens. Next door, across the Amur river in north-eastern China, there are 107 million Chinese. Given this demographic imbalance, there is a primordial fear in the Russian imagination that China will eventually try to steal back the Europe-sized far east of Russia - a region rich in mineral resources, trees, coal and fish. The salmon alone are an attractive target. A quarter of the world's Pacific salmon spawn in the volcanic Kamchatka peninsula. According to the Russian TV scenario, Beijing is furtively plotting to undo the Russian colonisation of the Pacific coastal region, started in the 18th century by tsarist-era adventurers. The area's original inhabitants were Chinese. These early nomads eked out a meagre living while dodging the tigers that still haunt the Sikhote-Alin mountains.

In reality, the relationship is far more fascinating than the baseless fears of Russia's nationalists. Over the past decade the number of Chinese migrants working in Russia's far east has actually fallen. In Moscow, the authorities have recently shut down the capital's enormous Cherkizovsky market, turfing thousands of Chinese out of a job. The huge bazaar was home to Chinese traders selling billions of dollars-worth of grey-sector goods. (According to China's Xinhua agency, losses from Wenzhou in Zhejiang province alone amount to more than $800m, after Russian police confiscated their stocks.) Some 150 Chinese workers have been deported since the market was closed on 29 June.

Most experts believe China's own strategic goals do not include Russia's far east, or primitive territorial expansion. Instead Beijing's priorities lie elsewhere. They include development, reunification with Taiwan and internal stability, which experts suggest is more of a priority than ever following last month's ethnic riots against Han Chinese in Xinjiang.

According to Dr Bobo Lo, a lecturer on Chinese-Russian relations at the Centre for European Reform, Beijing's real challenge to Moscow is rather different. He argues that the rise of China will lead to the "steady marginalisation of Russia from regional and global decision-making". The Chinese do not want to invade Russia militarily because, he points out, they would lose.

Any loss of influence would alarm the Kremlin, which still sees itself as a major global power. Over the past nine years, under president and then prime minister Vladimir Putin, Russia has worked hard to recover its superpower status. However, few outside Moscow doubt that the main challenge to the United States's increasingly wobbly global and economic hegemony comes not from Putin's Moscow but Hu's Beijing.

In the meantime, informal ties between China and Russia are blossoming. During the summer, after the ice encrusting the Amur river melts, Russian tourists are now travelling to China from the attractive Russian town of Khabarovsk. Their destination is the gleaming Chinese town of Fuyuan, reached by whizzy hydrofoil.

Yesterday, cruising down the Amur, Captain Alexander Udenka pointed out to the Observer the border between China and Russia. On the river's right bank is China and a series of low green mountains and Fuyuan's newly built high-rises. Out on the river, Chinese fishermen zip around in speedboats, looking for the giant but elusive Amur sturgeon.

Over on the left bank, meanwhile, is Russia. Here there is no sign of human activity. The sandy bays are empty. There are not even any watchtowers - merely a shimmering green embankment of dense willows and oaks, as well as Manchurian nut trees and Japanese cherries - all apparently further evidence of far eastern Russia's lack of people.

"In 1969 China and Russia fought a war over one of these river islands," Udenka explains, sitting in his captain's cabin and steering in the middle of the river. "It was a small war. Now there are good relations between Russia and China. We trust each other," he adds, in broken Chinese.

A decade ago Fuyuan was little more than a village with a few pigs. Now it is a brash town, offering goods at less than half the price in Russia. During the season several hundred Russian tourists visit every day, staying on cheap two-day packages, and haggling with Chinese locals who have rapidly mastered the Russian language.

Everything conceivable is on sale in Fuyuan - fur coats, computers, mobile telephones, socks and even sex toys. After trudging round the market for several hours, most Russians relax with a massage - £10 for a one-hour session - or get their hair highlighted. Others tuck into a tasty lunch of silver carp caught from the Amur, or pork dumplings.

"I still haven't managed to get the hang of chopsticks," Igor, a 23-year-old Russian tourist confessed to the Observer. Igor showed off his new purchases - a black cowboy hat, a fake Armani jacket, Gillette Mach 3 razors and a bottle of aftershave with an English logo, "Love Affairs". Asked why he had decided to buy a cowboy hat, Igor replied: "I got drunk last night." Local Russians can travel to Fuyuan without a visa. This suits Fuyuan's traders, many of whom have moved from elsewhere in China. "I like Russians. They are pretty indiscriminate. They just grab everything and run," said Li Wing, 42, who owns a sex shop in Fuyuan.

Fuyuan ends abruptly. Its shopping centre peters out at a decorative Chinese gate. From here, there is a stunning view of the Amur river and Russia. Up in the woods, among the pine trees, there is evidence of the environmental cost that new Chinese towns such as Fuyuan are wreaking: heaps of rubbish, plastic bags and a dead owl.

The problem of what to do with the far east has long exercised Moscow's leadership. The Soviet Union offered generous subsidies to cajole workers and young couples to start a new life here. They got higher salaries, career opportunities, and flats. There were also cheap air fares back to European Russia. The incentives were needed given the region's harsh climate - scorching summers and freezing winters, with January temperatures regularly falling below -30C.

However, after the demise of the Soviet Union this system collapsed. With a ticket to Moscow now costing £500 return, a new generation has grown up with weaker ties to the capital. Instead of visiting St Petersburg, local Russians are more likely to holiday in China - travelling by bus to the Chinese seaside resort of Dalian and other destinations in China's north east.

Gradually, Asiatic Russians are getting to know their neighbours better. Farther down the Amur in the border town of Blagoveshchensk, Russian pensioners have even started buying up apartments on the Chinese side of the river. Other young Russians head west: since the early 1990s the Russian far east's population has plunged by 1.6 million. This exodus is a source of increasing worry for the Kremlin. On Friday Putin travelled to Khabarovsk to unveil a new pipeline stretching from the Russian island of Sakhalin to Khabarovsk and the far eastern port of Vladivostok. The pipeline will take gas to China, Japan and South Korea - part of an attempt to stimulate the region's economy.

In June, during his trip to Russia, Hu attended a summit of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, and held talks in Moscow with Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, which led to the signing of a massive oil deal. He also had tea with Putin. The deal reinforced China's growing economic influence in the region, and its emergence as a competitor with Russia for Central Asia's energy reserves.

In Khabarovsk, meanwhile, few locals see much prospect of the far east breaking away from Moscow. Despite improved understanding between China and Russia, the cultures remain too different. (The Chinese see the Russians as western-centric.) In Khabarovsk, the last stop on the Trans-Siberian Railway before Vladivostok, nobody is talking about secessionism.

"I've had a few relationships with Russian girls. But I'll end up marrying a Chinese one," says Tsi Ke, 25, who has lived for the past decade in Khabarovsk. Tsi owns a thriving Chinese restaurant, where blonde Russian waitresses wear Chinese dresses. He adds: "In China we believe a wife should stay at home a lot and be like a daughter to your own parents. For us, marriage isn't just between two people but between two families."

A more pressing problem for the Kremlin is the growing estrangement between Russia's western and eastern halves. Resentment of Moscow and its far-away bureaucrats is rising. There have been grassroots protests in Khabarovsk and in Vladivostok after Moscow raised duties on second-hand Japanese cars late last year, killing off a major regional business. Anti-Kremlin protests are continuing.

In May, Medvedev dropped into Khabarovsk for an EU-Russia summit. (The venue - 10 hours' flight from Brussels - was apparently chosen by Russia to punish the EU's pampered representatives, several of whom fell asleep during sessions).

Medvedev flatteringly described the far east as his "favourite part" of Russia, and expressed sympathy with students too broke to travel to Moscow. This summer the Kremlin has introduced a scheme offering some discounted tickets to the under-23s.

It remains to be seen whether the scheme will make much difference. In reality, though, successive governments in Moscow have done little to develop the far east - making the region susceptible to civic unrest and discontent. The region suffers from "long-term neglect by Moscow" and "appalling corruption and misgovernment at regional level", Bobo Lo says.

Despite last week's show of unity during military manoeuvres, the relationship between Beijing and Moscow is no longer one of equals. Russia may see China as an important strategic counterweight to the US - with whom it is currently in conflict over a range of issues, including the planned US missile defence shield in central Europe.

But the Chinese know that it is they, and not Putin's Russia, who are destined to become the world's newest superpower. And according to Bobo Lo, China is not interested in allowing strategic accommodation with Moscow to disrupt Beijing's more important partnership with Washington. "Washington is still the world's only indispensable partner," he notes.

A history of tension• Throughout much of the cold war Beijing and Moscow were enemies. However, Stalin had encouraged and financed Mao Zedong's revolution, recognising his communist People's Republic in October 1949. The partnership survived Stalin's death and the early Khrushchev years.

• In 1959 the two countries squabbled over which should lead the world communist movement, an ideological quarrel replicated in communist parties across Asia and Africa. Khrushchev's decision to back down during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis also needled Mao.

• In March 1969 tensions exploded when Russia and China fought a brief war in Russia's far east over the disputed Damansky island (now known as Zhenbao), close to Khabarovsk.

• Tensions continued in the 1970s and 1980s, especially after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, pictured above. Détente only became possible after the Soviet Union's demise.

• Over the past two decades relations between Beijing and the Russian Federation have improved, with booming trade, agreement on many international issues, and growing military co-operation. In 2004 Russia settled a long-running border dispute with China, handing over Tarabarov island in the Amur river, and half of another large island, Bolshoy Ussuriysky.

• China's rise, however, is likely to place increasing strain on the relationship. Experts believe that, as China becomes a world superpower, Russia's influence will diminish - a fate the Kremlin is unlikely to accept.

Acharya wrote:
"Russia has to make some very difficult, calculated decisions," Mr. Biden said. "They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they're in a situation where the world is changing before them and they're clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable."

Uzbekistan and Russia are locked in their worst diplomatic crisis in nearly a decade over Moscow’s campaign to build a new Russian military base in the heart of Central Asia, analysts say.

Moscow has been recently been courting its former Soviet satellites in the region in an attempt to counter what it perceives as a growing US military presence in its traditional geo-strategic backyard. But that effort ran into trouble last week when Uzbekistan, Central Asia’s most populous state, lashed out at plans by a Russia-dominated regional security organisation for a new base near its volatile border with Kyrgyzstan.

Uzbekistan blasted the deal, signed last month between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his Kyrgyz counterpart Kurmanbek Bakiyev, saying it would destabilise the region, embolden extremists and lead to a military buildup. In reality Uzbekistan, which has pursued warmer ties with Washington, fears Russia could use the base in southern Kyrgyzstan to tip the regional balance of power against it, said Alexander Cooley, a political scientist at Columbia University in New York. “Russia’s renewed assertiveness in the region is troubling for Tashkent, which considers itself the dominant power in southern Central Asia and fears that Moscow may support rival Central Asian states against it,” he said.

“Uzbekistan feels threatened by the decision ... as it could be used by Moscow in the future to support Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan’s regional rival, in water management issues and other local disputes.” The US military first set up a base in Uzbekistan to support operations launched in Afghanistan immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks, a presence that initially had the Kremlin’s blessing. That blessing however gradually turned to suspicion when the US presence in Uzbekistan lingered years after US-led forces ousted Afghanistan’s Taliban regime – Washington’s stated purpose for creating the base in the first place. In 2002, Russia founded the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), a loose grouping of ex-Soviet states with ostensibly shared security concerns, in part to offset the new US military presence in Central Asia.

Tashkent hosted the US base until 2006, when it evicted the Americans following scathing Western criticism of a bloody 2005 government crackdown on protesters in the Uzbek city of Andijan. Moscow by contrast made no demands then on Uzbekistan’s human rights record, considered one of the most abysmal in the world, and in turn won a valuable regional ally following Tashkent’s abrupt shutdown of the US base. Lately however relations between Washington and Tashkent have thawed, notably since the inauguration of US President Barack Obama, whose administration is less vocal about human rights abuses in the region than that of his predecessor. In April, the United States signed a deal with Uzbekistan to allow non-military materiel to transit the country en route for Afghanistan, after Kyrgyzstan declared it also intended to evict a US airbase from its territory.

This new deal with Washington could be one reason why Uzbek President Islam Karimov appears to feel more confident in standing up to the Kremlin, said Paul Quinn-Judge, a Bishkek-based analyst for the International Crisis Group. “It’s quite clear that the Americans are moving into Uzbekistan, for re-supply purposes at least, for the longer haul,” Quinn-Judge said. Referring to Karimov, he said this new US presence “must give him the sense that he’s got a patron around who’s going to be there for some time and be a counterbalance to the Russians”. Moscow appears to have been taken aback by the level of Uzbek opposition to its new base plan and has already begun publicly to backpedal, perhaps fearful that Uzbekistan could pull out of the CSTO altogether.

“On the current day there is no location, no number and, most importantly, no agreement about the placement of the base,” CSTO Secretary General Nikolai Bordyuzha told Russian news agency Interfax last week. What implications the standoff could have for Russian interests in Central Asia may depend on how far Uzbekistan is prepared to push, said Sarah Michaels, senior editor for the ex-Soviet Union at Oxford Analytica, a Britain-based think tank. Uzbekistan “is not coming from a position of confidence but rather from a position of insecurity and concern about what exactly Russia will be doing with that base”, she said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if they do pull out of the CSTO. It really depends on how Russia responds to Uzbekistan lashing out at the apparent establishment of the base.” afp

Vladimir Putin stoked tensions in the tinderbox Caucasus region on Wednesdaytoday, saying Moscow will spend nearly half a billion dollars next year beefing up its military presence in Georgia's breakaway republic of Abkhazia.

Much of the money is expected to fund construction of a new naval base in the Abkhaz town of Ochamchira, within striking distance of Georgia's Poti and Batumi ports, which have been visited by US warships since the war in Georgia last summer. An existing Russian air base further north in Gudauta is also likely to be enlarged. The plans enraged Georgia,

"For Russian strategic partnership and friendly relations with India are an unconditional foreign policy priority," Medvedev wrote to President Pratibha Patil.

Back to the USSR: MEA culpa

Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi August 24, 2009, 0:39 IST

A minor storm is brewing in Indo-Russian relations over Delhi’s refusal to transfer properties in the name of the Union Soviet and Socialist Republics (USSR) to the name of the Russian Federation, considered worldwide to be the inheritor state of the USSR.

The matter involves the most important Russian properties across the country, including the embassy in New Delhi’s Chanakyapuri, properties on which the cultural and press centres are separately located in the heart of New Delhi, and the consulate in Mumbai.

The consulate in Kolkata was transferred to Russia’s name several years ago by the Left Front government in West Bengal.

Officials in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) admitted that the transfer certificates of certain properties from the USSR to the Russian Federation had not been made because the ministry was seeking a “package deal”. In exchange for transfer rights, it wanted land from the Russian government so as to expand India’s missions in Moscow, St Petersburg and Vladisvostok.

“The Russians did give us some land in Moscow some years ago, then they took it away,” said an irate MEA official.

Russian diplomats are adamant that talks about any new allocations of land can only be discussed after Delhi first resolves the old issue. They point out that a piece of land given to the Indian embassy in Moscow was indeed taken back but only because the Indian government failed to build on it. .....................

Business Standard

What Chinese-Russian Relations Mean for the United States
Bobo Lo, a former Australian diplomat in Moscow and the director of the China and Russia programs at the Center for European Reform, in London, has written the best analysis yet of one of the world's more important bilateral relationships. His close examination of Chinese-Russian relations -- sometimes mischaracterized by both countries as a "strategic partnership" -- lays bare the full force of China's global strategy, the conundrum of Russia's place in today's world, and fundamental shortcomings in U.S. foreign policy.

China's shift in strategic orientation from the Soviet Union to the United States is the most important geopolitical realignment of the last several decades. And Beijing now enjoys not only excellent relations with Washington but also better relations with Moscow than does Washington. Lo calls the Chinese-Russian relationship a "mutually beneficial partnership" and goes so far as to deem Moscow's improved ties with Beijing "the greatest Russian foreign policy achievement of the post-Soviet period."

Precisely such hyperbole drives the alarmism of many pundits, who believe that the United States faces a challenge from a Chinese-Russian alliance built on shared illiberal values. But as Lo himself argues, the twaddle about Russia being an energy superpower was dubious even before the price of oil fell by nearly $100 in 2008. Even more important, Lo points out that the Chinese-Russian relationship is imbalanced and fraught: the two countries harbor significant cultural prejudices about each other and have divergent interests that are likely to diverge even more in the future. More accurately, the Chinese-Russian relationship is, as Lo puts it, an "axis of convenience" -- that is, an inherently limited partnership conditioned on its ability to advance both parties' interests.

But even Lo does not go far enough in his debunking of the Chinese-Russian alliance: he argues that it "is, for all its faults, one of the more convincing examples of positive-sum international relations today." This is doubtful. The relationship may allow the Chinese to extract strategically important natural resources from Russia and extend their regional influence, but it affords the Russians little more than the pretense of a multipolar world in which Moscow enjoys a central role.

Nezavisimaja Gazeta, Russia

U.S. and Russia
Split Central Asia

http://www.ng.ru/cis/2009-08-20/1_asia.html?mthree=4
By Юрий Симонян / Yuriy Simonjan
Translated By Marina Lavrinovich
20 August 2009
Edited by Jessica Boesl
Russia - Nezavisimaja Gazeta - Original Article (Russian)

During his trip to Central Asia, head of U.S. Central Command David Petraeus visited Turkmenia, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The visit has gone right. In Ashkhabad, Bishkek and Tashkent, he received assurances of the countries' desires to expand and strengthen their cooperation with Washington.

On Tuesday, President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan received Petraeus in his Oqsaroy residence. This was their second meeting this year. As in February, the parties exchanged opinions on the prospects for bilateral relations, in addition to other issues of mutual interest, which are, obviously, numerous.

In fact, after the renowned “Andizhan events” and Tashkent’s refusal to permit Western experts to investigate, the U.S. froze its relations with Uzbekistan. A few years passed before Washington chose to temper justice with mercy and partially canceled the economic sanctions. In response, the Uzbek side informed the West that it had no intentions of cooperating exclusively with Moscow. During the recent incident with the Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan, Tashkent demonstrated its eagerness to build relations by offering the U.S. its services as an alternative. It has also shown complaisance regarding the transit of cargo to Afghanistan.

Obviously, Uzbekistan's strategy couldn’t remain unnoticed, and a statement by David Petraeus during his meeting with Islam Karimov wasn’t just a tribute to diplomatic etiquette. He said that the current U.S. administration is extremely interested in cooperation in the various spheres. The President of Uzbekistan, in turn, assured his visitor that he “places great value on further development of the relations with the U.S." and is "ready to expand constructive bilateral and multilateral cooperation, based on the principles of mutual respect and equal partnership.” This is not a simple statement of reciprocity.

Uzbekistan, pretending to play the role of a regional leader, needs serious investments to make use of its powerful economic potential. The global financial crisis has reduced the number of potential investors for Tashkent. Its hope for Moscow’s help, prior to the renewal of the relations with the West, were only partially justified. Russia also has financial problems now and Uzbekistan cannot count on its investment.

On the other hand, Islam Karimov has tended to maintain a multilateral foreign policy that does not put all his eggs in one basket. Therefore, a significant warming in the relations with the U.S. is very convenient. In addition, the situation in the region has become heated due to the activation of radical Islamic organizations.

The press service of the U.S. Embassy in Uzbekistan made an announcement about the visit of the Pentagon representative. It announced that David Petraeus met with high-ranking official representatives from the Council of National Security, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, external economic relations, investments and trade.

The message read, “the Head of USCENTCOM discussed with the Uzbek authorities the key problems of regional security, in particular, those concerning Afghanistan."

David Petraeus discussed the same questions in Bishkek with Kyrgyzstan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Kadyrbek Sarbaev, to whom the visitor expressed gratitude for the creation of a Center for Transport (CTT) to replace the Manas airbase. The term for the dislocation of the U.S. Air Forces’ Manas airbase officially expired on August 18. Right now, practically the same functions are fulfilled by CTT. The transportation of coalition military forces and military and humanitarian cargoes to Afghanistan and the refilling of planes of all coalition types will be carried out at this center.

Having expressed his gratitude for such cooperation, David Petraeus also sent his congratulations to Minister of Foreign Affairs Kurmanbek Bakiyev with regard to his recent victory in the presidential elections. The Kyrgyz minister, in turn, reassured his guest that Bishkek attaches great importance to the development of relations with the U.S. and expressed hope for continued constructive partnership.

On Wednesday, the press service of the Kyrgyz Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that the two parties discussed questions of bilateral military and political cooperation and regional safety, including the struggle against terrorism and drug trafficking and the situation in Afghanistan.

The Deputy Director of the Institute of CIS countries, Vladimir Zharikhin, deemed U.S. activities in Central Asia “explainable and in coordination with Russia.” "The Presidents of the U.S. and RF have agreed on the transportation of cargoes to Afghanistan through Russian territory. We do not border Afghanistan, so the U.S. and NATO have to agree directly with the Central Asian leaders." Another story is that, when carrying out joint tasks, the U.S. tries to strengthen its own influence in this or that area by offering financial aid or by other “pleasant methods.”

Washington’s activities should not come as a surprise for Moscow. “Russia knew what was going to happen, making an agreement with the U.S. with regard to Afghanistan,” declared Zharikhin. According to him, there’s no threat to Russia’s geopolitical interests in Central Asia yet, except for the one that comes from Afghanistan, as “Talibs have become more active, and this can affect us.”

Medvedev noted that despite the downturn in the world economy, the trade between Russia and India had prospered and was expected to touch $10 billion in 2010. Both he and Patil said there was much scope for increasing trade between the two countries.

A 20-something Olga Mikhina, who works as an interpreter in the information wing of the Indian embassy in Moscow and our interlocutor with the tough-as-nails Russian bureaucracy, admits she is a fan of Hindi films. She claims to have seen nearly 100 films, both old and new, the latest being Madhu Bandarkar's Fashion. She knows most heroes and heroines by name “but somehow, Rishi Kapoor is my favourite”, she pouts with a shy smile.

Olga, who has earlier worked as a travel guide, and obviously loves her job with the Indian embassy, is also a fan of yoga, which she says helps her keep fit. “Our President Medvedev also practises yoga and he is rumoured to have a private Indian instructor,” she says.