Follow us on social

How far can a Putin-Modi hug go?

How far can a Putin-Modi hug go?

Russia and India clearly have an interest in boosting relations. No doubt Washington is keeping a wary eye on it.

Asia-Pacific

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi literally embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow this week. Not just once, but a number of times, and in front of cameras.

It provided for a lot of colorful optics and press speculation, suggesting that the two were trying to send a message about their bilateral relations to the rest of the world. But what were they trying to say? Let’s examine.

At first, Russia seemed an unlikely destination for Modi’s first foreign visit since India’s national elections granted him a third term and continued success for his Bharatiya Janata party. But the Russian daily newspaper Kommersant soon promoted Modi’s visit as not only a boon to both countries, but as an important diplomatic victory for Moscow:

"While the U.S. and its allies discuss military issues countering Moscow’s [interest]," the paper declared, "one of the informal leaders of the Global South will be reaching agreement with the Russian president on general steps for bilateral cooperation and how to strengthen international security.”

According to reports, the two sides discussed strengthening and deepening military ties between the two countries and partnership in the atomic energy sector, among other issues. Modi also raised the necessity to end the fighting in Ukraine. “Bombs and rockets do not secure peace,” Modi said according to Kommersant, adding, “therefore we need to give accent to dialogue, and dialogue is necessary” — comments indicating that Modi may be trying to personally get involved in peace negotiations.

Russian and Indian geopolitical ties consist of several components, first of which is their respective Global South roles. India, like many members of this club, has maintained an unaligned position on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but reportedly believes a resolution to the “conflict cannot be achieved through military means alone.”

Such “neutrality” has helped Russia attain positive soft power and reputational benefits that aid Russia’s expansion of trade and favorable political arrangements with many countries in the Global South as the war in Ukraine continues.

Bilaterally, this position has allowed Russia and India to continue expanding their energy trade and India to benefit from lower prices from Russian fuel. For example, pre-Ukraine war India imported almost no Russian oil. But since Western countries imposed oil sanctions on Russia at the end of 2022, India has become the second biggest importer of Russian oil, after China.

Currently, trade is almost all one-way as India produces little that Russia wants, and the rupee is not a convertible currency. According to the Indian foreign secretary, trade between India and Russia reached a record $65.7 billion in the 2023-2024 financial year, but Indian exports to Russia (pharmaceuticals, chemicals, electrical and mechanical equipment, iron and steel) totaled a mere $4.26 billion, versus imports from Russia which were $61.44 billion. During the meeting this week both sides agreed that their goal is to increase total trade to over $100 billion by 2030. However, the existing trade deficit continues to make India a bit uneasy, and it is expected Modi will try to get Russia to increase future imports.

A second component of the Russia-India relationship is China. Given its strong distrust of Beijing over ongoing border tensions, India was clearly unnerved by the deep support exhibited by Xi and Putin for one another during Putin’s visit to China in May. Moscow’s increased reliance on China militarily and politically is a concern to India, too, given the fact that India remains heavily reliant on Russian produced arms and hardware for its own defense.

Moreover, India does not share the exuberance Moscow does for BRICS expansion or for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Such moves pose a risk to India’s continued outreach to the West via participation in the G20. In fact, Modi did not attend last week’s SCO meetings in Astana, Kazakhstan.

Delhi does not support China’s Belt-Road Initiative, either, preferring the North-South Corridor which leaves out China. At the G20 summit, India also announced the new India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) corridor project together with Saudi Arabia that would link India’s markets, via the Middle East and Israel, to Europe — excluding both China and Russia.

From a geopolitical perspective, Modi likely recognizes the opportunities for India to build on the progress that Putin’s visits to North Korea and Vietnam have created between China and Russia. India would prefer these two countries under Russia’s influence than China.

A third component of Russian and Indian ties is the United States. Until recently, U.S.-India bilateral relations had been improving. However, the State Department recently included India on its list, along with Russia, as a “Country of Particular Concern” regarding religious freedom. India responded critically, calling it “propaganda against India.”

Meanwhile, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said that India’s relations with Russia impede Indo-American technology cooperation, a statement that India could easily view as meddling in its sovereign affairs. Therefore, the timing of Modi’s visit could be a signal to Washington that India has global options outside of the American-led orbit. Putin would clearly not object to this message.

It will be interesting to see what deliverables emerge from the visit. The Russo-Indian relationship is clearly an incredibly important one for both countries in the present and the long-term future.

However, it is also a relationship that must balance sovereign interests with varying partners and enemies. Although it has been revealed that the two sides discussed their thoughts on a Ukraine solution, India, with its commitment to ending the war through enhanced diplomacy, could prove to be a trusted and valued partner, if not an acceptable broker in any future negotiations.


Russia's President Vladimir Putin awards India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia July 9, 2024. REUTERS/Evgenia Novozhenina

Asia-Pacific
Tulsi Gabbard
Top photo credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard (Shutterstock/Maxim Elramsisy)

Tulsi said Iran not building nukes. One senator after another ignored her.

Washington Politics

The U.S. intelligence agencies’ Annual Threat Assessment (ATA) is billed as an opportunity “for the American people to receive an unvarnished and unbiased account of the real and present dangers that our nation faces.”

That’s according to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark), chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who personally presided over a public hearing this year to hear its conclusions.

keep readingShow less
general Michael Kurilla Israel
Top photo credit: General Michael “Erik” Kurilla, commander of U.S. Central Command, visited Israel in July 2022 to meet with Israeli Defense Force (IDF) leadership, to include the IDF Chief of Staff, Lt General Aviv Kohavi. (U.S. Central Command public affairs)

Is Israel's favorite US general helping to push us into war?

Middle East

Did the Israelis strike Iran when it did because Michael Kurilla is still commander of U.S. Central Command and a “window” for a prospective joint operation with the U.S. might be closing?

Some are speculating that because Kurilla is expected to retire from the military this summer that the Israelis saw their chance. The Army general, 59, has been widely reported to be on one side of a split in the Pentagon over whether the U.S. should support and even be part of Israeli strikes against Iran’s nuclear program.

keep readingShow less
Baqubah, Iraq
Top image credit: Baqubah, Iraq, March 30, 2007 (Stacy L. Pearsall USAF photo)

Welcome to Iraq War 2.0

Middle East

Like all things in the Middle East, the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran can seem complicated. It’s not. The unprovoked Israeli attack on Iran is the 2003 Iraq War 2.0, except it has the potential to be far, far more catastrophic than the absolute catastrophe that was Iraq.

Like President George W. Bush’s 2003 war on Iraq, the war on Iran is an unprovoked, illegal, offensive, unilateral war of aggression, potentially aimed at regime change, and sold to the public based on lies about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.