Reuters relied on 20 sources to exclusively report on Thursday that “Ammunition from India enters Ukraine, raising Russian ire”, which follows earlier reports about this that were analyzed here, here, and here. Reuters went into more detail than anyone else thus far though by claiming that Italy, Czechia, Slovenia, and Spain are the Indian partners who passed along these supplies to Ukraine via a UK company. They also claim that Lavrov complained to Jaishankar during a meeting over the summer.
Another interesting tidbit from their report is the innuendo that the Indian government isn’t intervening to stop this because it wants to expand its arms export industry and therefore requires the extra business with Europe to help finance that despite knowing what its partners are up to. Reuters also cited sources who told them that Indian shells comprise less than 1% of Kiev’s total arms imports. In any case, it’s understandable why Russia would raise this issue with India, though it’s unlikely to harm their ties.
Russia naturally doesn’t want anyone arming Ukraine, including via indirect means, but it also hasn’t let prior reports of Pakistan and Sudan arming Ukraine impede their cooperation either. This is proven by the increasingly strategic nature of ties with Pakistan and Russia remaining committed to its plans to establish a logistics facility in Sudan. Neither are strategic nor traditional partners of Russia’s, yet relations have continued to expand in spite of these scandals, as they likely will with India as well.
Likewise, Wagner’s prior reported support of Sudan’s rebellious Rapid Support Forces, Russia’s decades-long arming of India, and its global strategic partnership with China haven’t worsened Sudan’s, Pakistan’s, and India’s respective relations with Russia either. Although all countries have their own national interests, they rarely impose zero-sum demands upon their partners, and instead continue cultivating relations with them in spite of disagreements even if they’re over sensitive issues as is seen.
It’s easy for observers to get caught up in Old Cold War nostalgia during the New Cold War and therefore mistakenly think that zero-sum calculations still predominate. The complex interdependencies that have formed between friends and foes alike since that last global competition have made it extremely difficult for any country apart from the declining American hegemon to still practice such policies. This was elaborated on more in these analyses here and here regarding the resumption of Russian-IMF relations.
On the subject of Russian-Indian relations, their complex interdependencies are direct and multidimensional, thus reducing the possibility of disagreements over sensitive issues such as Indian shells ending up in Ukraine or Russia’s increasingly strategic ties with Pakistan harming their relations. In brief, India still heavily relies on Russian arms, which Russia provides to India as part of its military diplomacy vis-à-vis that country and China aimed at maintaining the balance of power between them.
On the economic side, India has recently begun to rely on Russia for imports of discounted oil to fuel its rapidly growing economy, which Russia provides to India not just for revenue but also to preemptively avert disproportionate dependence on its larger Chinese customer. The interplay between Russia and India therefore helps each of them balance their respective relations with China, which in turn accelerates tri-multipolarity processes, the concept of which was explained here, here, and here.
It’s also important to mention that their financial ties have impressively diversified despite this scandal brewing over the past year, at least according to Reuters’ sources, and in contrast to the newfound payment problems that are hampering Russian-Chinese trade. This insight shows that Russian-Indian relations remain strong enough to weather any scandals, whether real or perceived, and counteracts hyperbolic claims among some that India is backstabbing Russia at the West’s behest.
Although some Russian representatives, their publicly financed media, and some of the pundits who are platformed by them tend to frame International Relations in zero-sum terms, the first two are doing so as part of their anti-Western messaging in the New Cold War while the last are misguided. The facts that were earlier shared about Russia’s relations with Sudan, Pakistan, India, and China, the latter of which is still in a global strategic partnership with Russia despite it arming India to the teeth, confirm this.
The Mainstream Media (MSM) exploits sensitive disagreements between these countries as part of their Western patrons’ divide-and-rule policy, while the Alt-Media Community (AMC) regularly ignores or sensationalizes these same disagreements for ideologically driven dogmatic reasons. Both are therefore unreliable for the most part, but it’s only the AMC that’s capable of reform, though only if leading figures stop gatekeeping candid discussions about these issues by “canceling” those who initiate them.
Those members of the AMC who aspire to accurately analyze International Relations as they objectively exist in today’s complex world must acknowledge “politically inconvenient” developments, monitor how the associated actors respond to them, and then update their audience about this. Weaponizing these issues for divide-and-rule purposes like the MSM does or to impugn one of Russia’s partners for not copying its policy towards third countries like the AMC often does isn’t analysis but proof of an agenda.
To be sure, sometimes “politically inconvenient” developments do indeed lead to rifts between partners or worse, and there’s nothing wrong with forecasting how such developments might evolve. That said, jumping to conclusions without clarifying that it’s just one scenario among several (which is typical of many of the AMC’s information products) can mislead one’s audience, whether unintentionally or not. Such is the case with those who might soon predict a worsening of Russian-Indian relations.
Putin recently honored Indian National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval by meeting with him during the BRICS NSA Summit in St. Petersburg, which he only also did with Doval’s Chinese and Iranian counterparts, thus showcasing the strength of their relations in spite of this shell scandal. This complements the insight that was earlier shared about their ties to reinforce the prediction that they won’t be harmed as a result of Reuters’ latest report.
Those members of the AMC who want to improve their analyses about Russian-Indian relations or whatever else should follow the advice from this six-year-old guide about “Political Analysis in Today’s Interconnected Globalized Society: Seven Steps”. It’ll teach them how to overcome their existing misperceptions and subconscious biases as well as the best ways to create invaluable feedback loops. That guide can prove indispensable to reforming the AMC if enough influencers implement its advice.
