India gets Russian Igla-S missiles amid tensions with Pakistan
This move comes amid increased tensions with Pakistan, following last month's terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir which resulted in the death of 26 people.
The missiles are being deployed to forward formations to counter threats posed by aircraft, drones, and attack helicopters, a report by the news agency ANI said.
The Igla-S is an upgraded variant of the Igla missile system, which has been in service with the Indian Army since the 1990s and forms a key component of the country's Very Short Range Air Defense Systems (VSHORADS).
This delivery was made under the emergency procurement powers granted to the armed forces by the government, reports said. As part of the Indian Army's air defense network, these systems are vital in providing protection against aerial threats.
In addition to the recent delivery, the Indian Army has also signed a deal for the procurement of 48 more launchers and approximately 90 VSHORADS; the process is being handled using fast-track procedures, according to a report by ANI.
On Saturday, the Pakistani military successfully carried out a test launch of a surface-to-surface missile called the Abdali Weapon System that has a reported range of 280 miles, according to defense officials.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
13 hours ago
- Russia Today
Why Kiev always escalates before talks – and why it won't work this time
On August 14, 2025, Russian officials reported Ukrainian drone strikes on the border cities of Belgorod and Rostov-on-Don, killing and injuring civilians. Rostov saw an apartment building struck, with over a dozen casualties; in Belgorod, three civilians were hurt when a drone hit a car downtown. This came two days after the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) alleged that Ukrainian forces were preparing a false-flag provocation in the Kharkov region, complete with pre-positioned journalists – supposedly to shape a narrative blaming Moscow. These incidents are not isolated. They fit into a larger operational and political pattern: each time high-level talks are scheduled Kiev steps up attacks on Russia's border regions. The results are the same: civilian deaths, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and an attempt to create a cloud over the diplomatic process. The same happened in late May and early June 2025, just before the second round of Russia–Ukraine talks in Istanbul, when two bridges in Russian territory were blown up. The attacks killed seven civilians and injured over seventy more. In Moscow's interpretation, the timing was too precise to be coincidence – it was about setting a tone of hostility, perhaps provoking Russia into walking away from the talks entirely. And yet, Moscow did not take the bait. Russian negotiators showed up in Istanbul as planned. For the Kremlin, this has become a point of principle: no matter the provocations, Russia will attend discussions that could bring an end to the conflict – on its own terms. The upcoming Alaska summit on August 15, 2025, between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, is the latest such opportunity. The alleged Kharkov region provocation and the strikes on Belgorod and Rostov are seen in Moscow as deliberate background noise meant to derail the meeting or at least to sour its atmosphere. But just as in Istanbul, the Kremlin insists it will not be deterred. For Moscow, attending these talks is about more than optics. It underscores a long-held stance: Russia is prepared to end the conflict, but not at the price of what it views as its core national interests. Walking away now, after years of costly military and political investment, would make little sense. Instead, the aim is to secure a resolution that cements Russia's gains and ends the war on Moscow's terms – not by fighting 'to the last Ukrainian,' but by ensuring that the outcome is final and strategically advantageous. From the Kremlin's perspective, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky's motives are clear. Accepting a peace that involves territorial concessions would not only be a bitter political defeat – it could spell the end of his political career. More critically, it would remove the emergency powers he has repeatedly invoked since the start of the conflict to cancel elections and prolong his term in office. Those powers have also enabled controversial measures: forced conscriptions, suppression of opposition media, and an intensified crackdown on dissent. These steps have eroded his popularity inside Ukraine, making his hold on power dependent on the continuation of the wartime state of emergency. If the war ends, so does the legal shield of emergency rule – and with it, his immunity. Zelensky therefore has both political and personal incentives to keep the fighting going, even at significant cost to Ukraine's population. Key European backers share Zelensky's preference for prolonging the conflict. While EU leaders publicly frame Ukraine as a 'bulwark' against what they call Russian imperial ambitions – claiming that Moscow would move against Western Europe if Ukraine fell – domestic political realities tell another story. Across major EU countries, ruling parties and governments are facing historically low approval ratings. Their grip on power is increasingly tenuous, and a perpetual external threat provides a potent rally-around-the-flag effect. By keeping Russia framed as the imminent danger, these governments can justify unpopular policies, military spending hikes, and restrictions in the name of national security. They involve themselves in the conflict just enough to signal solidarity with Ukraine – supplying arms, funding, and training – without crossing the threshold into direct combat. For Moscow, this is a political theater that depends on the war continuing; remove the war, and the 'threat' narrative collapses, leaving these governments exposed to electoral defeat. Against this backdrop, Moscow views the Alaska talks as uniquely promising – not because they will magically end the war in one session, but because of who is not at the table. Neither Zelensky nor the EU will be present. Instead, the discussions will be between Putin and Trump, leaders who, in Moscow's reading, operate from a position of pragmatic realism. That realism includes acknowledging Russia's current battlefield advantages. Moscow believes it is winning the war, and that any serious settlement will reflect that balance of power. For the Kremlin, the likely outcome is that Ukraine will have to give up some or all of the contested territories – a step Zelensky would fiercely resist, and the EU would likely block outright if they were part of the talks. Without them, however, such a settlement becomes more feasible. The logic is straightforward: first, Putin and Trump agree on the framework; then, Trump leverages Washington's decisive influence over Kiev to bring Zelensky on board. In Moscow's calculus, this is where Trump's role is crucial. Without American military and financial support, Kiev would not have been able to sustain the war effort for nearly as long as it has. From the Kremlin's point of view, the recent attacks on Belgorod and Rostov, and the alleged false-flag operation in the Kharkov region, are tactical provocations with a strategic goal: derail the Alaska summit or force Moscow into an overreaction. But history suggests the tactic will fail. Moscow will be at the table in Alaska, just as it was in Istanbul, determined to push for an end to the conflict on terms favorable to Russia. If the Alaska talks proceed as planned, they could open the way to a negotiated settlement without the spoilers who have the most to lose from peace. In Moscow's eyes, that is precisely why the provocations are happening – and why they must be ignored.
Russia Today
4 days ago
- Russia Today
US is ‘done' funding Ukraine
Washington is not going to fund Ukraine anymore, US Vice President J.D. Vance told Fox News on Sunday. Ukraine's European backers can buy weapons from American producers if they want to continue supporting Kiev, and the US will be 'okay with that,' Vance added. 'But we're not going to fund it ourselves anymore,' he said. The interview was published after Vance met with several Western European and Ukrainian officials in London, including UK Foreign Minister David Lammy. According to media reports, Vance's trip was intended to pave the way for a summit between the Russian and US presidents in Alaska on Friday, where resolving the conflict between Kiev and Moscow is expected to be at the top of the agenda. Vance suggested that Kiev's European backers should play a bigger role providing funding if they 'care so much about this conflict.' 'Americans, I think, are sick of continuing to send their money, their tax dollars, to this particular conflict. But if the Europeans want to step up and buy the weapons from American producers, we're okay with that. But we're not going to fund it ourselves anymore,' he said. The US president had said earlier that the ideas under discussion include 'some swapping of territories to the betterment of both' sides, adding that Vladimir Zelensky would need to find a way to approve such a deal under Ukrainian law. Zelensky has rejected any such agreement, claiming that 'nobody can or will' make concessions on the issue. 'The Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupiers,' he proclaimed. Moscow's senior negotiator Kirill Dmitriev has warned that countries trying to prolong the Ukraine conflict will likely go to great lengths to derail the planned meeting between Putin and Trump.
Russia Today
4 days ago
- Russia Today
Russian-made S-400 system a ‘gamechanger ‘ – Indian Air Force chief
The Russian-made S-400 surface-to-air missile system has been a 'gamechanger' for New Delhi, Indian Air Force (IAF) chief Amar Preet Singh has said. Addressing a gathering on Saturday, Singh said the Indian armed forces had shot down five Pakistani jets and one airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft during strikes on its neighbor as part of 'Operation Sindoor' in May. 'The S-400 system which we had recently bought has been a gamechanger,' he said. 'The kill range of that system kept their aircraft away from the maximum distance at which they could employ their long-range air-to-ground weapons, like those long-range glide bombs that they have.' Singh is the first Indian military official to directly speak of the losses inflicted on Pakistan during the standoff. 'We have at least five fighters confirmed killed and one large aircraft, which could be an ELINT aircraft or an AEW&C aircraft, which was taken out from a distance of about 300km, which is the largest-ever recorded surface-to-air kill that we can talk about,' Singh said. He also spoke of the impact of Indian strikes on Pakistani airbases and air defenses. 'At least six radars, some of them big, some of them small… We have an indication of at least one AEW&C in that AEW&C hangar and a few F-16s, which were under maintenance there,' Singh was quoted as saying by the Indian Express. The Russian-made S-400 surface-to-air missile system has also earned the praise of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. 'Platforms like the S-400 have given unprecedented strength to the country,' the Indian leader said in May. India acquired S-400 systems from Russia in 2016 at a cost of $5.4 billion, in defiance of a US threat to impose sanctions.
