Delhi underlines its message amid US tilt to Pakistan and 25% Russian penalty
The S-400 Triumf, (NATO calls it SA-21 Growler) — a mobile, surface-to-air missile system (SAM) designed by Russia — is seen as the most dangerous operationally deployed modern long-range SAM (MLR SAM) in the world, considered much ahead of US-developed Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD).
It can engage all types of aerial targets, including aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and ballistic and cruise missiles within the range of 400 kilometres, at an altitude of up to 30 kilometres. The system can track 100 airborne targets and engage six of them simultaneously. It represents the fourth generation of long-range Russian SAMs — the successor to the S-200 and S-300. The S-400's mission set and capabilities are roughly comparable to the famed US Patriot system.
The S-400 integrates a multifunction radar, autonomous detection and targeting systems, anti-aircraft missile systems, launchers, and command and control centre. It is capable of firing three types of missiles to create a layered defence. It is two-times more effective than previous Russian air defence systems and can be deployed within five minutes. It can also be integrated into the existing and future air defence units of the Indian Air Force, Army and the Navy.
The first S-400 systems became operational in 2007 and is responsible for defending Moscow. It was deployed in Syria in 2015, to guard Russian and Syrian naval and air assets. Russia has also stationed S-400 units in Crimea to strengthen its position on the recently-annexed peninsula.
While India's dependence on the Russian defence system, its supplies and spares is well known due to the legacy defence relationship since the Soviet Union era, S-400 has been the mainstay of India's defence system, although supplies have been stretched due to the war in Ukraine since February 2022.
This puts Moscow as a reliable defence equipment supplier, at a time when geopolitics under Trump has brought in a sense of uncertainty and unpredictability in the defence partnership.
In that context, India faces a diplomatic and strategic dilemma of Russia on one side, US on another side, and the China-Pakistan axis on a third side. It is important to note that the China-Pakistan axis is also facing different pressures – the China-Russia ties are strengthening, while the US-Pakistan bonhomie has just begun with Trump and Pakistan Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir warming up to each other.
In this sort of multi-vector, multi-front challenge, Delhi views its ties with Moscow with much more predictability. This has been visible in the last few days, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, a day after National Security Advisor Ajit Doval met the Russian President in the Kremlin.
Despite the threat of sanctions on buying energy from Russia at discounted prices in the past three years, the Indian establishment has been relieved at Moscow's reliability when it comes to defence supplies – notwithstanding Beijing's influence, and at a time when India and China were facing off each other in eastern Ladakh with 50,000 to 60,000 troops on each sides.
This had been assured by the Russian establishment in meetings with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, and has continued over the last three years — with some delays. There have been questions over Russia's state of technology, because of the sanctions by US and European partners, but its diplomatic support for India has not diminished, according to Delhi.
This has been a source of comfort, although India has been procuring and diversifying defence equipment from the American, French and Israelis among others.
At a time when Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to travel to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Tianjin on August 31-September 1 – which is likely to be a venue for his meetings with Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping — the IAF Chief's comments are being viewed as a reminder of Russia's value. And, more deeply, a strategic signalling to the world – the US under Trump, China under Xi, Pakistan under Munir – that Russia's Putin, despite his chequered past, is a militarily-reliable partner for Delhi.
Shubhajit Roy, Diplomatic Editor at The Indian Express, has been a journalist for more than 25 years now. Roy joined The Indian Express in October 2003 and has been reporting on foreign affairs for more than 17 years now. Based in Delhi, he has also led the National government and political bureau at The Indian Express in Delhi — a team of reporters who cover the national government and politics for the newspaper. He has got the Ramnath Goenka Journalism award for Excellence in Journalism '2016. He got this award for his coverage of the Holey Bakery attack in Dhaka and its aftermath. He also got the IIMCAA Award for the Journalist of the Year, 2022, (Jury's special mention) for his coverage of the fall of Kabul in August 2021 — he was one of the few Indian journalists in Kabul and the only mainstream newspaper to have covered the Taliban's capture of power in mid-August, 2021. ... Read More
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
6 minutes ago
- Mint
Jerome Powell will make his last stand at Jackson Hole
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will take the stage next Friday at the Fed's annual Jackson Hole Economic Symposium to deliver what may be the defining speech of his career. The speech won't be lengthy—last year's version clocked in at just over 15 minutes—but with his term as chair ending next May and the Fed's performance under attack by the Trump administration, Powell may see Jackson Hole as his last or, at least, his best chance to cement his legacy and make the case for the central bank's independence. The annual symposium, hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, attracts the world's most influential central bankers, who will meet on Aug. 21-23 at the Jackson Lake Lodge in Wyoming's Grand Teton National Park. This year's conference, titled 'Labor Markets in Transition," will focus on structural forces such as demographics, productivity, and immigration that are reshaping the U.S. job market and the broader economy. The theme also speaks to the central challenge of Powell's term: how to navigate structural changes in the economy while fulfilling the Fed's dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment. Steering monetary policy in the face of political hostility has become a parallel challenge this year. President Donald Trump, whose second term began on Jan. 20, has berated Powell for the Fed's failure to cut interest rates, calling him a 'stubborn MORON" and 'Too Late." Trump has also accused Powell of mismanaging the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed's Marriner S. Eccles building in Washington, D.C., and suggested firing the Fed chair before his term ends. The White House is already vetting potential replacements, focusing on candidates willing to cut rates quickly and, in some cases, restructure the Fed. Powell's reluctance until now to lower the federal-funds rate from a current target range of 4.25%-4.50% stems chiefly from concerns that Trump's tariff policy may worsen inflation, which ran at an annual rate of 2.7% in July, as measured by the consumer price index. Political interference in central-bank affairs has precedent. Pressure from the Nixon administration in the 1970s helped push then–Fed Chair Arthur Burns to keep interest rates low despite rising inflation, a decision that contributed to double-digit price growth. Burns' successor, Paul Volcker, was forced to raise rates to nearly 20% to break inflation, sparking a deep recession. More recently, Turkey's president repeatedly ousted central-bank governors who raised interest rates, sending inflation above 80% and eroding the Turkish lira's value against the dollar. The lira has fallen by 82% in the past five years. Once a central bank is seen as an extension of the ruling party, its ability to control prices can quickly collapse. Powell joined the Fed Board of Governors in 2012, and was nominated as chair by Trump in 2017. He assumed the role in February 2018, and was later reappointed by President Joe Biden to a term that began in May 2022. This will be Powell's 13th year attending Jackson Hole, and it may be his last. Although his term as chair runs until May 2026, few expect him to stay on as a Fed governor until that term ends in January 2028. Powell's tenure as chair has been defined by shocks, in particular the eruption of the Covid-19 pandemic in the U.S. in early 2020, which triggered the fastest and deepest economic contraction since World War II. The Fed was forced to take extraordinary policy actions, including emergency rate cuts and unprecedented bond buying, to prop up the economy and infuse liquidity into the financial system. When inflation surged in 2021—as a result of these actions, critics say—Powell's initial assessment that it would be 'transitory" proved wrong. Inflation eventually hit a high of 9.1% in June 2022, damaging the Fed's credibility and necessitating one of the most aggressive tightening campaigns in Fed history. Fed officials hiked rates 11 times, starting in March 2022, lifting the federal-funds rate from near zero to more than 5%. The effort was largely successful. The Fed's preferred inflation gauge, the core personal consumption expenditures, or PCE, price index, has fallen to 2.8% annually without triggering the recession that many economists feared, although inflation remains stubbornly above the central bank's 2% annual target. Unemployment, meanwhile, has ranged from 4.1% to 4.3% in recent months. By the Fed's own standards, this qualifies as a version of the elusive soft landing. The path forward looks more challenging, however, and less certain. Wage growth has slowed from a 6% annual rate in 2022 to about 3.9%. U.S. employers added just 73,000 jobs in July, and payroll totals for May and June were revised downward by more than a quarter-million. Inflation readings have moved higher this summer, and tariffs are beginning to push up some import prices. Core CPI, which excludes food and energy, rose by 0.3% in July, the largest increase since January, while the annual rate of inflation hit 3.1%. The producer price index, a measure of wholesale inflation, jumped 0.9% last month, the largest monthly increase in more than three years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Thursday. The data indicated that tariffs could be causing businesses to raise the prices they charge one another, which probably will lead to higher consumer prices over time. 'You have to think of this as still quite early days" for tariff-related inflation, Powell said in July. Reciprocal tariffs on U.S. imports, which the White House has imposed in stages this year, are 'likely to generate a rise in inflation, a slowdown in economic growth, and an increase in unemployment," Powell has said. Trump and his advisors notably disagree. In Powell's view, tariffs complicate every decision the Fed might make from here. Cut rates too aggressively and risk fueling inflation. Hold rates steady at current levels and risk further erosion in job growth and higher unemployment. All of this should make for a 'live," or undecided meeting when the Federal Open Market Committee, the Fed's policy arm, convenes again on Sept. 16-17. The fed-funds futures market currently puts more than 92% odds on a quarter-percentage-point rate cut in September, which would be the first reduction this year, although two Fed governors dissented from the FOMC's decision in July to leave rates unchanged, arguing the Fed should have cut rates at that meeting to prevent further deterioration of the labor market. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested on Wednesday that the Fed might consider cutting rates by half a percentage point in September, given recent job-market data. At the same time, some prominent investment analysts and economists aren't convinced of the need for a September rate cut. Given the latest inflation reports, 'we see risk of the Fed potentially cutting fewer times than market expectations," wrote Chris Senyek, chief investment strategist at Wolfe Research, in a note on Aug. 14. Jackson Hole, he added, may be seen 'as a chance for Fed Chair Powell to take a hawkish stance on interest-rate policy." Every five years the Fed undertakes a review of its monetary-policy framework. As part of this year's review, officials are contemplating a potential change in how the Fed evaluates employment. William English, a former senior Fed official and current professor at the Yale School of Management, expects the central bank to return to describing 'deviations" from maximum employment, rather than 'shortfalls," a small semantic change that matters. It implies that both an overheated and a cooling labor market are problems to be addressed, giving the Fed equal justification to raise rates when the job market is too hot or cut them when it cools. Powell won't preview the Fed's September interest-rate decision at Jackson Hole. But his speech, titled 'Economic Outlook and Framework Review," can still send important signals about how the Fed will assess the economy, account for tariffs, and communicate in the future. Powell will spend much of his Aug. 22 speech, which begins at 10 a.m. Eastern Time, addressing that framework review, which the 19 members of the FOMC will vote on at some point later this summer. Past reviews have led to lasting changes such as formal inflation targeting, changed forward guidance, and altered labor-market goals. This year's review could establish principles for how to deal with supply shocks, and re-evaluate the balance between the two sides of the Fed's dual mandate. Any adjustments to the framework could enshrine policy changes that last beyond Powell's tenure. That is one way to protect the Fed's ability to act on its mandate without having to argue for its independence. Trump's public pressure campaign has made monetary policy a national political story. That is just fine with Fed critics, who disdain Powell's 'data dependent" approach to setting rates, the Fed's asset-buying binge, and what they consider the institutional bloat of recent years. But the attention also carries risks, in particular the risk that any policy decision will be seen as politically motivated. If the Fed loses credibility, its rate moves may become less effective and the dollar may suffer. Fed officials declined to comment. To be sure, the Fed's independence has never been absolute. The central bank exists at the pleasure of Congress, and ultimately depends on public support. The Fed operates within the political system, not outside it. Powell seems to understand what's at stake. 'My sense is that he sees his legacy as preserving the independence of the Fed," says Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM US. That legacy won't be sealed at Jackson Hole, but the conference will showcase how Powell balances three separate and increasingly intertwined roles: managing an economy in transition, navigating political hostility, and refining a decision-making framework strong enough to withstand interference by any politician or party. If he can show that the Fed will continue to judge the economy on its merits, explain its reasoning clearly, and preserve the tools it needs to do its job, he may achieve more in the long run than timing rate changes perfectly. Jackson Hole sits at an elevation of 6,200 feet, where the thin air sharpens some minds and makes others lightheaded. This coming week, it will test more than altitude tolerance. It will measure whether the U.S. central bank can still breathe on its own. English, for one, is unsure. 'People may look back wistfully at the Powell Fed as a central bank that was independent, hard-thinking, and trying to do the right thing," he says. As in the mountains, everything depends on your view. Write to Nicole Goodkind at
India.com
6 minutes ago
- India.com
Ukraine war could end on one condition if Zelenskyy..., Putin makes bold demand to Trump during Alaska Summit, says Donetsk...
The United States and Russia held the much-anticipated truce talks meeting in Alaska to discuss bringing an end to the conflict in Ukraine. US President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska 'went really well'. He also held a telephonic conversation with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, several European leaders and the Secretary General of NATO and highlighted that it was determined by all that a peace agreement is the best way going forward. At the Alaska summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin allegedly asked that Ukraine withdraw from Donetsk and Luhansk as a condition to end the war; he offered on to former President Donald Trump a freeze along the remaining frontline, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the talks, as reported by the Guardian. While Luhansk is almost completely under Russian control, Ukraine still maintains strategic parts of Donetsk, including the cities of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, in addition to heavily fortified positions which have cost tens of thousands of lives to defend. According to the report, Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders on Saturday to communicate Putin's demand. He also urged Ukraine and Europe to drop efforts to secure a ceasefire from Moscow. Reortedly, Zelenskyy rejected the demand outright. Russia has been in partial control of the Donetsk region for more than a decade. If Putin's demand is met, he will get control of the territory where his forces have made the most gains in the war since November last year. Putin made it clear to Trump that his core demand of addressing 'the root causes' of the conflict still stands. He wants NATO's eastward expansion to end, meaning Ukraine would not be allowed to join the alliance. But he is reportedly prepared to compromise on other issues, including territory, if he is satisfied that the 'root causes' are addressed. Putin and Trump on Friday wrapped up their talks in the US city of Anchorage in Alaska, but no deal was reached. The talks, which lasted about three hours, focused primarily on the Ukraine crisis, as well as on reshaping bilateral relations that have largely stalled in recent years. Putin told Trump that in exchange for Donetsk and Luhansk, he would halt further advances and freeze the frontline in the southern Ukrainian region of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, where Russian forces occupy significant areas. Russian forces control about 70 per cent of the Donetsk region. Ukraine still has control over the region's westernmost chain of cities, which are said to be critical to Kyiv's military operation and defences along the eastern front. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said that he would not swap territory with Russia and would not allow a second partition of the country. He is meeting Trump on Monday in Washington, where this topic will certainly come up.
Hans India
6 minutes ago
- Hans India
Rahul's disclosure - Balancing between candour and discretion
In the India-China debate, candour demands telling the nation what it must know, while discretion shields what must never be revealed. Leadership is tested not in choosing one over the other, but in keeping 'both in balance, so that truth and security march together. In today's India-China discourse, that balance is not optional; it is vital. Onlywhen India-China frontier vigilance and democratic resilience stand together does the nation remain unshaken. The storm over Rahul Gandhi's revelation that 2000 Square km of Indian territory, after the December 2022 Yangtse clash in Arunachal Pradesh, was under Chinese occupation, echoes political reflex, not reason. The Supreme Court's remark, 'If you are a true Indian, you would not say this' may lead to effectively challenging the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. As the verbal crossfire escalated, the BJP charged Rahul Gandhi with endangering national security, while the Congress accused Modi government of concealing truths as regards China, distilling its attack as 'deny, distract, lie and justify (DDLJ)'. When Rahul Gandhi stated that China had occupied Indian territory he was not merely citing a number, but entering a long-contested arena where the boundaries between strategic fact, political contest, and constitutional liberty blur. Whether his figure rests on classified inputs, field intelligence or political positioning is a fair subject for scrutiny and may be for discussion. Yet the right to voice such a view, and the equally important right to question it, are constitutional guarantees, not privileges. Freedom of speech and the right to seek accountability remain at the very core of citizenship in a sovereign democratic republic. To ask the Leader of Opposition, 'The shadow Prime Minister' in Parliamentary-Constitutional terms, 'Are you an Indian' for stating a contested territorial claim, amounts to shifting the debate in ways that weaken democratic dialogue and fuel political polarization. The Constitution that empowers the 'Prime Minister' to negotiate with the neighbouring country, equally empowers the 'shadow Prime Minister' to question those negotiations. In 'The Wisdom of China and India', Lin Yutang described the balance between 'candour and discretion' as a hallmark of enduring civilizations, a balance that means being honest and open while remaining mindful of context, audience, and the potential impact of words. Yutang presented this not as a formal political dictum but as part of a broader reflection on the qualities that enable civilizations to survive. For him, candour (openness and truthfulness) and discretion (prudence and restraint) are complementary virtues, each incomplete without the other, and essential to the society's moral resilience. His context, however, was cultural and philosophical, never about India-China border politics. Yet the principle strikingly resonates with diplomacy and statecraft, as in the case of Rahul's alleged controversial remarks. Though Yutang never used the precise phrase 'candour and discretion' either in 'The Wisdom of China and India' or elsewhere, the idea captures a central theme-truth tempered by restraint. These two sentences: 'Criticism as the highest intellectual effort that mankind is capable of, and above all, the most difficult attainment of an educated man' and 'There is no such thing as true freedom of speech……No one can afford to let his neighbours know what he is thinking about them' together convey the meaning. They underscore Lin's belief that speaking truthfully is admirable, but carries a cost like Rahul's remarks on Chinese occupation. In the India-China debate, candour demands telling the nation what it must know, while discretion shields what must never be revealed. Leadership is tested not in choosing one over the other, but in keeping 'both in balance, so that truth and security march together. In today's India-China discourse, that balance is not optional; it is vital. The Yangtse clash was no isolated skirmish. It was another calculated move in a long series of Chinese provocations designed to 'probe India's strategic patience.' Its pattern echoed the choreography of earlier confrontations, most starkly the bloody Galwan Valley clash of June 2020. In 2017, the 73-day Doklam stand-off, over a plateau claimed by Bhutan but critical to India's security, ended in what was hailed as a diplomatic success. Yet Beijing's road-building therepressed on, exposing the limits of such victories. The much-touted 1993 and 1996 'confidence-building agreements' between India and China now stand as hollow reminders that paper assurances cannot restrain a determined adversary. The 'right to expression and the right to question are not luxuries' for calm times; they are the 'democratic armour citizens must wear even in times of strain.' Guarding borders is a solemn duty, but guarding the freedoms that permit questioning is an equally sacred obligation. The India-China frontier is not just a cartographic demarcation; it is a living, shifting fault line where history, strategy, and politics collide. Since Independence, relations between these two newly freed Asian Giants have unfolded as a saga of misplaced hope, cultural nostalgia, strategic misjudgment, and unforgiving geopolitical realities, entwined with aspirations of Pan-Asian solidarity, shared civilisational wisdom, and moral leadership in a world still struggling to heal from the brutality of war and the shadow of imperialism. India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru believed that India and China were sisters awakening after centuries of slumber under foreign rule. He established diplomatic relations with Mao Zedong's China when many nations hesitated. Nehruvian diplomacy led to signing of 'Panchsheel'. Later, Nehru declared in the Lok Sabha, 'Panchsheel is not a mere diplomatic device. It is the very basis of our moral philosophy in international affairs.' Mao endorsed the spirit. Zhou Enlai during his visits to India reinforced the image of Sino-Indian friendship saying, 'Our two countries are linked by the Himalayas, and even these high mountains should not divide us.' Soon the 'Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai' phrase became popular. Nehru's great grandson Rahul's assertion that 'China occupied Indian territory' should not be seen as weakening national resolve. This is not merely about land lost or held, but it is about the square space essential for free expression and rigorous questioning. Supreme Court questioning Rahul Gandhi is both revealing and troubling. Whether symbolic, rhetorical, or reactionary, such a query rests on shaky ground. Why should dissent or questioning define nationality? The 'challenge before India is to guard icy heights where the flag flies, yet, the flag loses meaning without civic freedoms' the wind that keeps it aloft and the moral frontier as vital to defend as is the territorial one.
